CONNECT2 LEGACY REPORT Wilton – Salisbury - Alderbury December 2013

Sustrans makes smarter travel choices possible, desirable and inevitable. We’re a leading UK charity enabling people to travel by foot, bike or public transport for more of the journeys we make every day. We work with families, communities, policy-makers and partner organisations so that people are able to choose healthier, cleaner and cheaper journeys, with better places and spaces to move through and live in. It’s time we all began making smarter travel choices. Make your move and support Sustrans today. www.sustrans.org.uk

Head Office Sustrans 2 Cathedral Square College Green Bristol BS1 5DD

Report prepared by:

Alistair Millington Area Manager—Wiltshire 2 Cathedral Square College Green Bristol BS1 5DD

Table of contents

1. Executive summary page 3 2. Project background page 6 3. Project delivery structure and process page 8 4. Barriers to delivery and lessons learned page 9 5. Waterditchampton to North St, Wilton. page 10 6. North St, Wilton to Quidhampton page 12 7. Quidhampton to Salisbury City Centre page 14 8. Salisbury City Centre to Alderbury page 16 9. Bemerton Heath Links page 20 10. Harnham Links page 24

1. Executive summary

1.1 Sustrans Connect2 is a national project to extend the National Cycle Network into the heart of thousands of communities across the UK. The project is transforming everyday travel for local people in communities across the UK, creating new bridges and crossings to overcome busy roads, rivers and railways, and linking these to networks of walking and cycling routes, making it easier for millions of people to walk and cycle for everyday journeys. Wilton—Salisbury—Alderbury was one of the 79 projects selected to be delivered as part of the programme.

1.2 The objectives of the report are to:

 Summarise this Connect2 scheme and the components delivered.  Explain the issues which affected the delivery of the scheme.  Identify future projects and actions required to deliver them.

1.3 The report was requested by the project steering group to ensure that all the partners retained an ongoing commitment to delivering the aims of the Connect2 project into the future.

1.4 The scheme intended to provide safe cycle and walking route from Wilton to Alderbury. The route was defined at the time of the funding bid and was revised after an appraisal of options and discussions with stakeholders.

1.5 Elements of scheme have since been delivered but the grant was withdrawn in January 2012 because of difficulty building a route which connected key destinations at an appropriate standard. The principle reasons were lack of land owner support and technical constraints affecting path widths.

1.6 The scheme was delivered by Sustrans, Wiltshire Council, Highways Agency working with the support of representatives of Cycling Opportunities Group Salisbury (COGS) and the local community. Subject to the availability of funding all partners remain committed to delivering future improvements but wish to avoid committing funds where there are significant risks still to be overcome. Moreover projects are best delivered incrementally, avoiding multiple components where problems with one jeopardise the whole.

1.7 Table 1 and 2 (overleaf) set out a summary of progress and the key recommendations for future work.

Estimatecosts £130,000for Hole, Flouse for £30,000 cycle lanes. £155,000 N/A £150,000for Qui- dhamptonlink. Skewbridge link TBC £300,000 for full upgrade.lower Various costoptions. £450,000 for paths, £30, 000for cycle lanes N/A N/A

usepath to be

remainsa possibleoption if redevelopmentat Church-

NextSteps/Proposed Alter- native InvestigateWest cycle St Flouse lanes. Hole route cyclelanes are feasible. not WiltshireCouncil design to route.Sustrans to secure WiltonEstate land Toucancrossing to be delivered as partof UKLF development HighwaysAgency looking at moredirect option of route alongsideA36 between Park Wall junctionand Skew Bridge Opportunityfor incremental improvementsotherwise main Churchfields priorityis Rd Cycle lanes be to investigated an as alternative. Potential for shared delivered as partof future fields N/A N/A

Work completed Work Route was not pursueddue to insufficientfunding. t Notdesigned HighwaysAgency (Complete) Designcompleted. Planningapplication prepared Any upgrading will needretain to rural feel Routepursued not high to due cost Yes Yes

no no

not not

no agreement no

Land ownership Land WiltonEstate and WiltonTown Council - WiltonEstate agreement HighwaysAgency Yes.Wilton Estate + tenants.Agreed in principle landowners 4 with in principle support fromsubject 3 the to bridge mill being re- located Various pursuedas unlikely secure to N/A SalisburyCity Council

use use and path use from path use path

- - -

Proposedwork under Connect2 Shared replacebridges Sharedand path upgrade informalcrossing to toucan Toucancrossing and pathshared Shared Park Wall junction to Lowerthrough Rd field Convertfootpath to pathshared replace and bridges Shared cycling no Lift bylaw Widen path

Alternative Alternative proposed Route agreed design needed im- Further provements required Alternative proposed Alternative proposed Alternative proposed Complete Complete Status

Summary of Connect 2 proposals and progress and proposals 2 Connect of Summary centre city to Wilton

Table 1 Table

Section Waterditchampton North to St, Wilton (FlouseHole route) NorthWilton St, to Wiltonroundabout (MinsterSt) Wiltonroundabout Park to Walls ParkLow- to Walls erRoad, Quidhampton BrokenBridges Churchfields to Rd Rd Mill TownPath Gardens Q.E 4

Estimatedcosts

£50,000 max? £50,000 £150,000construc- and tion £150,000 CPOcosts £150,000 N/A TBC TBC

NextSteps/Proposed Alter- native Review of Review potential future improvements connection in with proposedSainsbury development options Pursue for route throughTesco Planningapplication and compulsorypurchase None WiltshireCouncil and HighwaysAgency review to for options improvement on and A36 Church Lane Alternativeroute over NetherhamptonRoad proposed

Work completed Work Limited improvementsat entrance/exit of Esso garage No Crossingdelivered. Yes No No

no no support no support

- -

not agreed not

Land ownership Land HighwaysAgency Various fromowners land Various fromowners land N/A N/A SalisburyCity Coun- cil

use use

use use path

use and path

roundabout refuge &

Proposedwork under Connect2 Improvements existing to shared road Side crossings. Ensurechanges no to vehiclemovements which impact will cycle on safety. Shared Sharedand path new toucancrossing. Shared path, mini Sharedspace on Church Lane and shared A36. on path Sharedthrough path cricketSaxon to field Rd

Further im- Further provements required Alternative proposed im- Further provements required Complete im- Partial provements likely. Alternative proposed Status

Summary of Connect 2 proposals and progress and proposals 2 Connect of Summary links) (and Alderbury to centre City

Table 2 Table

Section Southampton Rd (CollegeBourne to Way) Bourne to Way PetersfingerRd Petersfinger to Rd MarshmeadClose PembrokeRoad to SkewBridge ChurchLane to LowerRoad TownPath to HarnhamSchools 5

2. Project background

2.1 Wilton and Alderbury are connected to Salisbury by the main trunk road (A36). The A36 is heavily trafficked and unsuitable for vulnerable road users. These sizeable and growing communities are both within 3 miles (5 km) of Salisbury, an easy cycling distance. However, the absence of a safe route for walking and cycling means that many people have to rely on the car or bus to make the journey.

2.2 There is a clear demand amongst local people for improved links between the communities. During the consultation for Wilton Town Plan, 76% of respondents said they would like to see more and safer cycle routes, particularly between the town and Salisbury. 1006 local residents signed a petition calling for improved walking and cycling facilities between Salisbury and Pedestrians next to the A36 Alderbury.

2.3 Salisbury itself is a thriving city with good rail services. However, traffic volumes create a problems of road safety, congestion and air quality issues. Measures to increase the number of walking and cycling trips will improve this situ ation. The city is also a major tourist destination. There is potential for increasing tourists trips in and around the city by improved walking and cycling facilities. Cyclists on Churchfields Road

2.4 National Cycle Routes 24 and 45 converge in the city centre. Route 24 remains incomplete, partly because of the obstruction created by the A36. Once completed Route 24 will be continuous tourist route from Bath to Southampton, increasing the number of tourist visits to Salisbury.

2.5 In 2008 Sustrans Connect2 was awarded £50 million from the BIG Lottery Fund to deliver 79 projects which overcame barriers to people walking and cycling in their communities. In response to the strong public support, particularly from COGS, Wilton—Salisbury—Alderbury was selected as one of the 79 schemes.

2.6 In 2012 the decision was taken not proceed with the BIG Lottery funded project and the grant as withdrawn. Although individual sections had been designed and constructed, Sustrans and Wiltshire Council had been unable deliver a scheme which provided a consistent and high quality link between destinations. This was the design standard which underpinned the agreement with the Big Lottery Fund and was intended to ensure Connect2 demonstrated an exemplar standard of infrastructure.

2.7 Connect2 successfully focussed the attention several key barriers to pedestrians and cyclists in Salisbury. Although projects such as the new crossing at Petersfinger were delivered without lottery funding, it is likely that they would not have happened without the priority created by Connect2. Moreover, the project has enabled constructive dialogue between each delivery partner and identified future opportunities for collaboration on funding and delivery.

New path linking

New route to Quidhampton to avoid A30 Park Walls

New route alongside A30 & A36

New path alongside Churchfields Rd

New route between Skew Bridge New route to and Lower Rd Harnham

Possible improvements to Broken bridges path

New crossing at Petersfinger

New path avoiding A36 The Mapping contains Ordnance Survey data supplied by Dotted Eyes © Crown Copyright licence no. 100019918 7

Map 1— Connect 2 route as agreed by steering group

3. Project delivery and structure

3.1 Sustrans was awarded a total of £50 million from the BIG Lottery for Connect2, the terms of which were set out in a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in 2008. In 2009 Sustrans granted Wiltshire Council £100,000 for Wilton—Salisbury—Alderbury under the terms of a separate MoU. This was increased to £300,000 in 2010.

3.2 Wiltshire Council were the lead delivery partner dealing with design, construction and community engagement. Sustrans dealt with land negotiations and assisting with community engagement activities. Two parts of the route ran alongside Highways Agency managed roads and consequently they were the delivery partner for these sections. Although the Highways Agency were a delivery partner, no Connect2 funding was allocated to their sections of the route.

3.3 Under the terms of the MoU Wiltshire Council agreed to take on the future maintenance responsibility for the all sections of route. The exception to this were any sections which formed part of the Highways Agency’s network

3.4 To ensure project delivery reflected the community’s wishes a steering group was formed with representation from Sustrans, Wiltshire Council, The Highways Agency, COGS (2 members) and Salisbury Walking & Disability Forum. This group met bi-monthly.

3.5 The project operated a “gateway design” process under which key stages were signed off by all the steering group members. The option appraisal (or feasibility) gateway stage was signed off in 2009 during which the Steering Group revised the route alignment, primarily to overcome safety concerns. Map 1 summarises the main features of the route as agreed by the steering group at option appraisal stage.

3.6 The initial terms of the funding were that the entire route had to be completed by March 2013. This was subsequently changed to enable partners to claim grant for individual sections, so long as they linked key destinations. Although the exact route alignment has been changed during the course of the project the objective of linking the following points has remained constant.

 Waterditchampton to North St, Wilton.  North St, Wilton to Quidhampton.  Quidhampton to Salisbury City Centre.  Salisbury City Centre to Alderbury.

3.7 In addition to these key sections the proposals envisaged the creation of a number of links into the surrounding communities, particularly Bemerton Heath and Harnham.

3.8 In 2011 the scope of the scheme was changed to just cover Salisbury City Centre to Alderbury. This was the result of a decision not to proceed with works at Churchfields Road and Broken Bridges which had meant that any proposal failed to make the continuous connection into the centre of Salisbury from Wilton required for Connect2. Subsequently land ownership issues at Petersfinger prevented the construction of a continuous link for the Salisbury to Alderbury section.

3.9 As well as being represented on the Steering Group, COGS assisted in a range of community engagement activities such as public consultation events.

4. Barriers to delivery and lessons learnt

4.1 Land negotiation

4.1.1 Lack of land on which to build routes has been a fundamental barrier to delivery of Connect2 with key sections blocked by owners unwilling to sell or engage. Although it is tempting to use the availability of funding to prioritise these sections, the chances of failure (and loss of funding) are greater than the chances of success. It is essential that land negotiations are pursued early and ideally ahead of a funding bid.

4.1.2 If early approaches to landowners are pursued there are cost, resource and legal implications to be considered. The detail of these issues is beyond the scope of this report but the key points are as follows:-  Staff time/fees need to be committed without certainty over funding.  The budget for land acquisition must be found without certainty over funding or alternative mechanisms need to be pursued such as options.  There is merit in using Sustrans to front negotiations but the legal and financial structure of such arrangements needs to formalised.

4.2 Scope of scheme

4.2.1 The project expanded after the initial bid from one focussed on two sections of the A36 to one which also covered Broken Bridges and Town Path. Subsequently, to achieve Connect2 standards and the Steering Group’s directions, this widened to cover links to Bemerton and Harnham as well as variations on the original route. Inevitably this led to resources being spread too thinly and late in the programme. A focus on key deliverables would have been preferable.

4.2.2 In general projects need to be broken down into manageable and deliverable phases. Bearing in mind the “scope-creep” outlined in 4.2.1, future projects must be realistic about capacity and the likelihood of funding. In particular Connect2 was disadvantaged from the outset by a low level of lottery funding being committed. This placed pressure on partners and Sustrans to identify match-funding during the course of the project. In the case of the Links to School funding identified, this broadened the scope of the project further, increasing rather than reducing the risks to delivery. A better approach would have been to limit the scope of the scheme from the outset, accepting the need to proceed with the next step only as each phase was completed.

4.3 Design standards/funding

4.3.1 Different funding sources will require different design standards to be applied. In particular Sustrans funded routes (e.g; Connect2 and Links to Schools/Communities) require strong adherence to Cycle Infrastructure Design standards along with a requirement that new routes provide a safe end-to-end journey between meaningful origins and destinations. Consequently it is preferable only to use such funding once a feasibility study or preliminary design has been completed.

4.3.2 When weighing-up whether to proceed with a lower design standard two points should be borne in mind. Firstly, some solutions may only produce a marginal increase in safety (advisory cycle lanes) and yet significantly reduce the priority given to finding an adequate long-term solution. Secondly, a lower standard of cycle route could still be presented in a transport assessment and used as evidence to avoid contributions from new developments towards new infrastructure. 9

5. Waterditchampton to North Street, Wilton

5.1. Original proposal

5.1.1 The original proposal was for a traffic free link between Waterditchampton and North Street, crossing Flouse Hole Nature Reserve and Castle Fields. This included two river crossings which required two bridges to be upgraded. This would enable pedestrians and cyclists to avoid West Street (A30) when travelling into the centre of Wilton.

5.2 Land ownership issues

5.2.1 Initial discussions took place with Flouse Hole Nature Reserve Trust and Wilton Council (leaseholder at Castle Fields) in 2009. While none were opposed to the scheme in principle it was apparent that there were concerns about the visual and ecological impact the path would have. The location is tranquil and managed as a nature reserve. Trustees would be reluctant to accept a new tarmac path in a sensitive location.

5.2.2 At Castle Fields concerns centred on the proximity of any new path to the football pitch. There is limited width between the touchline and the boundary. It was felt that there would be insufficient separation between the hard-surfaced path and the playing surface. Changes to the pitch layout or an alternative alignment for the path would be necessary.

Waterditchampton

Flouse Hole

Castle Fields

North Street

The Mapping contains Ordnance Survey data supplied by Dotted Eyes © Crown Copyright licence no. 100019918

Map 2— Wilton section as proposed at bid stage

5.3 Option appraisal

5.3.1 The likely cost of this section of the scheme was estimated to be in the region of £130,000. This was in excess of the original budget. Consequently it was decided to consider alternative options. Given the small local population benefitting from this section there was also a relatively poor cost:benefit in comparison to other sections of the Connect2 route. Two alternatives were considered as more cost-effective routes.

500m

250m

Wilton to Petersfinger sections Petersfinger to Wilton proposals future an route Agreed

—

Map 3 Map

The Mapping contains Ordnance Survey Survey Ordnance contains Mapping The © Crown Eyes Dotted by supplied data 100019918 no. licence Copyright

road)

Agreed option (on road) (on option Agreed (off option Agreed road) (on option Future (off option Future 11

5.3.2 A route through the Naish Felt Factory site off Crow Lane was considered. The end of the site is located across the river from Flouse Hole. If the design could accommodate a through link and a new bridge provided as a planning condition then this could be incorporated into a Connect2 route. This option was discarded because the timescales were longer than the Connect2 programme.

5.3.3 Cycle Lanes on West Street were also considered as an alternative to Flouse Hole. While cost-effective this solution was considered to be inappropriate for a Connect2 scheme given traffic volumes along West Street. Sustrans view was that an off-carriageway solution was appropriate in this location but there is insufficient verge or footway width to achieve this.

5.3.4 After considering the alternatives it was decided to leave the proposed route though Flouse Hole unchanged but, given the likely problems with delivery, it was agreed to give this element of the route a low priority until progress was made with the section further east. No further work was undertaken on this section during the Connect2 programme.

5.4 Future work

5.4.1 The option of a route through the Naish Felt Factory is unlikely to materialise. Wiltshire Council has been advised that any new development will not contain through access to Flouse Hole. This leaves the alternatives of the original route and cycle lanes along West Street to be considered.

5.4.2 Any future proposals are not constrained by the need to deliver a scheme to Connect2 standards which means that cycle lanes along West Street could be acceptable as an affordable solution. It is recommended that a feasibility study for providing either advisory or mandatory cycle lanes along West Street is undertaken by Wiltshire Council. There is insufficient width on the approach the traffic lights in the centre of Wilton which means that the route will probably have to use Crow Lane to link through the centre of Wilton to Russell Street and Minster Street. The cost of this would be in the region of £30,000.

5.4.3 If cycle lanes are not feasible or do not provide sufficient improvement in safety then the alternative route via Flouse Hole remains an option. The cost is likely to be in the region of £130,000

6.0 North Street, Wilton to Quidhampton

6.1. Original proposal

6.1 The main components of the original proposal were a link from North Street through the car parks of Wylye Lodge and Wilton Shopping Village to Minster Street. A new shared-use path would lead to a new crossing of Minster Street. The route would then run along the south side of the A36, passing inside the wall of Pembroke House just east of the garden centre. The path would emerge from the house grounds on Netherhampton Rd where it would cross to Coronation Square in Quidhampton.

The Mapping contains Ordnance Survey Wyle Lodge data supplied by Dotted Eyes © Crown Copyright licence no. 100019918

Wilton Shopping Village

Minster Street

Wilton House

Coronation Square

Map 4 — Wilton to Quidhampton section as proposed at bid stage

6.2 Land ownership issues

6.2.1 The Tenants of Wylye Lodge rejected the proposal because of security and privacy concerns. Wilton Shopping Village accepted the principle of a route through the car park but this was not possible without access through Wylye Lodge. This meant that the only possible option would be a shared-use path running alongside Minster Street from Russell Street to the south.

6.2.2 Wilton Estate rejected the proposal to build the route inside the wall of Wilton House. This meant that any route would have to go much further south or cross to the north side of the A36. The southern option, via South Street and Home Farm Road, was rejected as being too far off the desire line to be useful. A route alongside the north side of the A36 was accepted reluctantly by the Steering Group on condition that a signalised crossing was provided at Wilton roundabout. Wilton Estate agreed in principle that a route could be built across the field adjacent to Netherhampton Road which would provide a link between Park Wall junction and Quidhampton.

6.3 Option appraisal

6.3.1 An initial walk-over and desk study was undertaken on the alternative route along Minster Street. This option appeared feasible but three pinch points at the Russell Street junction and over First and Second Bridges would have to be accepted. Further work was put on hold while discussions were progressed with the Highways Agency on the A36.

6.3.2 The Highways Agency identified a need for a new shared-use path along the north side of the A36 as part of a separate safety study. However, no need for a signalised crossing was identified at Wilton Roundabout. A case for this was made by Wiltshire Council and Sustrans as part of the planning application S/2011/0517 for the UK Land Forces Development. Wiltshire Council undertook a feasibility study to establish a location for the crossing and its construction was made a planning condition for the development.

6.3.3 A preliminary design was undertaken for the link between Park Wall junction and Quidhampton. After discussions with Wilton Estate and their tenant the route was revised. The final design agreed was a path running alongside Netherhampton Road rather than behind Park Corner Cottages. This was agreed by the steering group.

6.4 Delivery

6.4.1 The Highways Agency constructed the shared-use path along the north side of the A36 in 2011. The improvements included the construction of an informal refuge crossing on the eastern roundabout splitter. As per 6.2.2 the view of the Steering Group was that vehicle movements off the roundabout made this crossing difficult to use. With the signalised crossing agreed as part of the UK Land Forces Development no further work was undertaken on this section.

6.4.2 Wiltshire Council and Sustrans consulted local residents on the proposed Quidhampton link in 2011. The proposal received general support from the residents of Wilton and Quidhampton. Currently the proposals are waiting for a budget allocation from Wiltshire Council before a planning application is submitted.

6.5 Future work

6.5.1 Wiltshire Council have agreed to carry out a preliminary design on the section between Russell Street and Wilton Roundabout. This will enable negotiations with Wilton Estate who own the verge. Detailed design and construction could happen once the land and local support is secured. However, funding is more likely to be forthcoming once a signalised crossing is installed at Wilton Roundabout and the onward connectivity of the path can be demonstrated. The cost is estimated to be approximately £155,000.

6.5.2 It has been agreed that Sustrans will secure the route for the link between Park Wall junction and Quidhampton in anticipation of future funding. This would cost in the region of £150,000. However, the Highways Agency have recently completed an initial feasibility for constructing a shared-use path along the south side of the A36 between Park Wall junction and Skew Bridge. Sustrans and the Highways Agency have agreed to consider these proposals for future funding from Sustrans. This route has a higher priority than the route between Park Wall and Quidhampton, however, both routes are necessary.

7.0 Quidhampton to Salisbury City Centre

7.1 Original proposal

7.1.1 The route as proposed at the time of the bid followed Lower Road from Quidhampton to Lower Bemerton. From Lower Bemerton it was proposed to upgrade the footpath through Broken Bridges to Harnham including most of the bridges themselves. The route then followed Middle Street in Harnham before entering the city centre along Town Path. From here the route could reach the cathedral within the city centre 20mph zone using Mill Road and High Street.

7.2 Land ownership issues

7.2.1 Broken Bridges is currently a footpath and required the agreement of four landowners to permit access for cyclists, a new path surface to be constructed and bridges to be replaced. Sustrans made contact with three of the four landowners, all of whom supported the proposal in principle. The fourth area of land will form part of the proposed Broken Bridges Nature Reserve. Discussions with the Nature Reserve were also positive but they have not yet been successful in acquiring the land.

Lower Road

Broken Bridges

Middle Street

The Mapping contains Ordnance Survey data supplied by Dotted Eyes © Crown Copyright licence no. 100019918 Town Path

Map 5— Quidhampton to city centre section as proposed at bid stage

7.3 Option appraisal

7.3.1 A request was made by the Steering Group for Wiltshire Council to undertake improvements to provide a footpath alongside Lower Road, east of Bemerton St Johns School adjacent to the “walled garden”. This was echoed with concerns from Quidhampton residents and school parents about rat running and traffic speeds. The option of a short section of shuttle working was considered. The design primarily benefitted pedestrians so was ineligible for Connect2 funding. There were also concerns raised that the shuttle working would be detrimental to cyclists. Therefore no work was proposed for Lower Road as part of Connect2.

7.3.2 The proposal for a new path over Broken Bridges to Connect2 standards was discussed as part of the Broken Bridges Nature Reserve planning application. There were a number of very negative comments by Councillors about having a wide dual use path across there, widening it by removing any trees or having a surface that would change the nature of the area. The implications of this were discussed by the Steering Group. A decision was taken to pursue an alternative route along Churchfields Road. This option reflected the desire line into Salisbury for most cyclists. By providing a new link to the railway station a new path would be more useful than one across Broken Bridges. Continuing through the railway station would then lead along Mill Road into the city centre.

7.3.3 It was agreed that, although Town Path would no longer form part of the Connect2 route, the lifting of the no-cycling orders should still be delivered as part of the project.

7.4 Delivery

7.4.1 A feasibility study was undertaken by Wiltshire Council’s consultants Mouchel in 2010, into the proposed route along Churchfields Road. It concluded that a route comprising 3 sections was feasible: 1. A new shared-use path along the southern verge/footway between Lower Road and 40m east of Stephenson Road, 2. An uncontrolled crossing, 3. A new shared-use path along the northern verge from the new crossing to the railway station.

500m

road)

- 250m

Agreed option (on road) (on option Agreed (off option Agreed road) (on option Future (off option Future

Broken Bridges, Churchfields Rd Rd Churchfields Bridges, Broken sections Path Town and

—

Map 6 Map

The Mapping contains Ordnance Survey Survey Ordnance contains Mapping The © Crown Eyes Dotted by supplied data 100019918 no. licence Copyright 16

7.4.2 A public consultation event was held which demonstrated support from local residents. The proposed crossing relied on priority-working to create sufficient width on the southern approach. This was trialled but found to be unworkable, causing large tail-backs.

7.4.3 The alternative was to extend the path on the northern side to a point opposite where there was sufficient width for a shared-use path on the southern side. The retaining walls required pushed the cost to an unaffordable level (estimated in the region of £450,000). The option of cycle lanes were discussed but Sustrans took the view that the volume of traffic, particularly heavy good vehicles, made cycle lanes an unsuitable solution for Connect2 funding. As a result the Churchfields Road route was postponed until it could be included and delivered as a part of the master plan for industrial estate due to be delivered through Salisbury Vision.

7.4.4 With 2 years remaining to secure land, planning and match-funding for the Broken Bridges route, and the likely opposition from members of the Planning Committee, it was agreed that there was only a slim prospect of successfully delivering the route between Quidhampton and Salisbury City Centre. It was decided by the Steering Group that, apart from Town Path, efforts should be focussed on the link between Salisbury and Alderbury.

7.4.5 A user-survey was undertaken on Town Path in 2010. This is established that there were negligible safety issues with cyclists on Town Path and that these affected areas not covered by the no-cycling orders. The orders were lifted on a trial basis in 2011. After a subsequent user-survey found that there had been no change to the safety of the path the permanent lifting of the orders was confirmed in 2012.

7.5 Future work

7.5.1 Wiltshire Council will keep options for improvement along Lower Road under review.

7.5.2 Wiltshire Council has agreed to look at low cost options for Churchfields Road and Mill Road in 2012. The limited carriageway width means that this will probably Involve advisory cycle lanes with a cost estimate of £30,000.

7.5.3 The Broken Bridges route could be developed incrementally as part of the Nature Reserve proposal. Funding may be available for bridge replacement. Wiltshire Council and Sustrans will maintain contact with the Nature Reserve Trust, consider future funding opportunities and joint delivery of improvements. The total cost of the route to meet Connect2 standards will be in the region of £300,000. The incremental upgrades are unlikely to complete the route to this standard, so will cost less.

7.5.4 The only outstanding work on Town Path is the widening of the path through Queen Elizabeth Gardens which is due to be done as part of Salisbury City Council’s improvement works.

road)

Agreed option (on road) (on option Agreed (off option Agreed road) (on option Future (off option Future

City centre to Petersfinhger Petersfinhger to centre City sections

—

The Mapping contains Ordnance Survey Survey Ordnance contains Mapping The © Crown Eyes Dotted by supplied data 100019918 no. licence Copyright

Map 7 Map

500m

250m

8. Salisbury City Centre to Alderbury

8.1 Original proposals

8.1.1 The bid envisaged a new shared-use path being built from the Bourne Way roundabout on Southampton Road to the new Park and Ride and through to Petersfinger Road. From Petersfinger Road a new shared-use path would be built along the north side of the A36 to a new toucan crossing. A new shared-use path would then link the crossing to Marshfield Close after which the route continued on carriageway to Alderbury.

Bourne Way

Park & Ride

Petersfinger Rd

Proposed crossing

The Mapping contains Ordnance Survey Marshfield Close data supplied by Dotted Eyes © Crown Copyright licence no. 100019918

8.2 Land ownership issues

8.2.1 At the early stages, with no certainty that a crossing was feasible over the A36, all landowners on the north and south side of Southampton Rd were contacted by Sustrans. From the outset it was apparent that persuading any to permit path construction over their land would be difficult. Three in particular were critical:

 Land between Bourne Way and Park & Ride: From discussions with consultants acting on behalf of the developer it was apparent that a path would only be agreed to in return for planning approval.  Hughenden Manor: Only four of the 12 leaseholders agreed to the proposals, 3 short of the majority required.  Land adjacent to Hughenden Manor: Sustrans unsuccessfully tried to acquire this land at auction. The land was acquired by Commercial Land who sold it as 96 investment plots. Sustrans’ offer to Commercial Land was not accepted.

8.3 Option appraisal

8.3.1 Alternative routes between Bourne Way and the Park and Ride were considered. There was a strong view in favour of an option which ran north of Tesco but an approach to the store was unsuccessful.

8.3.2 A southern route through Britford, crossing the Avon by way of a new bridge, was also considered. This was discarded because of land ownership and cost issues.

8.3.2 The steering group supported the route as set out at bid stage with the proviso that the Tesco option should remain an option if their support could be gained. In particular the delivery of the crossing at Petersfinger was regarded as the number one priority for the project.

8.4 Delivery

8.4.1 In 2010 Wiltshire Council built the shared-use path through the Park and Ride. However, without acquiring land between Bourne Way and the Park and Ride this path is of limited value.

8.4.2 The Highways Agency responded favourably to requests from the local community for the crossing at Petersfinger. Detailed design was undertaken in 2011 and construction was delivered ahead of schedule in early 2012, with a small funding contribution from Wiltshire Council.

8.4.3 The paths linking to the crossing were not delivered because of the land ownership issues. As a result the Connect2 funding was withdrawn from the project.

8.5 Future work

8.5.1 The land to the south and east of the Bourne Way roundabout is the focus of developer interest. It is not allocated for development and consequently proposals for cycle paths are likely to be used as bargaining chips by developers. Therefore Sustrans should continue to pursue the Tesco option. As an interim route Sustrans Rangers have agreed to sign National Cycle Route 24 from Southampton Road to Petersfinger Road via Piggy Lane. Wiltshire Council and the Highways Agency are agreed that there should be no changes to vehicle movements on Southampton Road (as a result of new development or other) which cause a reduction in safety for cyclists and pedestrians. The re-introduction of right-turning movements is to be avoided.

8.5.2 Delivery of the connecting paths to the A36 crossing will require renewed approaches to the landowners. Land adjacent to Hughenden Manor is likely to require compulsory purchase which in turn requires a planning approval. Land in front of Hughenden Manor might be acquired with an increased offer but is not a Priority without the adjacent section being deliverable. It is recommended that a compulsory purchase order should be pursued to ensure that this section can be delivered. This will require a planning consent for the cycle path. Wiltshire Council, the Highways Agency, Sustrans and COGS should also maintain a watching brief regarding any changes in land ownership or development proposals. The cost of this section would be in the region of £150,000.

9. Bemerton Heath links

9.1 Original proposals

9.1.1 The original proposals envisaged two links into from Bemerton Heath. The first used Church Lane to link via Skew Bridge and the second crossed the railway line by an uncontrolled level crossing at Gramshaw Road.

road)

Agreed option (on road) (on option Agreed (off option Agreed road) (on option Future (off option Future option Discarded route Connect2

Bemerton Heath links Heath Bemerton

—

Map 8 Map

The Mapping contains Ordnance Survey Survey Ordnance contains Mapping The © Crown Eyes Dotted by supplied data 100019918 no. licence Copyright

500m

250m

0m 21

9.2. Option appraisal

9.2.1 The Gramshaw Road route was discarded after discussions with Network Rail. The existing access barriers are too tight for a bicycle and Network Rail were very reluctant to encourage increased public access on an uncontrolled crossing.

9.2.2 There is a clear need for improvements between Church Lane and the north side of the A36 because of the large number of trips to Bemerton St Johns School which use it. There was strong local support to develop a route through South Wilts Sports Club. The path was agreed as a planning condition as part of the pavilion redevelopment. However, the club would not agree to the 24 hour access requested by Sustrans and Wiltshire Council and this requirement was not imposed as a condition.

9.2.3 In addition to the proposed route through the sports club the need for safety improvements on Church Lane were considered, the junction with the A36 being a particular issue.

9.2.4 On the north side of the A36 the crossing of Roman Road was identified as a particular problem for pedestrians with no provision for cyclists.

9.3 Delivery

9.3.1 No solution was found to the narrow access at the northern end of Church Lane. Until additional width can be found from the carriageway at this point the Highways Agency will continue to direct cyclists onto the A36 before turning left into Church Lane. Apart from making this route unsuitable for children cycling to school, it limits Sustrans and Wiltshire Council’s ability to fund any improvements on Church Lane itself.

9.3.2 Wiltshire Council built a new informal crossing over Roman Road between Pembroke Road and the A36. This improved a key desire line, particularly for pedestrians. In addition to this, a new mini-roundabout was installed to slow traffic and improve safety on Roman Road while the footway on the south side of Pembroke Road was converted to shared-use, extending off-carriageway cycle provision towards Salisbury High School.

9.3.3 The Highways Agency upgraded the pelican crossing over the A36 between Roman Road and New Zealand Avenue. When combined with the improvements around Roman Road and the existing shared-use path at Brick Lane this formed a continuous cycle link from Bemerton Heath to Lower Bemerton (albeit not serving Bemerton St Johns School).

9.4 Future Work

9.4.1 The area around the junction of the A36 and Church Lane will continue to be a safety risk. Wiltshire Council will need to review the options for providing safe cycle access into and across Church Lane from the A36. Wiltshire Council have agreed to try to ensure changes to the top of Church Lane are included in any future work by the Highways Agency on Wilton Road. On-carriageway improvements to create a shared-space solution on Church Lane remain an option if the junction can be improved.

road)

Agreed option (on road) (on option Agreed (off option Agreed road) (on option Future (off option Future option Discarded route Connect2

The Mapping contains Ordnance Survey Survey Ordnance contains Mapping The © Crown Eyes Dotted by supplied data 100019918 no. licence Copyright

BHarnham links BHarnham

—

Map 9 Map

500m

250m

10.0 Harnham links

10.1 Original proposals

10.1.1 The original scheme proposed converting the footpath linking Middle Street to Netherhampton Road to shared-use. A new shared-use path and crossing on Netherhampton Road would link to Norfolk Road.

10.1.2 The existing shared-use path on New Bridge Road was also identified as a link but without any proposals to improve or extend it.

10.2. Option Appraisal

10.2.1 The footpath between Middle Street and Netherhampton Road was discarded as an option because of its width and two blind corners. Instead, In response to interest from Harnham School Travel Group the option of a route linking to the junior and primary schools was adopted instead. This would involve a new path across Harnham Recreation Ground. A new toucan crossing on Harnham Road and a new shared-use path to Parsonage Green and Saxon Road would link to the schools.

10.3 Delivery

10.3.1 The proposal for a path across Harnham Recreation Ground was considered by Salisbury City Council as the landowner. As a result of opposition from local residents the council decided not to accept the proposal. It should be noted that at that point in time no public consultation had been undertaken and there is also public support for the proposal.

10.4 Future work

10.4.1 Wiltshire Council will investigate alternative links across Netherhampton Road and the green opposite Middle Street. The Recreation Ground route may reappear as an option in the future if local support is evident.