Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Agenda
Meeting Date: 17 January 2008
Author/contact: Andrew Woodin
1. Welcome and apologies.
2. Minutes of last meeting (LAF 08/01).
3. Introduction of new members.
4. Bylth Estuary Draft Strategy. Michael Steen from Environment Agency to attend (LAF 08/02)
5. Onehouse – Chilton Way (LAF 08/03).
6. Correspondence – List of Streets, Lost Ways and National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums (LAF 08/04).
7. Tothill Junction (A14 NMU Audit) (LAF 08/05).
8. Ipswich Unitary Status Update (LAF 08/06).
9. Dates & Venues of Future Meetings.
10. Any Other Business.
11. Public question time. LAF 08/01
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Minutes
Meeting Date: 17 January 2008
Author/Contact: Andrew Woodin
Minutes of meeting held in Tranmer House, Sutton Hoo on Thursday 4 October 2007.
Present: David Barker, Bryan Collen, Julie Craven, Gordon Merfield, John Pearson, (Chairman), Monica Pipe, Norman Southgate, Mike Taylor, John Wayman, Annette Whybrow, Anthony Wright.
SCC Officers Present: Jill Christley (minutes), Catherine Osborne, Peter Tilley, and Andrew Woodin.
1. Welcome and apologies.
Apologies: Angela Brown, Linda Hoggarth, Mark Timms, Bryan Freemantle, and Jane Midwood.
2. Minutes of Last Meeting (LAF 07/16).
The minutes of the previous meeting were confirmed as an accurate record. No matters arising.
3. New members applications, resignation and re-election.
Linda Hoggarth has resigned from the forum. Three more members are required to make up the required number. The vacancies have been advertised and six people have applied.
Peter Tilley will retire at the end of November.
4. Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB Draft management plan – Presentation by Simon Hooton AONB unit manager, SC&H (LAF 07/17).
A management plan is required under the Countryside &and ROW Rights of Way Act &and is reviewed every 5 years, – with the latest review due in 2007. The draft plan is currently out to consultation. It tTried to bring together things partners &and the public want, andThe draft plan picks up on CCountryside Character, setting out a vision for 2030.
The plan reviews plans, strategies and extend external priorities and sets out aims, objectives, outcomes and monitoring.
LAF 08/01
Simon Hooton flagged up some key drivers to the new plan: - sustainable Sustainable development. – development makes a big difference eg. in the Haven Gateway area with 50,000 new homes in 20 years where will the new population go for recreation? - - interest Interest in rural delivery – balancing the needs of urban &and rural communities. - Climate change – the need to understand the behaviour of people who want to enjoy the AONB, and help them to understand their impact and responsibility. - Coastal management – with the coming of Coastal Access the public need to understand that the coast is a resource. - Influence of farming &and forestry. -Development makes a big difference particularly in the Haven Gateway area – 50,000 new homes in 20 years and where will the new population recreate. - ROWIP o Countryside access o Suffolk Partners - Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) - Adverse influences - eg litter, disturbance, pressure of use. Need to find ways of minimising adverse influences. - Tranquillity - AONB has to balance visitors &and tranquillity. - Transport o Trying to encourage use of bus &and train by visitors. o Important to work with local tourist businesses, eg. Connect scheme, to encourage sustainability. o Coast link service to Minsmere &and Dunwich – very popular. - Multiple management areas like the Sandlings need integrated approach. - All major walks need upgrading, Simon Hooton distributed ‘Snape Explorer’ leaflet and raised possibility of a walking festival in ‘shoulder’ seasons. - Try to build on AONB branding. May have ‘You are now in….’ signs. Current ROW finger posts help already. - Volunteer ranger projects encourage people to get involved.
Simon Hooton concluded he would welcome SLAF’s response to the draft document and would also welcome to comments on the strategic environmental assessment.
John Wayman – doesasked whether Simon Hooton thought there would Simon think there will be funding to achieve objectives?
Simon Hooton responded that although money was tight he was relatively confident of finding funding. The AONB has connections with various organisations, and many sources of funding eg. Haven Gateway, Interreg, the National Lottery and Connect. DEFRA have contributed to the sustainable development fund. LAF 08/01
Relatively confident they’ll find funding.
Bryan Collen –pointed out that f Funding from Europe was likely to diminish; – it may need be necessary to get more from the public.
Simon Hooton – agreed that there was a need to change the psyche of the public and convince them that they may have to contribute more.
Gordon Merfield expressed concern at the number of cars in the AONB and said that some people arewere worried concerned that car park charges are were not going into funding the facility being visited.
(Peter Tilley joined the meeting)
The Forum discussed the need for an improved cycling infrastructure. It was felt that large tractors and trailers were making cycling in the countryside difficult and dangerous, and that saving money on cycle routes resulted in more injuries which in turn led to more costs in hospitals and emergency services. He asked what’s happening about cycling – need infrastructure for cyclists. – need to be safe. Large tractors & trailers make cycling difficult/dangerous. Wants to see cycle paths so people can leave cars behind.
Peter Tilley responded reported that SCC is working on improved cycling routes but said that under the LTP it was easier to get funding for urban cycling, than for recreational cycling.
Simon Hooton said he w– Would like to receive a response from SLAF containing GM’s these comments. The more these concerns are expressed, the more they would be taken into account in plans. John Pearson – The more cycles on the road the more accidents will happen. This impacts on hospitals – costs incurred here. The cost of cycle networks would be less than the cost of hospitalisation of injured people.
Annette Whybrow asked how access and conservation can could be balanced.
SH is responded he hoped to work with Natural England to promote positive aspects of visiting sites; to promote best behaviour in the countryside and to understand the implication of behaviour eg. letting dogs off leads. Wardens need to be out and about at weekends promoting good behaviour.
Julie Craven was – Ppleased to see an emphasis on ICZM. Would She would like to see SLAF kept closely involved with the AONB plan. by maintaining good communications with them. The Coastal Zone is going to be important over coming years. LAF 08/01
SH responded he would like to strengthen links between SC&H AONB &and SLAF, as the ‘relevant authority’ body.
John Pearson thanked Simon Hooton and asked for him to come back annually to review progress. He asked the Forum to feed back to their constituent organisations.
5. Response to Proposals to improve access to the English coast – comment on letter and pro forma (LAF 07/18).
Forum happy with letter and pro-forma submitted.
6. A14 Joint working between Highways Agency and Suffolk County Council – update by officers.
Andrew Woodin updated SLAF on a meeting in August between SCC officers and the Highways Agency and their agents, Atkins, to discuss access severed by A14 generally, and to discuss some specific sites: - Belstead – SCC are successfully negotiating improvements. - Bramford – edge of Ipswich – Agency acknowledge problems. They wanted to re-route the path to an underpass but are now looking at other options including installing a bridge suitable for walkers and cyclists. - Bury St Edmunds - the Agency may undertake a feasibility study on a cycle bridge over the A14. - All routes over A14 – Atkins will review their earlier audit of NMU crossings &and will involve SCC in this process. They acknowledge the same consideration needs to be applied to all the crossings. SCC will feed information into this process
Andrew Woodin felt progress was being made and SLAF had an opportunity to get more involved.
Catherine Osborne had spoken to the Atkins agent doing the survey. Catherine will look at crossing points and put SCC’s view before Atkins do their survey.
ACTION: Catherine Osborne to draft letter from SLAF to Highways Agency asking for involvement/dialogue with them.
ACTION: CO asked Forum members who had volunteered on this issue to meet to discuss.
Anthony Wright noted the Agency needs to acknowledge that low use of ROW crossing the A14 is a direct result of the road itself, also this isn’t just about ROW but quiet lanes too. Highways Agency didn’t take this into account.
LAF 08/01
John Pearson felt an ongoing positive dialogue is required that also looks at funding issues. He would like to meet the Agency once a year to discuss progress and asked CO to keep SLAF involved in ongoing discussions.
It was generally agreed that previous success on Haughley Bends had resulted in more engagement from Highways Agency. They are more amenable now so SLAF need to maintain dialogue.
Julie Craven asked if gaps and severance would be taken into account by Highways Agency?
Andrew Woodin responded Highways Agency priorities have changed over last few years. Accessibility is now more of a priority. Severance of routes and splitting of communities is now more important to them.
John Pearson expressed concern some s106 agreements were not working very well and SLAF need a better need understanding of them. Andrew Woodin told SLAF that SCC could fund a member on s106 and planning training.
Peter Tilley explained that s106 are planning agreements made prior to submission of planning applications concentrating on highways and access to school. There is on average a contribution from developers of £150 - £250 per house for cycle paths and ROW.
Anthony Wright said that changing requirements mean that s106 agreements can get out of date.
7. Highways Agency – Rookery Crossroads consultation – comment by Bryan Freemantle (LAF 07/19).
Bryan Collen felt that analysis of usage after improvement may be useful in future negotiations.
Peter Tilley responded that the principle of analysis from LTP schemes could be used with the Highways Agency. There are lots of stats available showing good usage of improved routes.
Anthony Wright warned SCC officers to be careful in dealings with the Highways Agency. For example, the path under the A14 did not meet its original specification. The Highways Agency said they weren’t bound by agreements and claimed they were only obliged to install a BR. Even at construction stage it hadn’t been possible to make the Highways Agency construct the crossing to the agreed standard.
Sustrans had repeatedly reported that the path couldn’t be used because of mud and effluent from pigs that are transported along the path. This is still a highway and is maintained by SCC.
LAF 08/01
ACTION: – SCC officers to follow this up
8. Highways Agency – Haughley Bends Improvements – Comment on post inquiry non-motorised user audit for Haughley Bend development.
Andrew Woodin reported that the Highways Agency had done audits of NMU usage, as required by the Public Inquiry inspector, but are not happy with report that came out. The Highways Agency will be consulting with SCC on the detailed design of NMU facilities. SCC will consider how the junction can be improved, and use Highways Agency consultation to look for the best solution.
David Barker said that following the PI the track from Stowmarket is no longer a BR, but now a road maintained by SCC, and felt a bridge for horses and cyclists was required.
Peter Tilley responded if this area is developed there will be an opportunity to discuss improvements.
ACTION - Peter Tilley will approach engineers and designers about improvement to Tot hill junction.
Anthony Wright said the existing path adjacent to the A14 is difficult for cyclists to use. Travelling downhill is not so bad, but coming up cyclists must keep left - within 25cm of juggernauts. This is more dangerous in rain, wind and conditions of poor visibility.
Andrew Woodin reminded SLAF this whole carriageway will become a cycle track.
Gordon Merfield would like to send a letter to his MP pointing out that his promises are not being fulfilled.
John Pearson said that whilst individual SLAF members could take action independently, SLAF needed to follow their agreed actions, and have decided to maintain dialogue/contact with the Agency.
9. SLAF Annual Report 2006-07 – Comment and response from SCC (LAF 07/20).
The annual report was presented to Cabinet by Guy McGreggor and was very well received.
A discussion on funding followed. Peter Tilley reminded SLAF very little money comes from SCC for major improvements, this funding is usually obtained elsewhere, eg. LTP Capital funding.
SLAF also considered IBC unitary status and whether they would have a separate SLAF or combine with SCC. LAF 08/01
ACTION. Andrew Woodin to look at LAF arrangements in other areas with unitary councils. Discuss at next meeting.
10. Blyth Estuary Draft Strategy – update, comment, response.
SCC circulated the Environment Agency’s flood management document that outlines their intention not to protect the Blyth Estuary area (apart from around Reydon &and Walberswick).
Natural England &and the Environment Agency have conflicting remits: Natural England has funding to develop Coastal Access but Environment Agency doesn’t intend to maintain routes, claiming landowners are responsible for these.
Bryan Collen noted this issue is much wider than the Blyth Estuary.
Julie Craven felt other issues eg. housing must not deflect SLAF, who must concentrate on ROW. SLAF need to go in hard on this consultation, as it is the first of its type.
Julie Craven pointed out that there might be safety issues with non- maintenance. A large chunk of Coastal network may be lost, with cul-de- sac routes lost completely. SLAF need to publicise implications and campaign to make people aware of conflicting policies.
Peter Tilley said costing takes several factors into account with only broad economics being considered. Microeconomics are being ignored. The argument is clear and pragmatic but takes no account of local coastal implications.
Andrew Woodin said Coastal Access proposals will incorporate a roll-back strategy, and suggests that on Blyth Estuary consultation SLAF should raise the problem of loss of wider ROW network. Wait for Environment Agency’s reply (see below) before deciding on action then deal with Coastal Access implications later.
(John Wayman left the meeting).
ACTION – Peter Tilley will write to Environment Agency as an initial response, pointing out the conflicts between the Coastal Access initiative and the Blyth Estuary strategy. Ask what they are going to do about ROW, stating loss of access in unacceptable. Ask them to defer SLAF’s response until after the next meeting. Invite them to the next meeting to discuss.
11. Onehouse – Chilton Way. Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use. Letter and comment from users, comment and response.
LAF 08/01
Peter Tilley briefed SLAF on the background of this potentially highly desirable route, which would give good access to schools and for the local community. Despite discussions, the landowner has refused to agree to upgrade to a bridleway from a footpath. Wimpey, who have an option on the land agree with development of the route. It is also in the Parish Plan. Peter Tilley said that SCC would consider making an Order for the upgrade.
SLAF members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement.
Julie Craven – Proposed Forum must liaise with landowner, and if unsuccessful should advise SCC to make order.
Gordon Merfield – Seconded
IN FAVOUR – 6 AGAINST – 2 ABSTENTION – 2
The motion was carried.
ACTION: David Barker assist SCC in discussions with landowner. LAF 08/01
12. Consultation on “Right to Apply for Path Orders” response – comment (LAF 07/21).
The Forum made no further comments.
13. Access to Nayland Fen – letter from user group – comment.
Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced.
Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site, as it is common land. Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible, particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates.
The Forum endorsed Catherine’s decision not to replace the stiles.
ACTION: Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council.
14. Dates &and Venues of Future Meetings.
Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAF’s comments into account after their deadline.
Date of next meeting 17 January 2008, at Claydon.
15. Any Other Business.
Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk. A project called ‘Geese’ in Norfolk won the top award.
On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work, enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF. John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter.
16. Public question time.
There were no questions from the public.
END PSHIP PAPER
SC&H Partnership/Joint Advisory Committee
Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy
On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Council’s Cabinet considered the Environment Agency’s Draft Strategy proposals. Cabinet was asked to consider: • Authorising the Director of Environment & Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities. • That the draft strategy proposal of “No active intervention” for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy: a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries; b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community; c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences. d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries. • For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management. Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include: 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding, landowners losing land, residents/businesses who will have access, and services disrupted. The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities, including Rights of Way. Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion. Key Issues
• The Draft Strategy proposal of “no active intervention” with serious consequences for the character, protection of property, economy and road access. • Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented. • The proposed option of “no active intervention” in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence. Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries. • The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management. Timescale
The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008. It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond.
BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP • Suffolk County Council, Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals. The authorities wish to provide a joint, considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward. • The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast. • In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences. Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries. • Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan. This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast. It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary.
IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS
Property 125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding. An extensive area of farmland – mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years.
Roads Roads are currently largely protected by river walls, although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding.
Public Rights of Way West of the A12, some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls. The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh, Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path. Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link, saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold. Each year, thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths. All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained.
Business and Commerce • Frequent disruption of road access, could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally. • The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour, sailing opportunities, natural environment and Rights of Way network, including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes. • Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides.
Landscape and Biodiversity • The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes, valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes. • The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats. Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones. There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites. It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away, prior to their loss to the sea. Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for. There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary. flood risk management Blyth Estuary draft strategy
We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales. Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental, social and economic benefits in line with the Governments’ principles of sustainable development. Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events, which have increased the demand for resources. In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money, and this means making difficult decisions. In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past. To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future, we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas. Managing change in the Blyth Estuary
Over past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change, to which local people have adapted. The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence. Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century, and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences. To date, we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences. These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life, and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change. We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary. Over the last three years, we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years. We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option, taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options. We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed. We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefits. Flood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex.
customer services line incident hotline floodline 08708 506506 0800 80 70 60 0845 988 1188 www.environment-agency.gov.uk flood risk management Blyth Estuary draft strategy What is the draft strategy? The map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time. In response to our consultation in 2005, we have made some changes. We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge, and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh. Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels, and evaluating the likely costs and benefits, we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life. This is partly an economic decision, but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue. We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life, which we estimate to be about 20 years. If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period, we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified. This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority. The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life, is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations. We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years, but it may become irreparable in that time. We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh. In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area. We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary. Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed. We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks. Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area. We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties.
customer services line incident hotline floodline 08708 506506 0800 80 70 60 0845 988 1188 www.environment-agency.gov.uk floodflood riskrisk managementmanagement Blyth Estuary draft strategy
Strategy Implementation Plan
Item Description Location years 1 to 5
Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated Any relevant areas including 1 properties on the margins of the floodplain. Walberswick, The Denes and Blythburgh
Maintain, and investigate options for strengthening the 2 embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the Woodsend Marsh recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes. Havenbeach Marshes Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of Town Marshes the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge 3 Woodsend Marsh to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth Robinsons Marsh defences) in the short term (next 20 years). Buss Creek marsh Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage. 4 Reydon Marsh Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds. Bulcamp House Union Farm Marsh Blyford Marsh 5 Withdrawal of maintenance. Tinkers Marsh Blythburgh East Blowers Marsh Blackheath Short Term (5 Years) Reydon Marsh 6 Withdrawal of maintenance. Hen Reedbeds Medium Term (20 Years) Havenbeach Marshes Town Marshes Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of 7 Woodsend Marsh the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life. Robinsons Marsh Buss Creek Marshes
8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill. Southwold coastal frontage
customer services line incident hotline floodline 08708 506506 0800 80 70 60 0845 988 1188 www.environment-agency.gov.uk flood risk management Blyth Estuary draft strategy What would be the consequences of this draft strategy? In the next few years, we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges. An exception to this is upstream of the A12, where low defences protecting farmland have already failed. This area will be more frequently flooded in the future, and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas, with some freshwater habitats further upstream. The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding, and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved. Over the next 5-20 years, the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired, and this will result in significant change to the estuary. Where this happens, inundated farmland will become tidal. This will obviously affect existing land-use, but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners. For example, some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area. More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide, and this will increase flows through the harbour. This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business. Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary. In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive, we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds . Will there be increased flooding to properties?
The main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy, but we will continue maintainance at present. Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy. However, there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges. These properties will be subject to increased flood risk. There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future. customer services line incident hotline floodline 08708 506506 0800 80 70 60 0845 988 1188 www.environment-agency.gov.uk flood risk management Blyth Estuary draft strategy
Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure. In collaboration with relevant property / landowners, we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection. How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landowner? Where we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land, we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention. The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance, and will provide advice on future options for managing the land. We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves. We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so. Where can I find more detailed information? A Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy. A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth, at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich, or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website www.suffolkestuaries.co.uk How can I register my views on the draft strategy? We have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy, but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations. Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy, we welcome your comments on the proposals. We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy. We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally.
You can write to us at: Blyth Estuary, The Environment Agency, Kingfisher House, Goldhay Way, Orton Goldhay, PE2 5ZR or email [email protected] customer services line incident hotline floodline 08708 506506 0800 80 70 60 0845 988 1188 www.environment-agency.gov.uk Likely Future Estuary Shape Assumes 3rd parties do not maintain defences
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P Current spring tides the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Spring tides after 5 years Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Spring tides beyond 20 years Environment Agency. 100026380. 2007 LAF 08/03
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Meeting Date: 17 January 2008
Author/contact: Andrew Woodin
Onehouse – Chilton Way. Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use.
Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable, and safer, access between the two communities. Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this.
Since the last meeting of the forum, at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement, the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area).
The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so. The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner, but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible.
Wimpey’s agent understood this position and, because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land, offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration. The plan has not been received yet and Wimpey’s have been given a reminder.
If Wimpeys’ proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will, otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet.
END LAF 08/04
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Title: Correspondence
Meeting Date: 17 January 2008
Author/contact: Andrew Woodin
1. List of Streets
Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets:
-----Original Message----- From: Patricia Regan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:47 PM Subject: List of Streets
Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980.
I would be grateful if you could let me know :-
1. Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way, that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement, are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement, as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date? 2. Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has? 3. If so how many routes does it have?
I look forward to hearing from you in due course,
Yours sincerely
Mark Weston Director of Access, Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 [email protected] mailto:[email protected]
LAF 08/04
SCC Response
LIST OF STREETS
The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way. The List of Streets is the local highway authority’s record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense; it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway.
Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished. DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets. Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026, it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date.
The types of public right of way affected by this are: 1. Adopted urban footpaths (i.e. separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway). 2. Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic, being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use.
Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims, others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets. If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost, although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case.
Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected, and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map, the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens. This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities. LAF 08/04
2. Lost Ways
The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural England’s Lost Ways Bulletin (attached):
-----Original Message----- From: Jill Christley Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:08PM To: ‘[email protected]’ Cc: ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]’; Peter Tilley; Steve Kerr; Andrew Woodin Subject: Lost Ways
Dear Ms Stafford,
I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07. Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map, I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager. This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights. An authority’s improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence.
The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process, and not at the individual route level.
Yours Sincerely
Jill Christley, SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson, Chairman.
3. National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums
-----Original Message----- From: Boyd, Simon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:50 PM To: East Midlands Regional Coordinator; East of England Regional Coordinator; North East Regional Coordinator; South East Regional Coordinator; South West Regional Coordinator; West Midlands Regional Coordinator; Yorkshire & Humberside Regional Coordinator Subject: Natural England & Local Access Forums Liaison
Dear LAF Regional Secretaries
I hope you are well.
Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 24/01/08 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs.
Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices.
Many thanks
Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary LAF 08/04
----- Original Message ----- From: Nemes, Amy (NE) To: [email protected] Cc: Wood, Andrew (NE) Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:07 PM Subject: Natural England & Local Access Forums Liaison
Natural England & Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006, our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business. I hope that you will appreciate, that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming. Inevitably, this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships. I can assure you that we did not forget about you, but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times. You will be aware that more recently, I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns, I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions. I am delighted, therefore, to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts. The meeting will be held at Natural England's headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm, with lunch provided from 12.30pm. I will circulate an agenda closer to the event, but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover. In broad terms, I propose that we should address the management of our relationship; the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery; and some specific items of business. A full list of proposed attendees is attached. I look forward to seeing you in the new year. Best wishes Andrew Wood <<240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtg.doc>>
Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel: 01242 533 221 Mob: 07810 630 559
John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA
This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless confirmed by a signed communication. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. LAF 08/04
Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting
Invitation list
North East Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF
North West Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF Richard Toon Lancashire LAF
South West Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol City and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF
West Midlands Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF David Boden Staffordshire, Stoke on Trent and Wolverhampton Joint LAF
East Midlands Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF
East of England Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF Bob Smith Peterborough LAF V/Chair
South East Matthew Balfour Kent LAF Chris Langford Hampshire LAF
Yorkshire & Humberside Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF
Natural England Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy Terry Robinson Lucy Heath Ciaran Gannon END Ebulletin Discovering Lost Ways number 5 September 2007
Effective & efficient – Avoid waste, focus on Local Access Forums and where we can obtain optimum benefit Discovering Lost Ways Pathfinders Natural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value As part of developing the way forward for the for money public benefits and is in tune with what project, we are testing several approaches to our stakeholders want. To help us achieve this we translating research into routes on the ground. are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) These ‘Pathfinder projects’ are using research on the future scope and direction of the project. already completed in certain areas as well as trying If you are a LAF member, please have a look at out new approaches in other areas. the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views. We value the advice that LAFs can provide, The first two Pathfinder projects, in Cheshire and as we want our decisions to be properly informed. Shropshire, are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of how best to get discovered routes onto the map. Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights In Cheshire, we are making a small number of of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by applications for definitive map modification 2026 will be extinguished. The Department for orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) how a local authority might use evidence without asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the anyone making a formal application. researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this Work in Nottinghamshire, under Pathfinder 3, is change. Responsibility for the project was passed examining how we might focus research so that to Natural England in October 2006. we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit. We are also During 2007 Natural England is conducting a looking at how best to involve local people in this review, through a series of “Pathfinder” projects process. and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement. The purpose of the review is: - Pathfinder Project 4, in Herefordshire, involves a To evaluate the existing DLW delivery sub-group of the local access forum helping to framework develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county. This group will meet with To better define Natural England’s role in this local people (such as footpath users and parish work councils) to establish local priorities and needs and To define the optimal and most cost effective will coordinate local research activity. approach to enable the delivery of identified Finally, as part of Pathfinder 5, we are looking at public benefits ways that local people can be involved by We are looking for solutions that are: - Talking to established local volunteer groups Achievable & realistic– simple, pragmatic already engaged in lost ways research. We want to see if their work could be built into the future Integrated – locally relevant, adding value, development and delivery of the project. works with partners
1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment.
Page 1 of 3 www.naturalengland.org.uk Ebulletin September 2007
Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their The Questions role in the process. It is 2020 and you have just come back from This will link in to other work underway in a day out with friends using the rights of way developing a database of surveying authorities to in your favourite bit of countryside. You are provide a resource of information reflecting local delighted with what you experienced. Why circumstances. – what did you experience? How did the maps you used contribute to that experience? The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine Given the current situation and procedures the way forward for the DLW programme. for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy Is there a role for LAFs in your great day out in 2020? Local access forums have been set up to give DLW? advice on public access. Pathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role What role do you see the LAF having in DLW? that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen, through Pathfinder 5, to gauge If this required the LAF becoming more a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could involved in route specific discussions how contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects could this be handled? local needs and circumstances. What relationship do you see between DLW It will only be possible to talk directly to a small and the ROWIP? number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment Deadline for comments on what they consider to be the scope and future As already mentioned we are required to report to direction of DLW. We are particular interested in Ministers in December on the operational delivery how you see your LAF engaging with the project. of the project post 2007/08. If you would like the We have posed a series of questions that we views of your LAF to inform this report then your would like you to consider and comment comments must be submitted to Natural England upon. We are keen to capture your views not no later than 30 October. We realise that, only on what the LAF could/ should be doing in given the tight timetable, it might not be possible response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the to consider this matter at your next meeting and contribution that lost ways could make to the it might be necessary to provide a response via overall access experience in your area. correspondence. The purpose of these questions is to trigger The report to Ministers is likely to be the start discussion on the wide range of issues that of a process so any comments received after surround the recording of historic rights of way the 30 October deadline will still be of value in and the management and maintenance of a determining how this work is taken forward by network that meets today’s needs. We hope that Natural England. you will think “outside the box” and help us to Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on identify and clarify the potential benefits (and the email below. disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these.
Page 2 of 3 www.naturalengland.org.uk Ebulletin September 2007
Stakeholder Workshops Contact details: In order to inform the review of DLW, we are [email protected] undertaking a programme of stakeholder (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds) engagement. Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are [email protected] gathering views from a wide range of interests (tel 01242 533343) looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could Or write to: play. In addition, a Technical Working Group is Discovering Lost Ways also meeting to consider more detailed issues Natural England focussing on the researching process, and feeding John Dower House this into the review as well. The knowledge, Crescent Place interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help Cheltenham to inform and influence the future of DLW. GLOS GL50 3RA Website address: http://www.naturalengland. DLW staff changes org.uk/leisure/access/default.htm Welcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now We also have an information line for acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is Discovering Lost Ways available for members based in Newcastle. Lorna Stafford is temporarily of the public and volunteers. Please encourage supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in any volunteers that you know of who are place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to interested in the project to register their interest continue her studies. We also wish Eleanor Brown with the information line using the contact all the best in her new role in Geology. details below. Email: [email protected] Or write to: Discovering Lost Ways PO Box 725 Belfast BT1 3YL Tel: 0845 60 50 148
Page 3 of 3 www.naturalengland.org.uk LAF 08/05
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Meeting Date: 17 January 2008
Author/contact: Andrew Woodin
A14 Trunk Road – Haughley Bends Improvement
After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process. At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged, and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket, with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007.
The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised users’ interests would be included in the final design of the scheme.
The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting.
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). • 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. LAF 08/05
• 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. 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 including those shown below.
Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including:
Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) 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)
Suffolk Local Access Forum
SUSTRANS Anthony Wright
Landowners and Utilities
Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement:
Suffolk Access Forum, Ramblers’ Association, The British Horse Society, The Stowmarket and District Green Party, Mr Rowson, Laurence Homes, George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward. 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.
The effect of the audit may be summarised as:
LAF 08/05
• The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherd’s Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road, • Tothill junction. All that is ‘new’ is some fencing (1.8 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment. On the overbridge there will be a combined foot/cycleway on the west side, equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet, whose height has not changed. After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way, equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route, • Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route, • Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian, cycle, equestrian and verge widths within the NMU route, the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians, and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use.
The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report, which it felt needed to summarise the changes, and that the headers “Action taken” were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI, and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place.
Appendix 1: correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP
END
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 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.
718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 13 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report
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
718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 14 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report
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.
718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 15 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report
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.
718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 16 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report
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
718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 17 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report
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.
718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 18 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report
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.
718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 19 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report
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
718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 20 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report
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.
718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 21 © Mouchel 2007
Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report
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
718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 23 © Mouchel 2007
LAF 08/06
Suffolk Local Access Forum
Meeting Date: 17 January 2008
Author/contact: Andrew Woodin
Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries
At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council, the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary.
The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk, which it is already looking at. The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process. It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture.
The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period, including developing the definitive map for Ipswich. Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement.
The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map, to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process.
The highways agency agreement, which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended, will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way. The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk.
Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise.
END