Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

December 2007 to StowmarketImprovement Haughley NewStreet Non-Motorised User Audit Report Non-Motorised UserAuditReport Audit atDetailedDesignStage A14

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for Highways Agency

Prepared by Mouchel

Knights House 2 Parade Sutton Coldfield West Midlands B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949 F 0121 355 8901 E @mouchel.com

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 09/07 O Garland 09/07 O Garland 09/07

B Draft Keith Lewis 09/07 O Garland 09/07 O Garland 09/07

C Draft Keith Lewis 11/07 O Garland 11/07 O Garland 11/07

C Issue Keith Lewis 12/07 O Garland 12/07 O Garland 12/07

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins 1 (Draft A&B) 1 (Draft C & Michael Povey Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc i © Mouchel 2007 Contents

Document Control Sheet...... i

Contents...... ii

Tables ...... iv

Foreword ...... 1

1. Introduction...... 2

1.1 Overview ...... 2

1.2 Scope of the NMU Audit ...... 2

2 Objectives and Design Features...... 6

3 Public Inquiry...... 10

3.1 Introduction...... 10

3.2 Objections ...... 10

3.2.1 Public Footpath 37 10

3.2.2 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

3.2.3 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

3.2.4 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

3.2.5 Alternative NMU routes 12

3.2.6 Shepherds Lane 12

3.3 Inspector’s Recommendations...... 12

3.3.1 Public Footpath 37 12

3.3.2 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

3.3.3 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

3.3.4 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc ii © Mouchel 2007 3.3.5 Alternative NMU routes 14

3.3.6 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit ...... 16

4.1 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities...... 16

4.2 Design Of The New NMU Route...... 17

4.3 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way ...... 18

4.4 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction...... 19

4.5 Footpath 2 ...... 20

4.6 Shepherds Lane ...... 20

5 Audit Team Statement...... 22

Appendix A Drawings...... 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc iii © Mouchel 2007 Tables

1. Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT – 2009 and 2024 3

2. Consultations with interested parties / user groups 4

3. Objectives and design features 6

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc iv © Mouchel 2007

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc v © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme. It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report, Mouchel Parkman Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of the services required by the HA, and MPL shall not be liable except to the extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, and this report shall be read and construed accordingly.

This report has been prepared by MPL. No individual is personally liable in connection with the preparation of this report. By receiving this report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise.

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 1 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme.

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD 42/05 “Non-Motorised User Audits” (DMRB 5.2.5).

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 42/05 by the Design Team at the Preliminary Design Stage. It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006. The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the Detailed Design Stage in August 2007.

The Design Team comprised of:

• Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) C.Eng, MICE

• Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) I.Eng. AMICE

• Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

1.2 Scope of the NMU Audit The audit consisted of: i. An examination of the ‘NMU Context’ report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage. The report was considered to be still valid, although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report.

• Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of State’s decision to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007.

• Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006). Refer to Table 1 below.

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 2 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

Section of road Estimated two-way Estimated two-way flow AADT (2009) flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 – Haughley New Street to 887 1,240 Quarries Cross

De-trunked A14 – Quarries Cross to 1484 1,952 Fishponds Way

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to 9,543 11,505 Stowmarket

Proposed A14 – Haughley Bushes 40,466 51,813 Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

Proposed A14 – Tot Hill Junction to eastern 42,853 55,159 limit of the Scheme

Table 1. Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT – 2009 and 2024

• The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006. The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009/SI/032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement. Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network. The condition of the footpaths was also documented. The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref: 717647/OR/38 and 717647/OR/48.

• Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site. This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed.

• Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115. Following the Public Inquiry, the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed, and a decision letter was issued 13/07/06. Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008. It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009.

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 3 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

ii. A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non- Motorised Users. iii. Further consultations with the interested parties / user groups shown in Table 2 below.

Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Suffolk County Council (SCC) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins) Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax) Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard) Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines) Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg) Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate) Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville) Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith) Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick, David Boswell, WSP) Bevans’ agent Testers Gammers Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Suffolk Access Forum, Ramblers’ Association, The Public Inquiry in relation to the British Horse Society, The Stowmarket and District A14 Haughley New Street to Green Party, Mr Rowson, Laurence Homes, George Stowmarket Improvement Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward.

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 4 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

Issues not directly relating to NMU: Haughley Parish Council, Wetherden Parish Council, Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr, Mr R M J Pedge, Mr and Mrs Tester, Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded Association of British Drivers with but who have not raised Countryside Agency issues relating to the NMU Audit David Ruffley (MP) East of England Development Agency English Nature (now part of Natural England) Environment Agency Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups Harleston and Shelland PC Haughley PC Open Spaces Society RSPB Wetherden Traffic Committee Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2. Consultations with interested parties / user groups iv. Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team, who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006. Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week, in fine conditions by car and on foot.

v. A ‘lost’ Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006. It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49.

Drawing 718009/SI/032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to the locations of the issues identified in this report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 5 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised users, which were accepted by the Highways Agency. These objectives and the design features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed Design as described in Table 3 below.

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects cyclists between Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway. Haughley and Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular Stowmarket. traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities. Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey, it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions.

The section of the existing 2.0m wide shared cycleway/footway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded. The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket, which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section.

Provide a route between Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one villages on either side of of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross. Quarries Cross Picnic 1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern Site, for non-motorised side of the realigned Haughley Road, which will be taken users that is separate below the new A14 through an underpass. Public from the trunk road. Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass.

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction, with the opposing minor road being The Folly. Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location.

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided. This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above.

Table 3. Objectives and design features.

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 6 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

Objective Design Feature Provide a route between 2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the villages on either side of western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot the existing A14 and to Hill junction. North of the new A14, it will be connected to Quarries Cross Picnic the upgraded shared cycleway/footway facility to be Site, for non-motorised provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket. This users that is separate facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU from the trunk road. facility (with provisions for equestrians, cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and (Continued) Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway. South of the new A14, the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane . The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road. A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37. Separate the Public As described above, NMU crossings of the new A14 will Rights of Way (PRoW) be separate from the trunk road. An NMU facility for network from the trunk pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of road traffic. the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14. To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway, with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east. The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket Integrate the local PRoW Pedestrians with the wider network The two public footpaths (No.2 and 37) that are crossed by and with the Gipping the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider Valley Countryside PRoW network. In addition, the proposed NMU facilities Project. will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network. It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists. The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich. Cyclists The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme. Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west, through Harleston, and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east.

Table 3 (cont’d). Objectives and design features.

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 7 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic, which connects to the existing Bridleway 38.

Improve safety for The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound vulnerable NMUs carriageway between Haughley New Street and between Haughley New Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route. Street and Stowmarket Following the Public Inquiry, the Inspector recommended by providing off road the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the routes. NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road. The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway. This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket.

Ensure that all informal This has been carried out during the detailed design stage crossings at junctions in consultation, as appropriate, with Suffolk CC. along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards, including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing.

Introduce a continuous A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both safe off road route for cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street both cyclists and and Stowmarket, which utilises the de-trunked eastbound pedestrians between carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Haughley New Street and Way and upgrades the existing shared cycleway/footway Stowmarket utilising the between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket. former eastbound carriageway where possible.

Introduce a segregated The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between section of bridleway on Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised the former eastbound to provide a segregated equestrian route, which will also carriageway to connect be connected to Bridleway 38. Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street. This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road. Table 3 (cont’d). Objectives and design features.

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 8 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will facilities at Stowmarket allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west particularly for people of Stowmarket. This will make the amenities at who do not have access Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who to a car. do not have access to a car. It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket.

Encourage the use of The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will sustainable travel. allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel, thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel.

Review NMU signing Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC requirements with during the detailed design stage. Suffolk County Council.

Table 3 (cont’d). Objectives and design features.

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 9 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

3 Public Inquiry

3.1 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process. At the end of this objection period a number of objections had been lodged, therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public Inquiry. The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme. In April 2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject to the Inspector’s recommendations.

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report.

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public Inquiry2, the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry and therefore presented here. The paragraph references are for the Inspector’s report to the Secretaries of State.

3.2 Objections 3.2.1 Public Footpath 37 There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be ‘stopped up’ between the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked A14 and diverted. A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public Inquiry in November 2006.

• Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing. (Alternative 8a, paragraph 6.4.13).

• Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge.(Alternative 5a, paragraph 6.4.4)

• Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and detrunked A14 to bridleway 38. (Alternative 11, paragraph 6.10.7)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref: DPI/01/6/74).

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspector’s report. Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report.

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 10 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

• Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass. (Alternative 5b, paragraph 6.4.5)

• Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route along field edges to Tot Hill junction. (Alternative 6, paragraph 6.4.7)

3.2.2 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction, (6.5.3; 6.10.3). It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the objective in terms of accessibility, (6.5.3).

A number of requests were made (paragraph 6.5.5):

• The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 3.8m to allow better separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic.

• Raising the parapets to 1.8m high.

• Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use, to segregate the verge from the carriageway.

• Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads.

• Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided.(6.10.3)

3.2.3 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested.

• Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane. (Alternative 8, paragraph 6.4.14)

• There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway bridge across the new A14. (Paragraph 6.6.3).

3.2.4 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU. (Paragraph 6.10.3). Options put forward were:

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 11 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

• The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite Footpath 37. (Alternative 9 and 11, paragraphs 6.10.5 and 6.10.7)

• A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound carriageway of the A14. (Paragraph 6.5.5).

3.2.5 Alternative NMU routes • Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45. Create new FP from junction of FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the remainder of Bury Road. (Alternative 7b, paragraph 6.4.11)

• Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c, paragraph 6.4.12)

• Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37 to Tot Hill junction. This, together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot Hill to Bury Road, would provide a south side, traffic free route to schools and into the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road, its footpath and the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street.(Alternative 10, paragraph 6.10.6)

3.2.6 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status. The route would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this purpose. 3.3 Inspector’s Recommendations 3.3.1 Public Footpath 37

TA 91/05 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number of users. The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a suppressed demand. The 2001/02 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road to/from Footpath 37.

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 12 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and there was no evidence that it would be, the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms a part, (9.6.3).

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 5a,5b,6 (9.6.4,5,6). He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued, (9.6.13). Alternative 11 is discussed in 3.3.4 below.

3.3.2 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular in relation to equestrians. The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill junction.

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be ‘reasonable demand’ for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a bridleway to that junction. The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway on the bridge, but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to ride against the traffic flow, (9.7.2).

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction, from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing A14 road would be consistent with the County Council’s Draft Rights of Way Improvement Plan (9.7.4). He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other routes suitable for equestrian use. The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost- effective way of allowing that, (9.8.3). The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued.

3.3.3 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential demand.

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point. These would provide a safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the existing one. The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9.6.13)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be pursued.

3.3.4 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local road speed of 85kph (9.11.12). There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes. The Inspector found no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9 should not be pursued, (9.11.2).

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37, and as Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle route. On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be pursued, (9.11.4).

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way.

3.3.5 Alternative NMU routes The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of willingness by SCC to promote it. There were also counter objections of encroachment onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk. The scheme proposals were reasonably convenient.

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of willingness by SCC to promote it. There was no evidence of want or need for alternative 7c.

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b and 7c.

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from Stowmarket to the west, in addition to that which the scheme would provide. There was no

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10. On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued. 3.3.6 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced. The users currently have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment, maintained in adequate condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the highway network nearby. If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in those respects it would be less convenient.

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspector’s recommendations that there would be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new road to the residual section of Bury Road.

4 Items raised in this Audit

4.1 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes. These included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers, fly-tipping and motorcycling. • There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway • There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway. • The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be easily cut. Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas were identified.

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 4.2 Design Of The New NMU Route.

In accordance with the land owners’ wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation barrier adjacent to the south side bridleway/access route between Shepherds Lane and the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields.

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities. On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding, fencing, motor cycle access deterrent gates, horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent unauthorised access by motorised vehicles. A similar gating system is proposed to prevent misuse of the bridleway/access route west of Shepherds Lane. The upgraded footway/cycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the carriageway, but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where appropriate.

4.2 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route.

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put forward, including earth bunding, fencing, motor cycle inhibitors, horse stile and lockable access gates at appropriate points, (see 4.1 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities).

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have different coloured surfacing.

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction between the footway and cycleway.

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cycleway/footway on the former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested. This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles and trespass on neighbouring property. The design proposals for the access barriers are outlined in 4.1 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities.

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle way, 1.5m effective width footway, 1m verge and 2.5m effective width bridleway. The hard surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields.

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route. This places some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge. The existing eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m. The design

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former eastbound carriageway. It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible.

The cycleway/footway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access route for utility companies’ vehicles and for landowners to access fields. The facility has to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair, or adult and helper (900mm and 1200mm respectively, Department for Transport, Inclusive Mobility). The utility companies require a 3.5m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance.

The cycleway/footway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 90/05 (DMRB 6.3.5, paragraph 7.14) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to allow horses to pass. It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU by 1.0m but an acceptable separation is 0.5m. The acceptable minimum width of a segregated facility should be 3m, consisting of 1.5m cycle route and 1.5m pedestrian route.

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 1.5m pedestrian route next to existing kerbing and 1.5m cycle route with a median hard strip of 0.5m for safety between the cycle route and the equestrian route. This will provide the required 3.5m hard surface for maintenance vehicles. The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in ‘A Guide to Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracks’ published by BHS) and will be of variable width but a minimum of 3m. The NMU route will be a minimum of 6.5m wide to fit within the current boundaries.

4.3 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian volumes; this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation of light controlled crossings. Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds Way or on the detrunked A14.

Action Taken TA 91/05 “Provision for Non-Motorised Users” sets out in Table 6/1 the criteria for suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings. For a single carriageway with AADT two way flow of below 8,000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally appropriate. The Folly, Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic forecast flows of considerably less than 8,000 in the design year of 2024 therefore informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate. These will all be designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The Folly at Quarries Cross junction. The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street, Quarries Cross junction, Fishponds Way, Shepherds Lane and along the improved footway/cycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 4.1 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

4.4 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 3.3.2 ). The Inspector did not give details about how these concerns should be addressed. He did however make the following observations:

• The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have to proceed against the traffic flow (9.7.2).

• The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other routes suitable for equestrian use, and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (9.8.3).

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 27/05. A cycleway/footway is proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately sized. The cycleway/footway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access road, and the cycleway/footway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot Hill.

The bridge will have paved verges 2.5m wide, a carriageway 7.3m wide with 1m edge strips. It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cycleway/footway. The cycleway/footway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction.

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings.

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing 718009/SI/034A Appendix A). The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would have post and rail fences on both sides. The fence would separate equestrians from the safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment. The paved verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footway/cycleway, and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 2.5m from the parapet.

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for non-motorised users. It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14.

4.5 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm.

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge. There will be steps and a ramp with landings between the field and the highway. Pedestrians will then proceed to Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley Road.

4.6 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

status. The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane. (The northern part of Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk road).

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of Shepherds Lane, and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new highway, and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway.

Though a width of 4.8m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details. At subsequent meetings Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 3.3m with passing spaces, to 4.8m with passing bays.

After examining the Inspector’s report, and taking legal advice the Highways Agency decided on a width of 4.8m.

Appendix A Drawings

Drawing Number 718009/SI/032 A, Layout Plan with references to Issues/Actions Taken (NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009/SI/034 A, NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction