Princes Risborough Transport Study

Buckinghamshire County Council/ Wycombe District Council

Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

B12798D8/001 | 0 12 February 2016 Princes Risborough Transport Study

Stage 1 Opti on Assessment Report Buckinghamshire C ounty C ouncil/ Wycombe District Council

Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Princes Risborough Transport Study

Project no: B12798D8 Document title: Stage 1 Option Assessment Report Document No.: B12798D8/001 Revision: 0 Date: 12 February 2016 Client name: Buckinghamshire County Council/ Wycombe District Council Client no: Princes Risborough Transport Study Project manager: Stephen Moody Author: Stephen Moody File name: M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Reports\Princes Risborough OAR Rev 0_20160212_FINAL.docx

Jacobs U.K. Limited

1180 Eskdale Road Winnersh, Wokingham Reading RG41 5TU United Kingdom T +44 (0)118 946 7000 F +44 (0)118 946 7001 www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2016 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

A 23/11/2015 Princes Risborough Options Assessment Report (DRAFT) S. Moody R. Smith R. Smith

0 12/2/2016 Princes Risborough Options Assessment Report (FINAL) S. Moody R. Smith R. Smith

B12798D8/001 i Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of report ...... 1 1.2 Study background ...... 2 1.3 Overview of the assessment ...... 3 1.4 Structure of Report ...... 6 2. Policy and Literature Review ...... 7 3. Current Situation ...... 8 3.1 Introduction ...... 8 3.2 Land use and demographics ...... 8 3.3 Transport networks ...... 9 3.3.1 Highway network ...... 9 3.3.2 Pedestrian ...... 10 3.3.3 Cycling ...... 11 3.3.4 Bus...... 11 3.3.5 Rail...... 12 3.4 Route performance ...... 14 3.4.1 Existing movements ...... 14 3.4.2 Travel patterns ...... 16 3.4.3 Capacity and capability...... 18 3.4.4 Speed and journey time analysis ...... 18 3.4.5 Collisions ...... 22 3.5 Environment ...... 24 3.5.1 Air quality ...... 24 3.5.2 Noise and vibration ...... 24 3.5.3 Cultural heritage ...... 24 3.5.4 Landscape ...... 25 3.5.5 Ecology and nature conservation ...... 26 3.5.6 Geology and soils ...... 27 3.5.7 Road drainage and water environment ...... 27 3.5.8 Effect on all travellers ...... 27 3.5.9 Community and private assets ...... 28 3.5.10 Materials ...... 28 3.6 Constraints and opportunities ...... 28 3.6.1 Constraints ...... 28 3.6.2 Physical constraints ...... 29 3.6.3 Legal and institutional constraints ...... 29 3.6.4 Opportunities ...... 30 4. Future Situation ...... 31 4.1 Introduction ...... 31 4.2 Forecasting and scenario development ...... 31

B12798D8/001 ii Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

4.2.1 Committed road infrastructure ...... 32 4.3 Future route performance (Scenario B) ...... 32 4.3.1 Traffic movements ...... 32 4.3.2 Capacity and capability...... 32 4.3.3 Journey time analysis ...... 32 4.4 Public transport ...... 35 4.4.1 East-West Rail ...... 35 4.4.2 HS2 ...... 36 4.5 Summary ...... 36 5. Need for Intervention ...... 37 5.1 Introduction ...... 37 5.2 Consultation and engagement process ...... 37 5.2.1 Overview of process ...... 37 5.3 Summary of current transport related problems and driver/ causes ...... 37 5.4 Impacts of not changing (future problems) ...... 40 5.4.1 Impacts on movement and accessibility ...... 40 5.4.2 Impacts on economic growth and prosperity ...... 41 6. Objectives and Area of Impact ...... 42 6.1 Introduction ...... 42 6.2 Objectives ...... 42 6.2.1 Regional and local policy ...... 42 6.2.2 Stakeholder objectives ...... 43 6.2.3 Princes Risborough Steering Group objectives ...... 44 6.2.4 Objective summary ...... 44 6.3 Targets ...... 45 6.4 Geographic area of impact ...... 45 7. Option Generation ...... 47 7.1 Introduction ...... 47 7.2 Option generation ...... 47 7.2.1 Princes Risborough Area Transport Study (January 2014) ...... 47 7.2.2 Public open day ...... 47 7.2.3 Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop ...... 47 7.2.4 Other options ...... 47 8. Initial Sifting ...... 56 8.1 Introduction ...... 56 8.2 Pre-EAST sifting and assessment ...... 56 8.3 Early assessment and sifting ...... 58 8.4 Options for appraisal ...... 60 9. Development and Assessment of Options ...... 62 9.1 Introduction ...... 62 9.2 Assessment methodology ...... 62

B12798D8/001 iii Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

9.3 Stages 1 to 3 ...... 64 9.4 Stage 4 ...... 64 9.4.1 Evaluation of options against project objectives ...... 64 9.4.2 Summary of stage 4 ...... 79 9.5 Stage 5 ...... 80 9.5.1 Overview ...... 80 9.5.2 Summary of scheme costs for TUBA ...... 81 9.5.3 Economic impacts of the options ...... 82 9.5.4 Strategic case ...... 83 9.5.5 Economic case (value for money) ...... 85 9.5.6 Financial case ...... 87 9.5.7 Commercial case ...... 88 9.5.8 Management case ...... 89 9.6 Preferred option ...... 89 9.7 Wider transport strategy ...... 90 10. Summary and Next Steps ...... 95 10.1 Summary ...... 95 10.1.1 Overview ...... 95 10.1.2 The scheme and project objectives ...... 95 10.1.3 Need for intervention ...... 96 10.1.4 Scheme development and appraisal ...... 96 10.1.5 Economic assessment...... 96 10.2 Conclusion ...... 96

Appendix A. Transport Planning Policy Review Appendix B. Environmental Constraints Plans Appendix C. Uncertainty Logs Appendix D. EAST Outputs Appendix E. TEE, PA and AMCB Tables Appendix F. Appraisal Summary Table Appendix G. TUBA Outputs Appendix H. Preliminary Scheme Costs

B12798D8/001 iv Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of report

Jacobs is the framework consultant to the Transport for Buckinghamshire Alliance (TfB) between Ringway Jacobs and Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC). Under the terms of this contract, Jacobs is commissioned to undertake transport planning, modelling and assessment studies on behalf of the County Council, working in partnership with the District Councils.

Jacobs has been commissioned by BCC and Wycombe District Council (WDC) to produce a Stage 1 Option Assessment Report (OAR) and Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) to support a Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (BTVLEP) bid for financial support from the Department for Transport (DfT). The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of a WebTAG scheme appraisal process to determine the preferred alignment and form of a western relief road (WRR) at Princes Risborough. The findings from this OAR also inform the delivery of the emerging Area Action Plan for Princes Risborough, the Princes Risborough Town Plan (PRTP)). The study area for this OAR is shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 OAR study area

B12798D8/001 1 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

1.2 Study background

The BTVLEP strategic economic growth plan sets out objectives, priorities and strategic transport aims, which are summarised in Table 1.1. The need to improve connectivity, reduce congestion, improve journey times, and journey time reliability are noted as being objectives that are critical when considering options for a western relief road of Princes Risborough.

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Strategic Economic Growth Plan

BTVLEP objectives Priorities

Stimulate more smart • Promote business resource efficiency and resilience. sustainable business growth • Making our major transport infrastructure fit for our economic purpose. Bring forward the necessary • business critical infrastructure Ensuring housing growth develops appropriately to meet the needs of businesses and communities. • Improving connectivity between the national road network and key employment hubs. • Improving connectivity between major settlements and key economic centres. • Improving connectivity between major settlements and existing/new rail connections. BTVLEP strategic transport • Supporting employment and housing enabling transport infrastructure; aims • Supporting the regeneration of our town centres. • Reducing congestion, improving journey times and journey time reliability. • Ensuring we maintain a high quality of life and natural environment, by promoting low carbon vehicles, innovative travel solutions; and reducing the inefficiency in existing transport systems. • Delivering a more co-ordinated and commercial approach to transport infrastructure and land-use planning.

Table 1.1: BTVLEP objectives, priorities and aims

Without intervention, the existing network in Princes Risborough will constrain employment and housing growth along the Princes Risborough corridor, impacting Aylesbury and High Wycombe as well as the local area.

Productivity and prosperity are highest in those areas with higher value industries and high jobs densities. One of the key objectives outlined in BTVLEP’s SEP is to stimulate sustainable business growth, with priorities including, amongst others, improving Buckinghamshire’s export performance; operating an “open for business” planning service; and stimulating high growth start-up businesses. In supporting this, however, recognition is given to the critical inter-dependencies between economic growth and Buckinghamshire’s transport network.

The costs from associated traffic growth and congestion may impede the deliverability of planned/designated residential and employment lands uses within the town and negatively impact the competiveness of existing businesses using the A4010 corridor. Increased traffic congestion will increase lost productive time for business travellers and commuters as it lengthens the distance between labour markets and businesses, which can affect commuting patterns, and reduce the potential for business-to-business activity. There is a risk that the benefit of locating in the A4010 corridor may not be realised should business and business critical infrastructure not come forward.

B12798D8/001 2 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

traffic volumes and the interaction with local traffic will generate productivity losses to businesses at a regional level.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012. This consolidated policy statements, circulars, and guidance documents into a single concise framework. The NPPF outlines the governments’ economic, environmental, and social planning priorities for England, assisting the production of robust local and neighbourhood plans. Local authorities are required to prepare plans that accommodate new development meeting objectively assessed local needs and priorities.

WDC is developing a new Local Plan for the district, and there is an opportunity for new road infrastructure to support this. Once adopted, the WDLP will replace the existing adopted Core Strategy (2008) and the saved policies from the existing Local Plan (2004). The intent of the WDLP includes: • setting of housing targets for the district and addressing strategic housing issues, including housing and mixed use allocations; • policies and proposals for the protection and provision of employment land; • site specific proposals for local communities; and • the setting of detailed policies to manage development.

Ahead of the new Local Plan, WDC is bringing forward an Area Action Plan for the town of Princes Risborough, the Princes Risborough Town Plan (PRTP). The intention of the Area Action Plan is to allocate land for up to 2500 homes to the north of the Risborough-Aylesbury railway lane, together with supporting infrastructure. To assist the delivery of these homes, new road infrastructure will be required to relieve the existing highway network and distribute traffic from the development. The emerging development will also need to provide infrastructure to support direct connectivity to the railway station by walking and cycling.

1.3 Overview of the assessment

The overall objective of this study is to produce an OAR to support a funding submission. The key tasks that need to be completed during the project are: • review and document the current situation; • analyse the future situation; • identify the need for intervention; • establish targets/ objectives that are consistent with national and local policies and desired outcomes; • generate options that address the targets and objectives; and • review and assess the potential options. This will build upon the previous Princes Risborough Area Transport Study (Jacobs, 2014)1 and Princes Risborough Background Report (Tibbalds, 2014)2 and allow an understanding of the opportunities and constraints that lead to the development of the shortlisted options. These will be reviewed, and a preferred option selected, based on a balanced view of the transport and economic analysis.

This OAR will provide the following, in order to meet the requirements set out within the DfT Transport Appraisal Process3: • A sound body of analysis to provide evidence of the problems, challenges and need for intervention, framed within the context of relevant policy and strategy objectives. • A future ‘without intervention’ scenario, considering potential scenarios.

1 Jacobs, 2014, Wycombe District Local Plan, Princes Risborough Area Transport Study 2 Tibbalds, 2014, Princes Risborough Background Report http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/new- local-plan/princes-risborough.aspx 3 DfT, 2014. Transport Analysis Guidance: The Transport Appraisal Process. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275728/webtag-tag-transport-appraisal-process.pdf

B12798D8/001 3 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

• Identified study objectives and intended outcomes, and sufficient information to facilitate an understanding of the links between issues and context and the final statement of objectives. • Details of the stakeholder engagement strategy adopted. • Option generation, initial sifting, and assessment. Decisions made on discarded options will be recorded, along with supporting evidence. • Development of options, including indicative road alignments to identify the key areas for intervention with cost estimates. The DfT’s Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) will be used to assist the prioritisation of the options.

The DfT’s Transport Appraisal Process4 describes the steps to be undertaken in the Stage 1 (Option Development) Process. These are outlined in Figure 1.2 and described in more detail in the following sections of this OAR.

The BCC countywide strategic model is used to inform the process and test the scheme options. Appraisal of the schemes utilises EAST and also considers the options in the context of the project specific objectives, which were identified during discussion with stakeholders and the Princes Risborough Steering Group. The modelling data would be used to demonstrate the benefit-cost ratio of the preferred schemes using TUBA.

4 DfT, 2014. Transport Analysis Guidance: The Transport Appraisal Process. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275728/webtag-tag-transport-appraisal- process.pdf#nameddest=chptr02

B12798D8/001 4 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 1.2 Stage 1 OAR process (Source: WebTAG Transport Appraisal Process)

B12798D8/001 5 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

1.4 Structure of Report

This report follows the steps relating to the Stage 1 process as set out in WebTAG and summarised above. The structure of this OAR is as follows: • Section 1 – Introduction – outlines the purpose and background of the report. • Section 2 – Policy review – reviews relevant policy and strategy documents to establish the strategic policy context in the study area. • Section 3 – Current situation – describes existing transportation conditions to provide an understanding of existing transport supply and demand. • Section 4 – Future situation – presents forecast traffic conditions under a ‘Without Intervention’ scenario and describes future land-uses and policies, and committed changes to the transport system. • Section 5 – Need for intervention – summarises current and future transport-related problems and underlying causes that establish the need for an intervention. • Section 6 – Objectives and study area – sets out the objectives of the study and geographical area of impact. • Section 7 – Option generation – develops a range of interventions in order to achieve the study objectives identified. • Section 8 – Initial sifting - summarises the results of EAST. • Section 9 – Development and assessment of options – assesses potential options against the ‘5 cases model’ criteria. • Section 10 – Summary and next steps – Summarises the results of this OAR and presents the preferred option.

B12798D8/001 6 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

2. Policy and Literature Review

The assessment of the schemes considered in this OAR must be consistent with planning policy. This section outlines the key strategies and policies relating to planning and transport as articulated at the national, regional and local level. Figure 2.1 provides a summary of these policies and an extended review is included in Appendix A.

Set the strategic policy context, which is underpinned by a presumption in favour of sustainable development. • NPPF Enables decisions to be taken locally. • Localism Act A robust assessment of transport implications • Planning Practice Guidance

National should be undertaken. Transport evidence should assess existing and future situations. Assessments should be undertaken in Partnership and included local stakeholders.

Sets the regional policy context. • BTVLEP Strategic Economic Defines the strategic transport aims (outlined in Plan Table 1.1), including importance of north-south • BCC Local Transport Plan connectivity.

Regional LTP3 Encourage behaviour change but also outline the need for new infrastructure and congestion management

Set the local policy context Manage the challenge of development growth, • LTP3 Local Area Strategy negative impacts of the A4010, local accessibility, • Wycombe District LDF and parking provision and management. • Community Infrastructure Levy Divisive impact of the through traffic in the town

Local • Longwick-cum llmer Parish centre. Neighbourhood Plan Facilitate growth in new housing development in Princes Risborough and surrounding parishes. Improve multi-modal transport connections.

Figure 2.1 Summary of national, regional and local policies

There is a common theme throughout the regional and local policy/ strategy regarding the A4010. The BTVLEP plan refers to the importance of improving north-south journey time reliability. The A4010 is a corridor that could fall within this aim because it connects Aylesbury and High Wycombe. However, there is currently no definitive statement in BTVLEP or BCC policy which defines the preferred north-south corridor. Locally the policies focus on the need to reduce the severance caused by the A4010 and improve accessibility to the town centre and railway station.

In addition, the emerging WDC local plan and BTVLEP plan both include aspirations to provide for and/ or promote economic growth in the region. Therefore, a key role of the new road should be to facilitate growth in housing and jobs in Princes Risborough, and support growth of the economy in the wider BTVLEP area.

B12798D8/001 7 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

3. Current Situation

3.1 Introduction

This section provides a summary of the existing land use, demographics, and transportation infrastructure supply and demand. Travel conditions within the study area are described using a variety of metrics including traffic volume, journey patterns, and congestion and delay. Provision for public transport and non-motorised users is also described.

3.2 Land use and demographics

Princes Risborough has an established town centre, schools, and community facilities. The town centre includes a mix of comparison and convenience retail stores, including a Tesco foodstore which is accessed via the New Road/ Longwick Road/ Aylesbury Road/ Duke Road/ Tesco roundabout.

Risborough Community Centre is located west of the town centre, north of Stratton Road, and the town council’s office is accessed from Clifford Road. There are two state primary schools in the local area (Princes Risborough Primary and Monks Risborough Primary) and a secondary school (Princes Risborough School). There is an independent school for children aged 5 to 11 (St Teresa’s Catholic Independent School). There are three main employment areas. Two of these are located close to Princes Risborough Station, and the third is north of the town centre and railway line to and from Aylesbury.

The 2011 Census shows that the area had a total population of 8,101. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of households owning various numbers of vehicles within the study area. Overall, 82% of households have access to at least one car or van. This is lower than the overall figure for Wycombe District which is 86%, but higher than the 74% average for England.

Figure 3.1 2011 Census household vehicle ownership (Source ONS)

The main means of travel to work for working age (16 – 74) residents who reside in the study area is shown in Figure 3.2. A total of 43% of working age residents drive a car or van as their main method of travel to work, with 8% using public transport. The corresponding percentage for those driving a car or van for this purpose in England is 37%, with 11% using public transport. The statistics for Wycombe District are similar to those for the study area. Overall, the study area is characterised by relatively high car ownership and a relatively high proportion of travel to work by car or van.

B12798D8/001 8 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 3.2 2011 Census main method of travel to work (Source: ONS)

3.3 Transport networks

3.3.1 Highway network

Princes Risborough is located in south - central Buckinghamshire, situated approximately eight miles north-west of High Wycombe and nine miles south-west of Aylesbury. The highway network is shown in Figure 3.3.

Princes Risborough is located on the A4010 corridor which is a north-south route between Aylesbury and High Wycombe. Destinations around Princes Risborough include Aylesbury and Leighton Buzzard to the north, Thame and Oxford to the west, High Wycombe and the Thames Valley to the south, and Amersham to the east. Access to the north and south is provided by the A4010.

The closest access points to the strategic road network are provided by the M40 Junction 4 at High Wycombe (10 miles to the south) and the M40 Junction 6 at Lewknor (nine miles to the south west). The M40 Junction 5 at Stokenchurch offers an alternative access for journeys to/ from Princes Risborough, but this is less direct.

Princes Risborough Town Centre is served by four key access points. In addition to the A4010 (north and south), access from the north-west is via the A4129 Thame Road and to the south east via New Road. The primary route converges in the town centre at New Road, with roundabouts at Longwick Road / Aylesbury Road and at Bell Street.

B12798D8/001 9 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Figure 3.3 Highway network

3.3.2 Pedestrian

The 2011 Census shows that 7% of people travel on foot as part of their journey to work within the Princes Risborough area. The potential for walking as a transport mode for local trips is good given the size of the settlement and topography of the area.

The A4010 severs the east and west of the town and is a barrier to the attractiveness of east – west journeys on foot. A number of pedestrian crossings have been provided to assist pedestrians including zebra crossings on New Road and on the northern arm of the New Road / Longwick Road / Aylesbury Road roundabout. There are two signalised crossings on Bell Street in the vicinity of High Street and just south of Park Street and one further signalised crossing to the north near Windsor Hill.

The most direct walking routes to Princes Risborough Station from the town centre are via the A4010 and Station Road and via Manor Park Avenue which connects with the High Street. However it is noted that Manor Park Avenue is a private road.

The railway lines are also barriers to pedestrian movement, although there are at- grade crossings (which Network Rail will ultimately seek to remove) and footways beneath the bridges at Summerleys Road, Longwick Road, and Mill Lane.

B12798D8/001 10 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

3.3.3 Cycling

Cycling makes up less than 1% of journey to work trips within the Princes Risborough area (Census 2011). Princes Risborough is relatively flat and borders a number of local and regional recreational routes in particular those associated with the Chilterns. However, the pattern of journey to work trips in the area is characterised by longer distance journeys where cycling is unlikely to offer a reasonable alternative to the private car. Notwithstanding this, it is considered there is significant potential to increase the level of cycling use in the area.

There are three cycle routes traversing the Princes Risborough area, most of which are on-road rather than traffic free routes. These routes include National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 57 which is a 69 mile route between Oxford and Thame. The section from Thame to Princes Risborough follows the Phoenix Trail which enters Princes Risborough via Horsenden Lane and Picts Lane and passes through quiet residential streets before arriving at New Road. The route departs Princes Risborough via Kop Hill to the east.

The Icknield Way is a cycle route between Princes Risborough Station and New Road to the east as an alternative to the NCN R57. The Chilterns Cycleway passes close to Princes Risborough Secondary School via a route using Brimmers Road and Kop Hill. These routes are shown in Figure 3.45.

NCN R57

NCN R57 NCN R57

Chilterns Cycleway

Note 1: Off-road routes indicated in green, on-road routes indicated in purple

Figure 3.4 Princes Risborough area cycle route network

3.3.4 Bus

Princes Risborough is served by buses, including a service between Aylesbury and High Wycombe, which passes through the town centre. Table 3.1 shows the bus routes, destinations, and frequencies. Princes Risborough is also served by the Risborough Area Community Bus (RACB). The RACB operates six different routes at different times of the day.

5 Sustrans http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map

B12798D8/001 11 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

The bus services in Princes Risborough provide an opportunity to access a number of neighbouring settlements and wider destinations by sustainable means. Longer distance journeys are better provided for than local urban services in terms of service frequency. There is a target within the LTP3 Implementation Plan for 85% of all bus services across the county to run on time and to increase bus patronage.

Route No Route Name Frequency (each way)

Mon - Fri: 2-3/hour 300 High Wycombe - Princes Risborough - Aylesbury Sa: 1-3/hour Su: 1/hour 321 High Wycombe - Princes Risborough - Aylesbury Mon - Fri: 4/day 320 Chinnor – Princes Risborough - Chinnor Mon - Fri: 7 to 9/day 120 & 121 Thame – Chinnor – Princes Risborough 2/day (not every day) 113 Oakley – Princes Risborough Tue & Thu: 3/day

Downley (The Pastures) - Princes Risborough Mon - Fri: 1/day 621 School School term only Monks Risborough Loop Mon - Sat: 3-6/day Chestnut Rd/Northfield Rd Loop Mon - Sat: 3-6/day

RCB: Risborough Longwick Loop Mon - Sat: 3-5/day Community Buses Bledlow Ridge Loop Wed & Fri: 2-3/day Speen Loop Tue & Sat: 2-3/day Askett & Kimbles Loop Mon & Thu: 2-3/day

Table 3.1: Local bus routes

3.3.5 Rail There are three railway stations within 4 km of the centre of Princes Risborough:

• Princes Risborough (Chiltern Main Line) 1 km from the town centre; • Monks Risborough (local branch line between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury) 1.3 km from the town centre; and • Little Kimble (local branch line between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury) 3.6 km from the town centre. The services from these stations connect to destinations that include London, Birmingham, Aylesbury and High Wycombe. A summary of the AM and PM peak hour frequencies are shown in Figure 3.5. Journey times to London Marylebone are currently on average between 40 to 50 minutes, with the fastest being 39 minutes. There is a half hourly service to Birmingham Snow Hill via Bicester and Banbury. The local branch line connects the town to London via Aylesbury and Amersham with stops at Monks Risborough (4 minutes journey time) and Little Kimble. The journey time from Princes Risborough to Aylesbury is approximately 20 minutes and there is currently an hourly service.

There is a car park at Princes Risborough Station providing 280 spaces and 12 storage spaces for bicycles. There is also an overflow parking provision for approximately 50 cars. There are limited bus services operating directly from the station. Redline Buses Route 320 is a commuter service between Chinnor and Princes Risborough via Bledlow, which runs at peak times on Monday to Friday only. There is a taxi rank at the station served by three local operators. The smaller, unmanned station at Monks Risborough has no car park but it provides five bicycle storage spaces. A summary of the rail facilities and services is shown in Figure 3.5.

B12798D8/001 12 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

The rail patronage (passenger entry and exits) at Princes Risborough and Monks Risborough is available from the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)6. The data shows that there has been an overall increase in passengers using the Princes Risborough Station during the last ten years. The trend at Princes Risborough shows a reduction in patronage between 2008 and 2011, during the global financial crisis. There has been a return to growth in patronage since 2011.

The trend at Monks Risborough shows a decline in patronage during the last ten years and greater fluctuations, with variation observed year on year. The station may experience greater patronage, following expansion of rail services between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury, but the timing of this intervention is still to be determined by Network Rail.

Monks Risborough Princes Risborough

2004-05 27,286 458,521 2005-06 22,485 412,564 2006-07 22,940 460,575 2007-08 24,384 501,080 2008-09 22,710 482,708 2009-10 20,530 471,394 2010-11 20,582 468,960 2011-12 23,570 494,858 2012-13 20,520 547,262 2013-14 18,630 568,630

Table 3.2: Rail patronage (total yearly boardings) at Monks Risborough and Princes Risborough

6 http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates

B12798D8/001 13 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 3.5 Rail facilities in the Princes Risborough area

3.4 Route performance

BCC has developed a transport model for a base year 2013 which can provide information relating to travel patterns, costs of travel, traffic flows, travel costs, journey times, and volume/ capacity. This model has been utilised to inform understanding of the existing network and junction performance, supplemented by data and work undertaken as part of previous transport studies of Princes Risborough. The performance of the model in the local area has been calibrated and validated using traffic surveys undertaken in 2013.

3.4.1 Existing movements

The AM and PM peak hour traffic volume plots have been extracted from the BCC Countywide model, and are shown in Figures 3.6 and 3.7 respectively. These show that the A4010 experiences between 500 and 1000 vehicles in each direction during the AM and PM peak hours. The plots also suggest that there is a greater volume of traffic travelling toward High Wycombe in the AM peak hour, and towards Aylesbury in the PM peak hour. The plots also show that the A4010 carries a greater volume of traffic than the B4009.

B12798D8/001 14 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 3.6 2013 AM peak hour traffic volume plots

Figure 3.7 2013 PM peak hour traffic volume plots

B12798D8/001 15 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

3.4.2 Travel patterns

The mode split from the travel to work statistics was discussed previously. A total of 43% of working age residents drive a car or van as their main method of travel to work, with 8% using public transport. This includes all trips to destinations within and external to Princes Risborough. Analysis of travel to work trips that have both their origin and destination in Princes Risborough shows (Figure 3.8) that walking is the dominant mode, with driving a car or van marginally lower at 37%. The primary destination is the town centre, emphasising the need for quality connections to and from this area.

It is understood that an important feature of the operation of the local road network in Princes Risborough is a dominant north-south movement of traffic through the town between Aylesbury and High Wycombe in each peak period. An Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) survey was undertaken in 2013 and supplements the information available in the BCC Countywide model. A review of the BCC Countywide model quantifies the proportion of trips undertaking the north-south through movement on the A4010 through Princes Risborough during the peak hours, and this is consistent with the results of the ANPR survey. • AM peak south to north 44% of vehicles • AM peak north to south 25% of vehicles • PM peak south to north 35% of vehicles • PM peak north to south 25% of vehicles

B12798D8/001 16 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 3.8 2011 Census travel to work statistics (internal to Princes Risborough)

B12798D8/001 17 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

3.4.3 Capacity and capability

The traffic volumes in the AM and PM peak hours have been compared with the capacity on the links in the network. The volume/ capacity plots for the AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figures 3.9 and 3.10 respectively.

These show the following: • AM peak hour: - links approaching capacity in both directions between the A4010/ B4444 and A4010/ New Road junctions; and - links approaching capacity in the southbound direction between the A4010/ The Avenue and A4010/ Longwick Road junctions. • PM peak hour: - links approaching capacity in southbound direction between the A4010/ B4444 and A4010/ New Road junctions; - links over capacity in northbound direction between the A4010/ B4444 and A4010/ New Road junctions; - links approaching capacity in northbound direction between the A4010/ Poppy Road and A4010/ B4444 junctions; and - links approaching capacity in the northbound direction between the A4010/ The Avenue and A4010/ Longwick Road junctions.

There are locations in the road network which are constrained with height and width restrictions. The locations of these are shown in Figure 3.11. These restrain the capacity and capability of the network in these locations.

3.4.4 Speed and journey time analysis

The posted speed limits on the A4010, A4009, Summerleys Road, Longwick Road, Mill Lane, Cadsden Road, Picts Lane, Shootacre Lane, and Bridge Street in the Princes Risborough area vary from 20mph to national speed limit. The posted limit on the A4010 through Princes Risborough is 30mph, although sections on the approaches have speeds of either 40mph or 50mph.

The BCC Countywide model allows understanding of traffic speeds on links and delay at junctions in the network. This data has been extracted from the model and the AM and PM information is shown in Figures 3.12 and 3.13 respectively. These show that there are significantly reduced link speeds on the links prior to junctions on the A4010 in the centre of Princes Risborough.

The following junctions also experience delay of greater than one minute: • Grove Lane/ A4010 (during both the AM and PM peak hours); and • Summerleys Road/ Regents Park (during the PM peak hour). There are multiple other junctions along the A4010 corridor which experience delay of between 30 and 60 seconds. The journey times on the A4010 between the junctions with Grove Lane and Shootacre Lane were extracted from the BCC Countywide model and show the following: • AM peak southbound: 11 minutes 7 seconds; • PM peak southbound: 10 minutes 8 seconds; • AM peak northbound: 10 minutes 9 seconds; and • PM peak northbound: 11 minutes 41 seconds.

B12798D8/001 18 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 3.9 AM peak hour v/c plots (2013)

Figure 3.10 PM peak hour v/c plots (2013)

B12798D8/001 19 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 3.11 Height restrictions and one-way roads in Princes Risborough

B12798D8/001 20 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 3.12 AM peak hour link speed and delay (2013)

Figure 3.13 PM peak hour link speed and delay (2013)

B12798D8/001 21 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

3.4.5 Collisions An analysis of Stat19 data for the period from January 2005 to December 2013 shows that a total of 222 personal injury accidents (PIAs) were recorded in the study area. The extent of the study area is shown in Figure 3.14.

Of the 222 PIAs, two (1%) were classified as fatal, 35 (16%) serious and 185 (83%) as slight. The data shows that 56% of the PIAs were recorded at junctions. This is slightly below national DfT statistics7, however, which reported that PIAs at or within 20 metres of junctions amounted to 61% of the total in 2013. The heat map shown in Figure 3.15 highlights clusters where there is a high concentration of PIAs in the study area.

Table 3.3 summarises total collisions by year. Whilst there have been some fluctuations, the data shows that there has been a downward trend and stabilisation at around 20 PIAs per year since 2010.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

40 29 25 22 30 17 21 20 18

Table 3.3 Number of collisions per year (2005 to 2013) 36 PIAs were recorded in the town centre during the same period. 31 were slight and five were serious. Three of the PIAs involved motorbikes, three involved a cyclist and 13 involved pedestrians (five of which were at a pedestrian crossing). The majority of the PIAs occurred in fine weather when the road surface was dry, indicating weather conditions do not have a particular impact on the PIA rate in this area. The majority recorded also occurred during the day (86%) concurrent with greater daytime traffic volumes.

High densities of vehicular PIAs were also identified at the following locations:

• A4010 Wycombe Road junction with Upper Icknield Way • A4010 Risborough Road junction with Grove Lane • Lower Icknield Way junction with Mill Lane • A4010 Aylesbury Road /New Road/ Longwick Road junction and A4010 New Road / Bell Street junction through the town centre

7 Department for Transport statistics https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2013

B12798D8/001 22 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 3.14 Locations of collisions (2005 to 2013)

Figure 3.15 Density of collisions (2005 to 2013)

B12798D8/001 23 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

3.5 Environment

A desktop study of the environmental baseline was undertaken using the following sources: • Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database; • AQMAs Interactive Map (Defra, 2015); • What’s in your Backyard (Environment Agency, 2015); • Geology of Britain Viewer (British Geological Society, 2015); • Designated Sites (Natural England 2015); • River Basin Management Plan Thames River Basin District (Environment Agency, 2009); • Princes Risborough. Buckinghamshire Historic Town Assessment Report (Bucks CC, 2009); • NCA Profile: 110 Chilterns (NE406) (Natural England, 2014); • NCA Profile: 108 Upper Thames Clay Vales (NE570) (Natural England, 2014); and • Ecological Record Centre data (Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre).

The assessment has been based on a high level desk based study using indicative road alignments for the option. No surveys or specialist assessments have been carried out at this stage.

The study area used was a 1 km buffer around the potential road alignments unless stated otherwise. Appendix B includes a drawing that shows the existing environmental constraints.

3.5.1 Air quality

There are no designated air quality management areas (AQMA) within 2 km of the scheme. The nearest AQMAs are located within Aylesbury and on the M40. Annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in Princes Risborough were monitored in 2011 and were found to be below the NO2 annual mean objective (40µg/m3)8; since 2012 the diffusion tubes at this site have been removed and monitoring ceased.

3.5.2 Noise and vibration

The existing transport noise climate is dominated by road traffic emanating from the A4010 and the A4129. Potential noise receptors include residential and other properties along these roads.

3.5.3 Cultural heritage

Princes Risborough and the neighbouring parish of Monks Risborough have a historic nature with nine built Conservation Areas within Princes Risborough Town Centre and the surrounding area. These Conservation Areas are located in Meadle, Askett, Alscot, Horsenden, Princes Risborough, Monks Risborough, Whiteleaf, Ellesborough, and Bledlow.

There are five Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) locally: • Roundabout Wood moated site, fishponds, and farming settlement remains, located in Saunderton; • Anglo-Saxon cemetery on Hemley Hill, located 50m west of Shootacre Lane; • Roman villa 140m east of St Mary and St Nicholas’ church; • moated site and associated medieval remains 430m north of Church Farm; and • The Mount, located approximately 250m south-west of the A4129/A4010 roundabout in Princes Risborough.

There are a further four SAMs approximately 1km north-east of Princes Risborough.

8 Air Quality Consultants (2012) – 2012 Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment: Wycombe District Council

B12798D8/001 24 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Meadle Conservation Area is located approximately 300m north-west of the junction between Lower Icknield Way and Cadsdean Road and contains a total of 14 Listed Buildings. There is also a grade II Listed Building, Flint Cottage, north of Grove Lane, in Little Kimble.

There is a grade II Listed Building (signal box) adjacent to the railway line just west of Station Road, and five grade II Listed Buildings within the Alscot Conservation Area along Longwick Road. There are four grade II Listed Buildings, and a grade II* Listed Building (Church of St Michael and All Angels) at the end of Horsenden Lane which is within Horsenden Conservation Area. There are two grade II Listed Buildings close to Longwick (Longwick Mill and Woodbine Cottage), just north of Summerleys Road.

Chequers grade II Registered Park and Garden is located approximately 500m to the east of the junction of Grove Lane with the A4010. The 200ha site is situated in a shallow valley, and is largely sheltered by surrounding hills and wooded hilltops.

There are a number of Archaeological Notification Areas (ANA): • a site adjacent to the B4009 in Longwick; • a site south of Longwick; • a site adjacent to the railway line in Saunderton; and • a site in Horsenden.

Within these areas a number of prehistoric, Iron Age, and Roman finds have been recovered9. It is recommended that a programme of further studies and field-based investigation is undertaken to provide further detail on the presence or absence of archaeological assets, as there is a risk of unknown features in areas close to known archaeology.

3.5.4 Landscape

Princes Risborough is a town located at the foot of the Chiltern Hills. The majority of the study area is within the Upper Thame Clay Vale National Character Area (NCA), which is characterised by its contrasting landscapes, including enclosed pastures with wet valleys, mixed farming, hedges, hedge trees and field trees, and open arable lands. The scheme also falls within the Chilterns NCA, and two distinct Landscape Character Areas (LCA): Longwick Vale and Risborough Chalk Foothills.

The Chilterns Area of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB) is located directly to the east and south of Princes Risborough Town Centre and borders Picts Lane. The AONB recognises the quality of the designated area for landscape and scenic beauty10. If an alignment was likely to affect the AONB it would need to be demonstrated that it was compliant with relevant planning policy.

Shootacre Lane to the south of Princes Risborough is within the Chilterns AONB boundary and Metropolitan Green Belt. The NPPF states that certain forms of development are not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. This includes local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location. Green belts are not strictly a landscape designation, however, the ‘openness’ of the landscape within the green belt is relevant to the landscape assessment.

There is agricultural land directly to the west of Princes Risborough, known as Park Mill Farm. Park Mill Farm was assessed by Wycombe District Council as being of low sensitivity to development in a landscape assessment of strategic sites in 201411.

Heritage assets in the area, particularly the SAMs, listed buildings, and Chequers Registered Park and Garden described in the heritage section, are potential visual receptors. Visual impacts to Chequers should be limited due to the sites sheltered setting.

9 Buckinghamshire County Council (2009) – Princes Risborough. Buckinghamshire Historic Town Assessment Report 10 DCLG (2012) – National Planning Policy Framework 11 Wycombe District Council (2014) – Landscape Assessment of Strategic Sites

B12798D8/001 25 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Within the centre of Princes Risborough, there are many Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) and all trees within Conservation Areas will have the equivalent of TPO status. There is a single TPO along Station Road and several single TPOs along Picts Lane. There are a few isolated TPOs along Lower Icknield Way between Summerleys Road and Longwick Road. There are also clusters of TPOs located at Meadle, Horsenden, and Manor Road. Consent for work on a tree protected by a preservation order will be required if a TPO is to be physically impacted.

3.5.5 Ecology and nature conservation

There are six designated sites of national importance within 2km of the area, and one European designated site within 5km of the area.

Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is present in two separate units north-east and east of Princes Risborough Town Centre. It is designated due to its semi-natural grasslands and scrubland situated on chalk and limestone which support beech forests and stag beetles12.

There are two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) to the north-east of Princes Risborough. Grangelands and Pulpit Hill SSSI are designated for their assemblages of calcicolous bryophytes, range of invertebrates, and overwintering and breeding bird populations. Ellesborough and Kimble Warrens SSSI is a classic example of ecological succession and is designated for its range of local species. Windsor Hill and Lodge Hill SSSIs are located within 2km, to the east and south of Princes Risborough respectively.

Brush Hill Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Whiteleaf Hill LNR are situated adjacent to each other, approximately 1.5km from Princes Risborough. Brush Hill LNR is designated due to its recreational and study opportunities and comprises chalk grassland and woodland. Whiteleaf Hill LNR is notable for its views of the Chiltern Hills and for its butterflies, wildflowers and woodlands.

The proposed route alignments should not have a direct impact on any national or European designated sites described in this section. There could however be indirect impacts to the flora and fauna at these sites caused by increased air pollution.

There are three Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within 1km. Longwick Bog is located south of Longwick. Saunderton Marsh and Saunderton Railway are located to the south-west. LWSs are county level non-statutory sites which are selected for their locally important habitats and species, and are protected by planning policy, with a presumption against development which would impact the sites. However, development can be acceptable if appropriate mitigation can be agreed and provided.

There are three Biological Notification Sites (BNS) in the local area. These sites are chosen for their ecological importance, and are non-statutory local designations: • Summerleys Cottage Wood, located adjacent Summerleys Road; • Fields around Roundabout Wood, located south of Horsenden; and • Garden and Orchard, Saunderton.

There are several areas of ancient woodland located to the north-east of Princes Risborough. The nearest ancient woodland is Whorley Wood, which is located approximately 900m from the Grove Lane junction with the A4010. There are areas of deciduous woodland, traditional orchard, and good quality semi-improved grassland priority habitat, as well as woodland and pasture Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat, located throughout the study area. However none of these areas are likely to be directly impacted by the scheme.

There is the potential for legally protected and notable species to be active within the study area. There are some isolated ponds to the north of Summerleys Road close to Summerleys Bungalows, and where Alscot Lane meets Longwick Road. Therefore there is potential for Great Crested Newts within the study area. Ecological data from the Buckinghamshire Environmental Record Centre indicates the historic presence of protected species in the study area, including badgers (Meles meles), water vole (Arvicola amphibious), and

12 Natural England (2014) – European Site Conservation Objectives for Chilterns Beechwoods SAC (UK0012724)

B12798D8/001 26 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

bats. Other species not identified in this data may be present in the study area. A phase 1 habitat survey by a qualified ecologist will be required in order to determine the likely presence of protected species.

3.5.6 Geology and soils

The bedrock in the study area is a combination of sandstone, siltstone, and chalk, with small pockets of alluvium, river terrace, and head superficial deposits. The north of the study area consists of slightly acid loamy and clayey soils with impeded drainage; the south of the study area consists of freely draining lime-rich loamy soils.

There is one historic landfill site located north-west of Princes Risborough. Birkett Electric is located adjacent to the A4129 to the west of Princes Risborough and contains inert, commercial, and household waste. Thames Water Utilities Ltd sewage works, located to the west of Princes Risborough, is a site of water industrial pollution. There was also a ‘significant’ pollution incident involving sewage material that occurred at this site in 201313. As there is the potential for contaminated land throughout the study areas it is recommended that a detailed contaminated land assessment be undertaken at the next stage.

Princes Risborough lies within the ‘Thame and South Chilterns’ (surface and groundwater) water body, within Thames River Basin District. The town is situated in Water Resource Management Unit 2 of the Thame and South Chilterns Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS). This unit is made up of two unconfined groundwater management units of chalk and upper greensand, and the water availability is classed as ‘over licensed’ at low flows14.

3.5.7 Road drainage and water environment

The Kingsey Cuttle Brook and its tributaries flow through Princes Risborough. Crossing of these watercourses south of Longwick and south of Alscot could have implications for flooding, drainage, geomorphology and water quality impacts due to road run-off.

The Kingsey Cuttle Brook is a Water Framework Directive (WFD) waterbody designated as being ‘heavily modified’ with ‘moderate’ ecological status with the aim of achieving ‘good’ status by 2027. A second WFD waterbody, Scotsgrove Brook (upstream Kingsey Cuttle Brook), is located approximately 150m from the B4009 at Little Kimble. This waterbody currently has ‘poor’ ecological status with the objective of meeting ‘good’ status by 2027. There is a risk of water pollution occurring at these waterbodies. However, it is likely that risks of pollution could be managed through good drainage design and construction management. The Environment Agency will need to be consulted on whether a WFD compliance assessment will be required.

The tributary of the Kingsey Cuttle Brook that runs alongside the B4444 (Summerleys Road) to the east is within flood zone 3, which land assessed as having a 1 in 100 chance or greater of flooding each year (>1%). A tributary of the Kingsey Cuttle Brook towards the end of Horsenden Lane is also within flood zone 3. A flood risk assessment will be required for development which occurs within flood zone 2 and 3.

There are a number of drainage ditches and small ponds located in open land north-west and west of Princes Risborough. These ditches and ponds are at a high risk from surface water flooding.

The whole of the Princes Risborough area falls within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ), and is susceptible to increased concentrations of nitrates in surface water. The study area is also within a surface water safeguard zone for pesticides (SWSGZ4016). There are no Source Protection Zones (SPZ) in proximity to the proposed options.

3.5.8 Effect on all travellers

The A4010 Wycombe/Aylesbury/Risborough Road is a main arterial road running through the centre of Princes Risborough. A scheme that provides an alternative route for through traffic would be expected to improve traffic

13 Environment Agency (2015) – What’s in Your Backyard http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?ep=maptopics&lang=_e (accessed September 2015) 14 Environment Agency (2014) - The Thame and South Chilterns Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy

B12798D8/001 27 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

congestion at peak times in the centre of Princes Risborough, providing significant benefits to pedestrians and cyclists.

There are a number of Public Rights of Way (PRoW). The Ridgeway National Trail runs along Upper Icknield Way, Wycombe Road, and Upper Icknield Way. National Cycle Route 57 runs along Station Road, Picts Lane and Horsenden Lane. There are also a number of footpaths, including four regional trails: • Aylesbury Ring and North Buckinghamshire Way/Midshires Way, both of which cross the B4009 to the north of the scheme; • Outer Aylesbury Ring, which crosses the B4009 near Longwick, and continues across open land west of Princes Risborough; and • Icknield Way Trail, which forms part of the travels adjacent to the A4010 and Upper Icknield Way to the south of the scheme.

The Chiltern mainline runs north-south through the study area, west of Princes Risborough, with the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury Line and Chinnor and Icknield Line heritage railway splitting east and west of the mainline respectively.

3.5.9 Community and private assets

Princes Risborough is a busy market town. The environment in the town centre could benefit from reduced traffic congestion. It is noted that the retail vacancy rate is currently low15.

Land use around Princes Risborough is predominantly grassland and arable. The land is assessed as being grade 2 and 3 under the agricultural land classification (ALC). Land around the B4009 and west of Horsenden is mostly ALC grade 2 and the open land north and south of Princes Risborough mostly ALC grade 3.

In addition to the residential and social receptors discussed in the noise and air quality sections, the following community and private assets are noted: • public place of worship, public house, allotment gardens, and several farms and cottages, all adjacent to the B4009 to the north of the scheme; • football and cricket grounds; • a factory adjacent the train station near Horsenden; • sewage works west of Princes Risborough; and • allotment gardens adjacent Longwick Road.

3.5.10 Materials

The nearest waste management facility is Wycombe Trade Waste and Skip Hire Ltd which are on Perry Lane, which is approximately 2km to the west of the centre of Princes Risborough.

3.6 Constraints and opportunities

3.6.1 Constraints

The physical, legal and institutional constraints, and the opportunities affecting the potential road scheme and surrounding area are outlined to assist with the development of potential transport options. This summarises evidence presented previously in this report.

15 Wycombe District Council (2013) - Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment: The Wycombe District Local Plan. Scoping Report

B12798D8/001 28 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

3.6.2 Physical constraints

In summary, the physical constraints identified include: • Land ownership for schemes and junction upgrades. This may require CPO of land. • Widening of rail bridges and/ or new bridges. • Potential air quality impacts to Shootacre Lane, Picts Lane, Station Road, Summerleys Road, Horsenden Lane, Lower Icknield Way, and Grove Lane. • Temporary increase in noise and vibration in areas in close proximity of the new road during the construction phase. Potential to increase noise and vibration once the Scheme is operational. • Cultural heritage: - nine Conservation Areas within Princes Risborough and the surrounding area; - five SAMs within 500m of the scheme; - listed Buildings within the Conservation Areas, as well as near station road, Longwick, and Grove Lane; - Chequers Registered Park and Garden east of the B4009/A4010 junction; and - potential remains in ANA. • Landscape: - temporary and permanent visual impacts to the Chilterns AONB and its setting; - TPOs in Princes Risborough Town Centre, along Station Road, Picts Lane, Lower Icknield Way, and between Summerleys Road and Longwick Road; and - temporary and permanent visual impacts to residential property in and around Princes Risborough. • Ecology, nature and conservation - Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which is present in two separate units north-east and east of Princes Risborough Town Centre; - Grangelands and Pulpit Hill and Ellesborough and Kimble Warrens SSSIs located within 1 km of the scheme; - There are three LWS within 1km. Longwick Bog is located south of Longwick. Saunderton Marsh and Saunderton Railway are located to the south-west.Brush Hill Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Whiteleaf Hill LNR located within 1.5 km of the scheme; and - potential for protected species. • Potential for contaminated land. • Flood risk and risk of pollution to waterbodies and ditches. The Kingsey Cuttle Brook and its tributaries flow through Princes Risborough. Potential alignments would cross these watercourses at several locations, which could have implications for flooding, drainage, geomorphology and water quality impacts due to road run-off. • Temporary disruption to PRoW and railways during Scheme construction phase. • Loss of agricultural land.

3.6.3 Legal and institutional constraints

The legal and institutional constraints include: • Mode shift away from road to rail (for passenger and freight), influenced by rail operators pricing strategies, and Network Rail’s expansion/ upgrade plans. • PRoW across the site which would need to be respected.

B12798D8/001 29 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

3.6.4 Opportunities

The following opportunities are identified: • improve journey times and reliability for north-south traffic movement to improve north-south connectivity and access between urban centres; • reduce through traffic volumes, congestion and severance on the A4010 in Princes Risborough Town Centre; • facilitate the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough; • provide network capacity to facilitate the housing growth of Princes Risborough; • stimulate growth in employment development in Princes Risborough; • improve the vitality of the town centre in Princes Risborough; • protect, improve, and maintain the local environment and heritage; • improve the safety on roads in Princes Risborough, but particularly the A4010 through Princes Risborough; and • improve accessibility to, from and within the town to the railway stations, town centre, and other key destinations in the town (e.g. schools).

B12798D8/001 30 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

4. Future Situation

4.1 Introduction

This chapter of the report sets out the future situation for growth in housing and jobs in the area, and transport infrastructure.

4.2 Forecasting and scenario development

The assessment considers a future year of 2036 (15 years beyond anticipated year of future road opening) and uses the BCC Countywide model. The assessment considers the following four scenarios to determine the preferred scheme, and Scenario B is the focus of this chapter. The ‘development’ in this context refers to the expansion of Princes Risborough. • ‘Scenario A’: without development (National Trip End Model (NTEM) capped) and without any form of transport scheme (do minimum); • ‘Scenario B’: with the emerging PRTP development but without any form of transport scheme (do minimum plus PRTP development); • ‘Scenario C’: with the development and with a transport scheme (do something development and transport); and • ‘Scenario D’: without the housing development but with a transport scheme (do something transport).

Therefore two do minimum scenarios have been developed, which are defined as Scenarios A and B. Scenario A is used to inform the economic case for the scheme (when compared with Scenario D), and Scenario B is used to inform the strategic case for the scheme (when compared with Scenario C).

Scenario A considers the growth including housing (91,631 new homes in Buckinghamshire) and jobs (59,221 new jobs in Buckinghamshire) provided by TEMPRO 6 (Dataset 6.2) for the period between 2013 and 2036. An uncertainty log has been prepared to consider the status and likelihood of developments coming forward in Princes Risborough as part of the do minimum scenarios and local adjustments have been made where necessary. A copy of the uncertainty log is included in Appendix C.

The emerging PRTP development is not included in the modelling of Scenario A. WDC has confirmed the scenario is appropriate for this assessment. WebTAG guidance (TAG Unit M4 Forecasting and Uncertainty) provides additional clarification and requires the reference forecast (Scenario A) to be based on demand that is constrained to the national forecasts to avoid optimism or pessimism bias. Therefore, it is appropriate to cap NTEM growth factors to account for the following committed developments in the Princes Risborough area: • Former Whiteleaf, Picts Lane; and • Ker Maria Nursing Home

Princes Risborough is earmarked for a significant level of growth (around 2,500 houses) in the Area Action Plan, which will require new road infrastructure. The analysis presented in this report indicates that the development is dependent upon new road infrastructure being provided, as the network is already constrained at key locations, and conditions are forecast to further deteriorate in the future.

The traffic generation of the development and developments at Longwick are all included in Scenario B and are additional to NTEM growth. Appendix C includes the uncertainty log for this scenario, and WDC has confirmed the scenario is appropriate for this assessment. It is noted that the developments at Longwick have been subject to planning applications, but the development quantum assumed is consistent with the scales proposed in the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Neighbourhood Plan.

In summary, the do minimum scenarios considered in this chapter align with the requirements of economic and strategic assessments. The impact of Scenario B is considered further.

B12798D8/001 31 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

4.2.1 Committed road infrastructure

There are no committed road schemes in the Princes Risborough area that need to be included in the do minimum models.

The road through the Former Whiteleaf, Picts Lane development site has been safeguarded to facilitate a new road link, should this need to be provided in the future.

4.3 Future route performance (Scenario B)

Scenario B provides an analysis of the network conditions with the additional traffic generated by the emerging PRTP development at Princes Risborough.

4.3.1 Traffic movements

The 2036 AM and PM peak hour traffic movements are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. Unsurprisingly, the traffic volumes increase as a result of increased development in Princes Risborough.

The 2013 two-way traffic volumes on New Road in the centre of Princes Risborough were 1,548 and 1,721 during the AM and PM peak hours. Traffic volumes on New Road in the town centre are forecast to be 1,726 and 1,900 for the AM and PM peak hours respectively. This shows that the traffic flows have increased, which is unsurprising given the route choices available in the existing network for development traffic.

4.3.2 Capacity and capability

The capacity and road traffic volumes are interrogated to determine the ratio of traffic volume to capacity. The AM and PM peak hour plots are shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 respectively. This shows that generally the more links are approaching or exceeding capacity compared with 2013, including Summerleys Road, Poppy Road, and Lower Icknield Way.

4.3.3 Journey time analysis A key objective of the BTVLEP is to improve north-south journey times and reliability. The journey times on the A4010 between Grove Lane and Shootacre Lane were extracted from the BCC Countywide model. Table 4.1 provides a comparison between the 2013 and 2036 journey times. This shows that with the development north- south journey times increase on the A4010.

Southbound Northbound Direction AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak

11 minutes 10 minutes 10 minutes 11 minutes 2013 Base 7 seconds 8 seconds 9 seconds 41 seconds 2036 Scenario B (do minimum plus Princes 11 minutes 10 minutes 11 minutes 12 minutes Risborough development) 48 seconds 43 seconds 28 seconds 10 seconds

Table 4.1: 2013 and 2036 (Scenarios B) north-south journey times on A4010

B12798D8/001 32 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 4.1 Scenario B 2036 AM peak hour link traffic volume plot

Figure 4.2 Scenario B 2036 PM peak hour link traffic volume plot

B12798D8/001 33 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 4.3 Scenario B 2036 AM peak hour v/c plots

Figure 4.4 Scenario B 2036 PM peak hour v/c plots

B12798D8/001 34 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

4.4 Public transport

There are two major rail projects that are planned for the area: East-West Rail, and HS2. These are discussed below.

4.4.1 East-West Rail

East-West Rail is a major project to establish a strategic railway connecting East Anglia with central, southern and western England. The project is split into three sections: western, central, and eastern, which are shown in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5 East-West Rail network map16

An information sheet for the section between Aylesbury and Princes Risborough was published in June 2014.17 This sets out that there are core and incremental schemes being considered. The core scheme was given the go ahead and is a committed scheme which includes an hourly passenger service between Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and London Marylebone (via Princes Risborough). This would be in addition to the existing Aylesbury to Princes Risborough passenger and freight services. The incremental scheme is still being determined by Network Rail and the Department for Transport, but this would increase capacity for two passenger trains per hour. The timing of the schemes are still to be determined by Network Rail.

This will require track enhancements, and the briefing sheet states the following:

“To extend the hourly Milton Keynes service to London Marylebone requires one passenger plus one freight path per hour in each direction to be reliably accommodated between Aylesbury and Princes Risborough. Although such capacity theoretically exists today, in practice the junction layouts at Princes Risborough and

16 http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/ 17 http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/aylesbury-to-princes-risborough/

B12798D8/001 35 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Aylesbury, as well as the single line between those two points, result in constraints that mean that there is likely to be a high degree of operational risk if all four paths were to be used every hour, which could negatively impact on the reliability of the timetable.

In addition, the DfT, supported by the Industry Plan Group, has also requested that the feasibility of a second Milton Keynes – Marylebone passenger path per hour, in addition to the basic service, be examined as part of the ‘incremental’ output specification for the project. This would certainly require some upgrading of the route to provide the means to pass trains travelling in opposite directions, as well as remodelling of the junctions at Princes Risborough and Aylesbury.”

Therefore, it would be prudent to include the potential to widen existing rail bridges for twin tracks into the design of upgraded road/ rail bridges where potential western relief roads would be aligned.

4.4.2 HS2

HS2 is a national rail project which aims to provide a new rail connection to reduce north-south rail journey times between London, West Midlands, Leeds and Manchester. The project is planned to be split into two phases. Phase 1 is for a route between London Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street Station. The alignment of this route is south of Aylesbury and north of Little Kimble.

It is understood that the construction of HS2 is likely to generate a significant amount of road freight, which may travel through the Princes Risborough area. Therefore, bridges on the planned western relief road should meet DMRB requirements for vertical clearance, should larger vehicles need to use the route.

4.5 Summary

The network is at capacity in some locations in the network in 2013, and conditions are degraded in additional locations by 2036. Based on the findings from the modelling, it is reasonable to infer that the construction of the planned development north-west of the railway line is dependent on the new transport infrastructure. However, the emerging development requires additional road infrastructure to facilitate accessibility and mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the town centre.

B12798D8/001 36 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

5. Need for Intervention

5.1 Introduction

This section summarises the findings from Chapters 3 and 4, and outcomes of previous and current consultation and engagement processes that have been undertaken (discussed further in Section 7.2). Current and future transport-related problems are highlighted and underlying causes identified that establish the need for an intervention on the A4010 corridor.

5.2 Consultation and engagement process

5.2.1 Overview of process

This OAR is informed by consultation and engagement with the local community, stakeholders, and the Princes Risborough Steering Group. A summary of the consultation is shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Consultation summary

The consultation with BCC/ WDC (held on 28 July 2015) and the Princes Risborough Steering Group (held on 29 July 2015) identified local problems and issues. These were considered and distilled into project objectives for the scheme.

5.3 Summary of current transport related problems and driver/ causes

Based on the information in Chapter 3 and above, the current transport related problems, drivers and causes are summarised in Table 5.1.

B12798D8/001 37 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Transport related problem Description of the problem (driver) Causes of the problem

Traffic congestion and journey time Congestion/slow moving traffic on Existing traffic flows on the A4010 reliability. This impacts on: A4010 Bell Street/New Road, are high. particularly at peak periods. • Increased journey time compared to Traffic speeds are reduced due to off-peak periods. Congestion in the town centre at volume of traffic and a series of the Tesco and New Road friction points including the • Reduced journey time reliability roundabouts roundabouts, buses, pedestrian which impacts on efficiency for Queuing on the A4010 between crossings, right-turn into Clifford business in A4010 Aylesbury – Road. Princes Risborough – High 15:30 to 18:00. Queueing can Wycombe corridor. occur in the opposite direction in Between 25% and 44% of the morning peak hour on the vehicles using the A4010 during • Higher congestion reduces traffic approach to Tesco’s roundabout the peak hours are trips that pass speeds and increases likelihood of through Princes Risborough. stop-start driving which increases noise and emissions. Pedestrian crossing outside Marks and Spencer causes • Higher risk of some collision types. queues to form. Network and junction capacity in The following link are approaching Volume of traffic during the AM Princes Risborough. capacity during the AM peak hour: and PM peak periods. • both directions between the Lack of an alternative north-south A4010/ B4444 and A4010/ route via the Princes Risborough New Road junctions; and area. • southbound direction between the A4010/ The Avenue and A4010/ Longwick Road junctions. The following link are approaching capacity during the PM peak hour: • southbound direction between the A4010/ B4444 and A4010/ New Road junctions; • over capacity in northbound direction between the A4010/ B4444 and A4010/ New Road junctions; • approaching capacity in northbound direction between the A4010/ Poppy Road and A4010/ B4444 junctions; and • approaching capacity in the northbound direction between the A4010/ The Avenue and A4010/ Longwick Road junctions.

The following junctions also experience delay of greater than one minute: • Grove Lane/ A4010 (during both the AM and PM peak

B12798D8/001 38 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Transport related problem Description of the problem (driver) Causes of the problem

hours); • Summerleys Road/ Regents Park (during the PM peak hour); • Summerleys Road/ Lower Icknield Way (during the PM peak hour). There are multiple other junctions along the A4010 corridor which experience delay of between 30 and 60 seconds.

Local rat-running Can be difficult to exit on to The Mill Lane/ A4010 junction is a A4010 Aylesbury Road from Mill priority T-junction. The A4010/ Lane, which can result in rat- C63 (through Askett) junction has running through Askett. greater capacity (roundabout). Local height and capacity constraints. Narrow road bridges above/ Pinch points at the railway below railway which are unsafe bridges, including: and/ or bottlenecks to traffic flows. • Summerleys Road (x3); • Lower Icknield Way; • Longwick Road; • Mill Lane; • C63 Askett Road (north of Askett); and • Grove Lane. Shuttle signal operation at the B4444 (Summerleys Road) bridge.

Car parking On street car parking restricts On-street car parking on roads traffic flow on streets in and that neighbour the station can around the station. cause traffic congestion (e.g. on the B4444). Insufficient car Car parking charges are parking at the railway station. perceived to be/ actually high in the town centre Poppy Road and Station Road Car parking issues around the are heavily parked due to the schools during pick up and drop majority of frontages not having off time. off street car parking. Parents dropping off and collecting children from school by car.

Pedestrian network Not all the pedestrian network Safety issue at the zebra crossing meets modern design standards/ outside St Teresa’s guidance. The pedestrian and cycle The A4010 is not an attractive connections between Longwick walking environment, nor is it and Princes Risborough are easy to cross. considered to be inadequate.

B12798D8/001 39 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Transport related problem Description of the problem (driver) Causes of the problem

‘Hostile’ walking environment considered to be the reason why there is not a lot of walking a cycling, despite the topography being flat (ish) in the town. Gradients on footways on Crowbrook Road not condusive to walking Severance/ segregation caused by the A4010 Cycle network Poor legibility of cycle routes Not all the pedestrian network Poor cycle assess to the schools meets modern design standards/ guidance. Conflicting views over town centre Inconsistency of types of cycle contra-flow cycle lane infrastructure which reduces Quality of cycle infrastructure and network legibility. lighting. Not all destinations are served by Poor connectivity to Longwick cycle infrastructure e.g. schools. There are no formal cycle routes between Princes Risborough and Longwick. Integration of transport modes Poor connectivity to Princes The legibility of routes is not Risborough Station by all modes, obvious, or route is not provided. and no link between the station and the Phoenix Trail cycle route.

HGV traffic HGV traffic is generally noisier, HGV and business traffic use more polluting, and more likely to Summerleys Road, Station Road result in a fatal accident if and Poppy Road. involved in a collision. A4010 through Princes Risborough is the most direct north-south route via Princes Risborough. Road safety There are clusters of personal There are likely to be multiple injury accidents at the Grove causes of the accidents, including Lane/ A4010, A4010 in town incidents relating due the delay to centre, and A4010/ Upper Icknield vehicles and traffic volume on the Way junction. A4010.

Table 5.1 Current (2013) transport related problems, drivers and causes

5.4 Impacts of not changing (future problems)

5.4.1 Impacts on movement and accessibility

Future population growth and development will inevitably impact travel across the local area and between Aylesbury and High Wycombe. As it stands, route choice and alternative modes for strategic north-south journeys are limited. This results in congestion and junction delays during peak travel times, which have negative implications economically, socially and environmentally.

B12798D8/001 40 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Increased traffic volumes would also likely exacerbate problems associated with journey time reliability, road safety, and HGV traffic volumes.

Such issues are anticipated to worsen in future, exacerbated by forecast traffic growth both locally and strategically.

5.4.2 Impacts on economic growth and prosperity

Productivity and prosperity are highest in those areas with higher value industries and high jobs densities. One of the key objectives outlined in BTVLEP’s SEP is to stimulate sustainable business growth, with priorities including, amongst others, improving Buckinghamshire’s export performance; operating an “Open for Business” planning service; and stimulating high growth start-up businesses. In supporting this, however, recognition is given to the critical inter-dependencies between economic growth and Buckinghamshire’s transport network.

Forecast levels of congestion, and associated journey time variability and unreliability, has the potential for far- reaching economic implications. Productivity losses can be associated with, and are principally driven by, the declining performance of the primary road network.

The forecast congestion will increase lost productive time for business travellers and commuters as it lengthens the distance between labour markets and businesses, which can affect commuting patterns, and reduce the potential for business-to-business activity. There is a risk that the benefit of locating in the A4010 corridor may not be realised should business and business critical infrastructure not come forward.

The A4010 also forms an inter-urban route which is used by freight. Congestion on these routes will impede the efficient movement of goods. The delays experienced by freight traffic on these routes as a result of increased traffic volumes and the interaction with local traffic will generate productivity losses to businesses at a regional level.

Impacts on society

Transport, particularly in terms of accessibility, is increasingly recognised as having a significant role to play in both the creation and alleviation of societal barriers. Increased traffic volumes on the A4010 may also exacerbate severance and affect sustainable travel, hindering movement by non-motorised modes and access to goods and services. It could also have negative implications for emergency vehicle access and response time.

In addition to the direct time costs created by congestion, there is evidence of welfare disbenefits associated with deteriorating travel conditions (e.g. frustration and annoyance). Resultant welfare disbenefits of transport- related problems would negatively impact quality of life and well-being.

Impacts on the environment

The level of emissions and noise closely relate to traffic flow, and are exacerbated when congestion and delay is more acute. Whilst there are no AQMAs in Princes Risborough and air quality measuring was suspended in this area because emissions were below acceptable thresholds, an increase in more widespread congestion may require air quality monitoring to resume. Noise and vibration problems would also be exacerbated as traffic volumes increase.

B12798D8/001 41 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

6. Objectives and Area of Impact

6.1 Introduction

This chapter of the report provides a summary of the objectives for the scheme. This is based on the evidence gathered from review of policies and baseline data, and community and stakeholder consultation with representatives of BCC, WDC, and the Princes Risborough Steering Group.

6.2 Objectives

The objectives for the scheme must be cognisant of policy, local circumstances, and stakeholder opinions. The following provides a summary of these, and a rationalised list of objectives is proposed against which the schemes will be appraised.

6.2.1 Regional and local policy

The regional and local policy priorities, themes and objectives are summarised in Table 6.1. The review of these are focused on the need for new road infrastructure. These policies include additional objectives relating to sustainable transport, which will be considered further in the development of a town wide transport strategy.

It is noted that the key strategic transport objective of the BTVLEP Strategic Economic Plan is:

“To create a smart, integrated transport network, which provides excellent multi-modal connectivity between key areas of housing and economic growth across the wider sub region.” This is the overarching statement which the transport option proposed should support.

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Strategic Economic Growth Plan

BTVLEP objectives Priorities

Stimulate more smart • Promote business resource efficiency and resilience. sustainable business growth • Making our major transport infrastructure fit for our economic purpose. Bring forward the necessary • business critical infrastructure Ensuring housing growth develops appropriately to meet the needs of businesses and communities. • Improving connectivity between the national road network and key employment hubs; • Improving connectivity between major settlements and key economic centres; • Improving connectivity between major settlements and existing/new rail connections; BTVLEP strategic transport • Supporting employment and housing enabling transport infrastructure; aims • Supporting the regeneration of our town centres; • Reducing congestion, improving journey times and journey time reliability; • Ensuring we maintain a high quality of life and natural environment, by promoting low carbon vehicles, innovative travel solutions; and reducing the inefficiency in existing transport systems; • Delivering a more co-ordinated and commercial approach to transport infrastructure and land-use planning.

B12798D8/001 42 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Buckinghamshire County Council Local Transport Plan 3

Themes Objectives

• Maintain or improve the reliability of journey times on key routes. • Improve the connectivity and access between key centres. • Thriving economy Deliver transport improvements to support and facilitate sustainable housing and employment growth. • Ensure local transport networks are resilient and adaptable to shocks and impacts. Sustainable environment • Protect, improve and maintain the local environment. Safe communities • Reduce the risk of death or injury on the county’s roads. Health and wellbeing • Reduce the negative impact of poor air quality.

LTP North West Chilterns Local Area Strategy

• Manage the challenge of residential and employment growth • Manage the negative impacts of the A4010 • Access between Princes Risborough Centre and rail station • Parking provision and management

WDC Adopted Core Strategy

Themes Objectives

• Review the key transport issues in the town, including the divisive effect of through traffic on the A4010 passing through the heart of the town, and the relationship between vehicles and pedestrians in the High Street and Transport and access town centre. • Improve access to the station and secure appropriate levels of station car parking. • Safeguard the historic core of the town and its Chiltern escarpment setting, reinforcing the towns distinctive sense of place. Environment • Create a simple structure for the town, maintaining the accessibility of the town centre and improving the interconnectivity between key parts of the town.

Table 6.1 Regional and local policy priorities, themes and objectives

6.2.2 Stakeholder objectives

A workshop was held on 28 July 2015 with representatives of WDC and BCC to understand the objectives of the stakeholders. The following were identified: • Reduce through traffic volume on the A4010 in the centre of Princes Risborough. • Promote economic growth in the Princes Risborough area. • Improve connectivity to railway stations by sustainable modes. • Improve connectivity for north-south movement for the ‘strategic’ traffic movements. • Support town centre vitality. • Improve journey time reliability for through traffic. • Improve safety, attractiveness and directness of connections to key destinations via active modes.

B12798D8/001 43 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

• Distribute development traffic onto the new road. • Provide network capacity for growth. • Provide connections to wider pedestrian and cycle infrastructure. • Integrate the existing and expanding town (reduce the severance of road and rail). • Develop a road scheme that is feasible in terms of funding (by developers and bid), land availability, and environmental impact. • Manage the wider network capacity to mitigate the impact of the development.

6.2.3 Princes Risborough Steering Group objectives

A workshop was held on 29 July 2015 with representatives of the Princes Risborough Steering Group to understand their objectives. The following were identified: • Improve north south journey time and connectivity for through traffic. • Reduce traffic congestion/ density within Princes Risborough. • Relieve town centre congestion. • Improve accessibility to the railway station. • Improve accessibility to Princes Risborough as a place and destination. • Provide additional/ suitable capacity to cater for future housing developments. • Attempt to provide better business attractiveness to the area e.g. road, rail, broadband. • Stimulate economic growth and prosperity. • Minimise the impact of the new road on the environment and heritage. • Improve road safety. • Minimise rat running. • Reduce severance. • Integrate new development in the town and manage new traffic growth.

6.2.4 Objective summary

There are common themes running through the policy, stakeholder, and steering group objectives. These can be distilled into the following broad objectives for the scheme. It is noted that the order below does not denote ranking or hierarchy of the objectives. • Maintain or improve journey times and reliability for north-south traffic movement via the Princes Risborough area to improve north-south connectivity and access between urban centres. • Reduce through traffic volumes, congestion and severance on the A4010 in Princes Risborough Town Centre by redistributing this traffic. • Facilitate the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough, north of the east-west railway line. • Provide network capacity to facilitate the housing growth of Princes Risborough and manage/ mitigate the wider road network capacity. • Stimulate growth in employment development in Princes Risborough through improved accessibility, business efficiency, and resilience. • Improve the vitality of the town centre in Princes Risborough. • Protect, improve, and maintain the local environment and heritage.

B12798D8/001 44 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

• Improve the safety/ reduce the risk of death or injury on roads in Princes Risborough, but particularly the A4010 through Princes Risborough. • Improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport to, from and within the town to the railway stations, town centre, and other key destinations in the town (e.g. schools). • Develop a scheme that is feasible and deliverable in terms including funding (by developers and bid). • Ensure the infrastructure options for Princes Risborough integrate with the Highway Authority’s emerging strategy to improve north-south connectivity through Buckinghamshire.

6.3 Targets

The transport improvements of the intervention options will result in a range of measurable impacts on traffic and travel conditions. Impacts and measurable indicators relevant to improving conditions on the A4010 could include. • Delivery of identified housing for Princes Risborough measured by the number of homes/jobs delivered/occupied. • Reduced congestion on the A4010 in the town centre and improved journey reliability for north-south traffic movements measured by traffic volume and relative difference in peak/off-peak journey times. • Enhanced connectivity reflected by absolute journey time improvements on key routes compared against the 2036 do minimum situation. • Improved/sustained air quality and reduced traffic noise on the A4010 in the town centre.

Setting targets is an iterative process and they will evolve as further evidence is collected. Final targets would be developed during full business case development, in line with the principles listed above, and set out as ‘SMART’ (Specific-Measurable-Accepted-Realistic-Time defined) targets.

6.4 Geographic area of impact

The local geographical area of impact to be addressed by potential intervention is informed by the evidence sourced from sections 2, 3 and 4 of this report. The indicative geographical area of impact is shown in Figure 6.1. The wider area of impact includes the roads on the approaches to Chinnor, Thame, Aylesbury, and High Wycombe.

B12798D8/001 45 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 6.1 Geographic area of impact

B12798D8/001 46 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

7. Option Generation

7.1 Introduction

This chapter sets out the options that have been proposed through previous studies, an open day with the residents of Princes Risborough, workshop with stakeholders, and a workshop with the Princes Risborough Steering Group. These will be subject to initial sifting using the DfT’s Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST), which is discussed further in Chapter 8.

BCC’s LTP3 states that the current road network is likely to be put under significant pressure in the future leading to increased congestion and poor connectivity (especially north-south) that ultimately will have a negative impact on the local economy. Coupled with the fact the emerging development will place additional demand on the A4010 corridor, the BTVLEP objectives, and that BCC has identified north-south improvements as important in their Infrastructure Appraisal Tool, suggests that additional road infrastructure will be required.

It is acknowledged that East-West Rail is a Network Rail project external to this process, which will further improve connectivity through the county. Therefore, the focus of this OAR is on road alignments.

7.2 Option generation

7.2.1 Princes Risborough Area Transport Study (January 2014)

Jacobs was previously commissioned by BCC to undertake a transport study to assess the implications of housing growth and potential associated transport infrastructure requirements. This considered two alignments of the new road and these are shown in Figure 7.1 and defined as options 1 and 2. The report concluded that option 1 was preferred, but the purpose of this study is to further develop understanding of potential options in the context of the OAR and SOBC processes.

7.2.2 Public open day

A public open day was held in Princes Risborough on the 17 July 2015. The purpose of this was to present the vision for the town centre and emerging development to provide an opportunity for the public to propose potential options for consideration in this study. This event yielded eight options for consideration, and these are shown in Figures 7.2 and 7.3.

7.2.3 Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop

A workshop was held with the Princes Risborough Steering Group on 29 July 2015. This yielded six options, two of which were only minor variations at the southern end of the potential route. These are shown in Figures 7.4 and 7.5.

7.2.4 Other options

The form and character of a potential new road through the development can be designed to adopt ‘street’ rather than ‘road’ characteristics. Therefore, an additional option (option 15) is included which follows an alignment consistent with option 11a/ 11b, but is designed with greater weight given to the principles outlined in Manual for Streets. Options 15a and 15b are shown in Figure 7.6. The initial sifting also triggered discussion regarding a further three options. Options 16a and 16b emerged from discussions surrounding option 8 and these are shown in Figure 7.7. Consideration has also been given to an inner option which aligns through the proposed development, beneath the London to Birmingham mainline railway, and east of Horsenden before it connects to the northern end of Shootacre Lane. This is labelled option 17 and is shown in Figure 7.8.

Other options that were not raised during the aforementioned discussions, which can be discounted prior to the EAST process include:

B12798D8/001 47 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

• tunnel under Princes Risborough; • bridge over Princes Risborough Town Centre; and • online widening to a dual carriageway of the A4010 to increase road capacity.

Figure 7.1 New road options 1 and 2

B12798D8/001 48 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 7.2 Options 3 to 6 from public open day

B12798D8/001 49 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 7.3 Options 7 to 10 from public open day

B12798D8/001 50 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 7.4 Options 11a, 11b and 12 from Princes Risborough Steering Group Workshop

B12798D8/001 51 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 7.5 Options 13a, 13b and 14 from Princes Risborough Steering Group Workshop

B12798D8/001 52 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 7.6 Options 15a and 15b ‘street’ design principles adopted for alignment

B12798D8/001 53 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 7.7 Options 16a and 16b

B12798D8/001 54 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 7.8 Option 17

B12798D8/001 55 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

8. Initial Sifting

8.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the initial sifting of the multiple options outlined in Chapter 7 of this report. The sifting is a two stage process utilising the project objectives and EAST to allow the number of options to be filtered to provide a more manageable number of options to be taken through to appraisal.

8.2 Pre-EAST sifting and assessment

The objectives outlined previously were developed in consultation with stakeholders. These have been allocated a letter between A and J to assist with reporting. Table 8.1 identifies the objectives and the letter that has been allocated.

Identifier Objective

Maintain or improve journey times and reliability for north-south traffic movement via the Princes A Risborough area to improve north-south connectivity and access between urban centres. Reduce through traffic volumes, congestion and severance on the A4010 in Princes Risborough B Town Centre by redistributing this traffic onto the new road. Facilitate the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes C Risborough, north of the east-west railway line. Provide network capacity to facilitate the housing growth of Princes Risborough and manage/ D mitigate the wider road network capacity. Stimulate growth in employment development in Princes Risborough through improved E accessibility, business efficiency, and resilience. F Improve the vitality of the town centre in Princes Risborough. G Protect, improve, and maintain the local environment and heritage. Improve the safety/ reduce the risk of death or injury on roads in Princes Risborough, but H particularly the A4010 through Princes Risborough. Improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport to, from and within the town to the I railway stations, town centre, and other key destinations in the town (e.g. schools). Develop a road scheme that is feasible and deliverable in terms including funding (by developers J and bid). Ensure the road infrastructure options for Princes Risborough integrate with the Highway K Authority’s emerging strategy to improve north-south connectivity through Buckinghamshire.

Table 8.1: Scheme objectives

A pre-EAST assessment has been undertaken to eliminate options which do not deliver/ have minimal alignment with the objectives outlined in Table 8.1. This preliminary assessment utilises a score system of 1 to 5 and does not weight any of the objectives at this stage as the purpose of this step is to define whether an option is eliminated, rather than determine the preferred option.

The preliminary assessment is shown in Table 8.2. This preliminary assessment suggests that the following options should be eliminated from further review prior to EAST because they either have a score of 1 against one or more of the objectives, or achieves a total score of 28 or lower (approximately 50% of the available marks). • Option 3: This option is aligned straight through a SAM and is therefore removed. • Option 5: This option proposed elevating the road and aligning above the railway. There are delivery issues associated with doing this.

B12798D8/001 56 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

• Option 7: This option proposed a new road south of Princes Risborough. This will not facilitate growth in development in the town. • Option 9: This alignment extends wide of the town centre and would require a significant amount of road widening. There is also likely to be a negative impact on listed buildings along this alignment. • Option 14: This option proposes improvement to the B4009 to provide an upgraded route to the M40 via Chinnor. This is considered to offer less improvement to north-south connectivity between Aylesbury and High Wycombe as anecdotal evidence provided by the steering group is that the A4010 is the preferred corridor. The review also scores option 8 lower than options 1, 11a and 11b due to the feasibility of providing a road connection through the Parkfield/ Brookfield House area. It is possible to realign the southern section of the route to the same alignment shown in options 11a, 11b, 13a and 13b. The amended option 8 evolved into options 16a and 16b which are included in the preliminary assessment table below.

Objective Option Score A B C D E F G H I J K 1 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 48 2 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 41 3 4 4 3 4 5 4 1 4 3 3 4 39 4 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 41 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 1 5 3 1 4 42 6 3 3 4 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 37 7 5 5 1 1 1 5 1 5 3 1 4 32 8 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 2 4 46 9 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 28 10 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 2 4 40 11a 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 2 4 4 47 11b 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 48 12 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 41 13a 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 2 4 4 42 13b 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 2 4 4 41 14 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 24 15a 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 2 4 4 47 15b 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 48 16a 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 2 4 4 47 16b 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 48 17 4 5 4 5 5 5 2 5 3 3 4 45 Scoring system for options 1 (Low) Does not meet objective 2 3 4 5 (High) Higher level of support/ delivery of objective

Table 8.2: Preliminary assessment of options against scheme objectives

B12798D8/001 57 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

The road alignment at the northern end of the route for all options (between the A4010 and B4009) will need to be explored in greater detail as part the road design study. The reason for this is that a new alignment will be required and this would need to include a new road/ rail bridge offline of the existing route.

8.3 Early assessment and sifting

EAST has been utilised to guide this process and considers the options carried forward from the previous pre- EAST assessment. Both processes are designed to be high level review of options to identify the merits and weaknesses of different options. EAST is consistent with transport business case principles and has been developed to summarise and present evidence on options in a clear and consistent format. It utilises a 5-point / Red/Amber/Green (RAG) scoring system for each of the assessment areas, which aims to facilitate the early assessment and comparison of scheme options.

EAST guidance states that it is a decision support tool that can be used to:18 • help refine options by highlighting adverse impacts or unanticipated consequences; • compare options; • identify trade-offs between objectives aiding package development; • filter the number of options to discount non-runners early in the process; and • identify key uncertainties in the analysis and areas where further appraisal efforts should focus.

As every result from each area must be converted to a standardised number score during the process, it is necessary to explain the underlying considerations to clarify the sifting process. The following aspects were considered: • The strategic score relates to the scale of impact, fit with objectives, and consensus over scheme outcomes. • In order to determine the economic score, all values derived from EAST are scored and summed. Accordingly, the higher the economic score of an individual scheme, the more positive its economic impacts on the area considered. The value for money score is omitted as the benefit cost ratio will be determined post modelling of options. • The managerial score considers the expected implementation time, practical feasibility and public acceptance of each option. Hence, a high score in this category represents a combination of a short implementation time and high feasibility and public acceptability that is supported by a robust assessment framework and evidence. For the purposes of this assessment, the implementation timetable is considered to be the same for all options (road opening by 2021). Therefore, no score is considered for this criteria within the managerial score. • In the finance category, attention has been paid to the affordability, capital cost, and overall cost risk of the scheme. Given no revenue is expected from any of the options, no score for this aspect is applied to any of the options. The capital cost of each option is ranked from low to high. Therefore, the score applied need to be inversed so that lower cost options are considered more favourably. • Finally, the commercial score mainly represents the flexibility of every single option. The more flexible it is, the higher the rating applied. At this stage the alignment can still be fluid should the masterplan require moderate realignment.

The outcomes of the EAST analysis are shown in the summary Table 8.3, which is intended to provide a visual guide of the relative performance of each option. Detail of the assessment of each option is included in Appendix D.

18 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4475/east-guidance.pdf

B12798D8/001 58 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Option Comments TOTAL Strategic Economic Management Financial Commercial This route was determined as being preferable in previous work which considered this option against option 2. The 1 16 21 11 12 3 63 southern section of the route via Shootacre Lane might be more preferable if via the potential development site north east of Shootacre Lane. This route is via Horsenden and is therefore likely to meet with local opposition. There are also environmental and 2 13 18 10 11 2 54 heritage issues which will make the option less attractive. The alignment of the road is longer than other options and therefore likely to result in less economic benefit than alternatives such as 13a/13b and 17. This route is west of Horsenden and ties into Shootacre 4 14 19 11 11 3 58 Lane. It will require multiple railway bridges to be upgraded and new bridges to be provided. This route is via the north western side of the development site, west of Horsenden and ties into Shootacre Lane. It will require multiple railway bridges to be upgraded and new 6 11 18 8 10 3 50 bridges to be provided. The alignment is very circuitous to avoid constraints but as a consequence is unlikely to provide the journey time benefit required to facilitate traffic reassignment. The route runs close to the railway line. It would offer similar access to the planned development. At this stage 8 16 21 9 11 3 60 constraints/ significant unknowns are the sewerage treatment works and the existing residential area which would need to be acquired. This route crosses railway lines multiple times and is wider 10 12 18 8 9 3 50 which means that design would need to be higher speed to deliver journey time benefits. This route was defined in the Princes Risborough Steering 11a 16 21 11 12 3 63 Group workshop. The southern section of the route is via the AONB. This route was defined in the Princes Risborough Steering 11b 16 21 11 12 3 63 Group workshop. The southern section of the route is via Shootacre Lane. This route is west of Horsenden and ties into Shootacre 12 14 19 11 11 3 58 Lane. It will require multiple railway bridges to be upgraded and new bridges to be provided. This route was defined in the Princes Risborough Steering 13a 15 21 11 11 2 60 Group workshop. The route is via Lower Icknield Way and Summerleys Road. The route requires improvements to four railway bridges. The route is via the AONB. This route was defined in the Princes Risborough Steering 13b 15 21 11 11 2 60 Group workshop. The route is via Lower Icknield Way and Summerleys Road. The route requires improvements to four railway bridges and follows Shootacre Lane. The alignment of this route was defined in the Princes 15a 16 21 11 12 3 63 Risborough Steering Group workshop. The southern section of the route is via the AONB. The character of the road corridor will be designed to accord more with the principles of

B12798D8/001 59 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Option Comments TOTAL Strategic Economic Management Financial Commercial Manual for Streets and will be more akin to a ‘boulevard’.

The alignment for this route was defined in the Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop. The southern section 15b 16 21 11 12 3 63 of the route is via Shootacre Lane. The character of the road corridor will be designed to accord more with the principles of Manual for Streets and will be more akin to a ‘boulevard’. The route runs close to the railway line. It would offer similar access to the planned development. At this stage 16a 15 21 11 12 3 62 constraints/ significant unknowns are the sewerage treatment works. The southern section of the alignment is via the area of AONB. The route runs close to the railway line. It would offer similar access to the planned development. At this stage 16b 15 21 11 12 3 62 constraints/ significant unknowns are the sewerage treatment works. The southern section of the alignment is via the Shootacre Lane. This route is east of Horsenden and ties into Shootacre Lane. 17 14 20 11 11 3 59 It will require multiple railway bridges to be upgraded and new bridges to be provided.

Table 8.3: EAST summary The EAST process indicates that there are further options that can be removed from further appraisal, including: • Option 1: Similar to option 11a. Therefore only option 11a will be considered for further appraisal. • Option 2: This route is via Horsenden Lane and has already met with local opposition. There are also environmental and heritage issues which will make the option less attractive. The alignment of the road is longer than other options and therefore likely to result in less economic benefit than alternatives such as 13a/13b and 17. Option 17 is also seen as a positive option by the Princes Risborough Steering Group. • Option 4: It will require multiple railway bridges to be upgraded and new bridges to be provided. It has a similar alignment to option 12 which was proposed by the Princes Risborough Steering Group. Therefore option 12 will be considered for further appraisal. • Option 6: The alignment is very circuitous to avoid constraints but as a consequence is unlikely to provide the journey time benefit required to facilitate traffic reassignment. • Option 8: The route has constraints/ significant unknowns including the sewerage treatment works and the existing residential area which would need to be acquired. An amended alignment has been incorporated into the appraisal. • Option 10: Crosses railway line multiple times and route is wider which would increase the cost of the scheme to a level that is likely to be significantly higher than other options.

8.4 Options for appraisal

The following options were considered for modelling and further appraisal: • Option 11a and 11b • Option 12 • Option 13a and 13b

B12798D8/001 60 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

• Option 15a and 15b • Option 16a and 16b • Option 17

B12798D8/001 61 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

9. Development and Assessment of Options

9.1 Introduction

This section presents the assessment of the scheme in terms of overall network performance and value for money (VfM). It outlines the appraisal process and assessment methodology adopted in order to distinguish the costs, benefits and impacts of the scheme. The outcomes of this section will demonstrate the suitability of the scheme for funding through the local growth deal and will inform a full business case for the scheme.

This section also presents the further assessment of the scheme against the ‘5 Cases Model’ criteria – strategic, value for money (economic), financial, commercial and delivery (management) to further understand the potential benefits of the preferred options.

9.2 Assessment methodology

The assessment requires four scenarios to be considered. Scenarios A and B were covered in Chapter 4 of this report. Scenario C is used to determine the options for economic assessment and Scenario D is used to determine the transport economic benefit.

The development growth scenarios for the above are shown in Appendix C. It is noted that Scenarios A and D are capped to NTEM/ TEMPRO growth, but the development growth included in Scenarios B and C comprises NTEM plus the emerging PRTP development.

The BCC Countywide Model has been used as the basis for producing a local area model. The model reflects typical weekday morning and evening peak traffic conditions.

For the purposes of this report, the potential options are referred to as ‘do something’ scenarios. Model forecasts were prepared for two forecast years: 2021 and 2036, corresponding to the preferred and next best scheme opening year and fifteen years thereafter. The land-use and highway network has been updated to reflect projected schemes anticipated to be in place by each of the respective years.

The assessment of the options initially uses the outputs from Scenario C to refine the shortlist. These are then considered using guidance set out in the DfT’s Transport Appraisal Process, with evidence presented in relation to the: • Strategic case – including fit with other relevant local, regional and national objectives, programmes and strategies; • Economic (value for money) case – including an assessment of the impact of each option on the economy, environment, and society. This assessment includes distributional impacts wherever feasible; • Managerial (delivery) case – including deliverability analysis and stakeholder and public acceptability; • Financial case – including funding and affordability analysis (including commercial viability where applicable) and a preliminary cost/risk/optimism bias assessment; and • Commercial case – analysis of potential route to procurement.

B12798D8/001 62 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 9.1: Assessment methodology

B12798D8/001 63 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

9.3 Stages 1 to 3

The modelling results from the 2013 base and 2036 do minimum scenario were discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report. They show that the emerging development is dependent upon new road infrastructure, and that traffic congestion increases in the future.

9.4 Stage 4

The modelling of Scenario C is undertaken for the road alignment options shortlisted. Chapters 5 and 6 defined the need for the intervention and project objectives against which the schemes have been appraised. The following nine road alignment options were taken forward for further appraisal and modelling using the BCC Countywide VISUM traffic model. • Option 11a • Option 11b • Option 12 • Option 13a • Option 13b • Option 15a • Option 15b • Option 16a • Option 16b • Option 17

9.4.1 Evaluation of options against project objectives

The performance of these options is considered in the context of the project objectives which have been defined in consultation with stakeholders and the Princes Risborough Steering Group. The objectives are considered in turn. Maintain or improve journey times and reliability for north-south traffic movement via the Princes Risborough area to improve north-south connectivity and access between urban centres. A key objective of the BTVLEP is to improve north-south connectivity between major settlements and key economic centres through improvement of journey times and journey time reliability. This is echoed in Buckinghamshire County Council’s LTP3, and stakeholder and steering group objectives for the scheme. The north-south journey times between locations north of Grove Lane and south of Shootacre Lane have been compared for 2013 and Scenario C. The comparison vs 2013 base journey times on the A40101 are shown in Table 9.1. This shows that all options offer some improvement against the existing situation, with options 11a, 11b, 16a, 16b, and 17 appearing to offer the greatest benefit, followed by option 12. In general, there is not a significant difference between results for the A and B options for an alignment. Therefore, other considerations regarding deliverability, environment and heritage may take precedence when selecting between the A and B route of an option.

B12798D8/001 64 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Table 9.1 North-south journey times (minutes: seconds) for the A4010 and road alignment option (Scenario C), and comparison vs 2013 base

A4010 New Road Alignment Option Scenario/ Direction Option AM PM AM PM

2013 base Southbound 11m 7s 10m 8s Northbound 10m 9s 11m 41s

C/11a Southbound 10m 35s 9m 41s 10m 37s 9m 34s Northbound 10m 26s 10m 43s 10m 15s 10m 31s

Southbound 11m 5s 9m 48s 10m 52s 9m 41s C/11b Northbound 10m 30s 10m 48s 10m 15s 10m 33s

C/12 Southbound 11m 44s 10m 22s 10m 57s 10m 5s Northbound 10m 57s 11m 21s 10m 4s 10m 37s

11m 3s 9m 56s 11m 46s 10m 35s C/13a Southbound Northbound 10m 56s 11m 39s 11m 12s 11m 30s

Southbound 11m 16s 10m 2s 11m 39s 10m 33s C/13b Northbound 11m 19s 11m 29s 11m 3s 11m 26s

C/15A Southbound 10m 40s 9m 51s 12m 13s 10m 52s Northbound 11m 17s 11m 28s 11m 18s 11m 41s

Southbound 11m 8s 9m 58s 12m 33s 11m 3s C/15b Northbound 11m 11s 11m 32s 11m 35s 11m 58s

Southbound 10m 33s 9m 41s 10m 48s 9m 43s C/16a Northbound 10m 40s 10m 59s 10m 22s 10m 40s

C/16b Southbound 10m 49s 9m 58s 10m 45s 9m 39s Northbound 10m 38s 11m 0s 10m 12s 10m 40s

17 Southbound 11m 12s 9m 47s 10m 47s 9m 30s Northbound 10m 32s 10m 36s 9m 43s 10m 18s

B12798D8/001 65 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Reduce through traffic volumes, congestion and severance on the A4010 in Princes Risborough Town Centre by redistributing this traffic onto the new road. The traffic model allows comparison of traffic volumes on different sections of the road for the different scenarios. Tables 9.2 and 9.3 provide traffic data and percentage changes for three roads, which were identified by the steering group as being sensitive in the local area (Poppy Road, New Road, and C63 through Askett) for the AM and PM peak hours in both directions. This shows that vs 2013 base, options 11a, 11b, and 13a are best for reducing traffic volumes on Poppy Road. Options 12 and 17 show an increase in traffic, but this could be mitigated by introducing the new link road through the site south of the railway station. Option 17 offers the greatest traffic reduction on New Road in the town centre. In all options there is a similar trend for the changes in traffic through Askett. The model shows an increase in traffic through Askett vs 2013 base, which emphasises the need for the wider emerging transport strategy. The attractiveness of the existing A4010 or the new road is dependent upon the journey time, delay and congestion on each route. Review of the model shows: • Options 11a/ 11b: - AM peak hour: northbound traffic uses the new road, but southbound traffic remains on the A4010. - PM peak hour: northbound traffic split across the new road and A4010, but southbound traffic remains on the A4010. • Option 12: - AM peak hour: southbound traffic split across the new road and A4010, but northbound uses the new road. - PM peak hour: southbound traffic uses the A4010, and northbound traffic uses the new road. • Option 13a/ 13b: - Through traffic remains on the A4010. No traffic using the new road, except in the AM peak for option 13b, where a nominal amount of traffic uses the new road. • Option 15a/ 15b: - Through traffic remains on the A4010 in both peak hours. Interrogation of the model shows higher development traffic volumes on the new road, which is facilitating the development, but making the new road less attractive for through traffic to use. • Option 16a/16b: - AM peak hour: northbound traffic uses the new road, but southbound traffic remains on the A4010. - PM peak hour: northbound traffic split across the new road and A4010, but southbound traffic remains on the A4010. • Option 17: - AM peak hour: northbound traffic uses the new road, but southbound traffic remains on the A4010. - PM peak hour: northbound traffic split across the new road and A4010, but southbound traffic remains on the A4010. This shows that options 11a, 11b, 12, 16a, 16b and 17 each remove a varying proportion of the through traffic from the town centre. The modelling shows that through traffic remains on the A4010 in both peak hours in options 15a and 15b. Traffic congestion can be considered to be a measure of delay at junctions and on links. The delay at junctions has been determined from the BCC Countywide Model and a summary of the delay at junctions in the A4010 corridor between the Grove Lane/ A4010 and Shootacre/ A4010 junctions is shown in Table 9.4. Using a scoring system, where junctions delays of less than 30 seconds equals 0, 30 seconds to one minute equals one, one to two minutes equals two, and greater than two minutes equals three, the options can be reviewed in terms of the junction delay in the A4010 corridor through Princes Risborough. The scores show that options 11b, 17,15b, and 16b perform best, and options 12, 13a and 15a perform worst.

B12798D8/001 66 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Table 9.2 2013 and 2036 Traffic volumes on sections of the road network identified in consultation 2013 2036 Scenario Base C-11A C-11B C-12 C-13A C-13B C-15A C-15B C-16A C-16B C-17 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

Poppy Road Southbound 116 146 118 82 61 81 191 194 108 78 195 198 153 148 141 169 121 82 199 215 93 147 Northbound 107 113 78 108 83 108 595 558 82 108 210 178 83 109 83 109 80 108 160 166 441 264 New Road Southbound 734 720 637 697 629 683 713 761 666 740 651 744 667 743 665 726 628 711 640 722 562 568 Northbound 814 1001 814 742 824 770 849 763 919 866 876 867 937 874 911 875 845 781 872 801 693 618 Askett (C63) Southbound 196 194 412 299 401 298 423 342 386 281 391 279 400 291 386 289 395 286 414 309 415 303 Northbound 138 179 281 336 288 336 229 289 211 311 218 298 281 351 283 348 271 341 286 356 276 308

Table 9.3 % change in traffic volumes (2036 Scenario and 2013 Base) 2036 C-11A C-11B C-12 C-13A C-13B C-15A C-15B C-16A C-16B C-17 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

Poppy SB 2% -44% -47% -45% 65% 33% -7% -47% 68% 36% 32% 1% 22% 16% 4% -44% 72% 47% -20% 1% Road NB -27% -4% -22% -4% 456% 394% -23% -4% 96% 58% -22% -4% -22% -4% -25% -4% 50% 47% 312% 134% New Road SB -13% -3% -14% -5% -3% 6% -9% 3% -11% 3% -9% 3% -9% 1% -14% -1% -13% 0% -23% -21% NB 0% -26% 1% -23% 4% -24% 13% -13% 8% -13% 15% -13% 12% -13% 4% -22% 7% -20% -15% -38% Askett SB 110% 54% 105% 54% 116% 76% 97% 45% 99% 44% 104% 50% 97% 49% 102% 47% 111% 59% 112% 56% (C63) NB 104% 88% 109% 88% 66% 61% 53% 74% 58% 66% 104% 96% 105% 94% 96% 91% 107% 99% 100% 72%

Reduction Increase -1% to -10% 1% to 10% -11% to -25% 11% to 25% -26% to -50% 26% to 50% -51% to -100% 51% to 100% >-100% >100%

B12798D8/001 67 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Table 9.4 Junction delay at locations along A4010 corridor between Shootacre Lane and Grove Lane Junction 2013 2036 Scenario Base C-11A C-11B C-12 C-13A C-13B C-15A C-15B C-16A C-16B C-17 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Shootacre Lane/ A4010 Woodway/ A4010 Upper Icknield Way (S)/ A4010 Upper Icknield Way (N)/ A4010 Poppy Road/ A4010 Jasmine Crescent/ A4010 New Road/ Bell Street/ New Road A4010 New Road A4010/ Duke Street/ Longwick Road/ A4010 The Avenue/ A4010 Peters Lane/ A4010 Mill Lane/ A4010 Cadsden Road/ A4010 Church Lane/ A4010 Grove Lane/ A4010 TOTAL 7 6 9 8 5 2 10 10 11 9 9 5 12 9 6 6 10 8 7 3 4 3 Combined TOTAL 13 17 7 20 20 14 21 12 18 10 7

Junction Delay <30 seconds 0 1 minute to 2 minutes 2 30 seconds to 1 minute 1 > 2 minutes 3

B12798D8/001 68 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Facilitate the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough, north of the east-west railway line. Provide network capacity to facilitate the housing growth of Princes Risborough and manage/ mitigate the wider road network capacity. Stimulate growth in employment development in Princes Risborough through improved accessibility, business efficiency, and resilience. The three objectives above are closely related and for the purposes of this OAR draw upon the same transport evidence to determine the merits of each of the options. A sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough north east of the railway line would require the development to provide infrastructure to facilitate travel to/ from the town centre by walking, cycling, and public transport. Options which provide the road through development (11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, and 16b) afford an opportunity to provide dedicated footways and cycleways as part of the scheme. 11a, 11b, 15a and 15b provide a more centralised route through the development site, compared to 16a and 16b, so these would logically be better for travel along the corridor for a greater number of residents and employees. It is assumed that the development would provide an internal road, footway/path and cycleway/ path network, if one of options 12, 13a, 13b or 17 were promoted as the preferred scheme. It is also assumed that access for all modes would be provided to Summerleys Road in the southern corner of the development site. Overall, it is anticipated that the expansion of Princes Risborough would need to incorporate facilities which increase the number of people walking, cycling, and use of public transport to destinations including the station and town centre. Therefore, prior to the development of a masterplan, it has to be assumed that the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough, north of the east- west railway line is an absolute requirement of the development and therefore common to all schemes that are being considered in this OAR. Chapters 3 and 4 demonstrated that the planned development is dependent upon new road infrastructure as the growth would exacerbate delay and congestion. Therefore, it is reasonable to appraise performance of an option against the volume of development traffic forecast to use the road, and the change in traffic volumes at locations identified in the road network as being locally sensitive. The development traffic is forecast to take varying routes, depending upon the new road infrastructure that is provided. Broadly roads which are aligned through the development (options 11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, 16b, and 17) are more attractive to trips to/ from the proposed development, and the connection between Summerleys Road and the A4010 via the emerging development site south of the Princes Risborough Station is important to reduce traffic on Poppys Road and the section of Station Road between Summerleys Road and Poppy Road. The model also shows that the lowest volume of development traffic using any of the schemes is shown to be for option 12. Whilst the new section west of Horsenden provides wider road network capacity and therefore would be attractive to through traffic, no development traffic is forecast to use this section of the road. Therefore, this section appears to serve no purpose in the context of facilitating growth in housing and employment in this area. Options 13a and 13b also seem to provide some benefit to development traffic. All options would include realignment of the Grove Lane/ A4010 junction, which would help facilitate the proposed development as this would overcome the bottleneck at the existing Grove Lane/ A4010 junction. Improve the vitality of the town centre in Princes Risborough. This objective has greater relevance to the emerging transport strategy for the town centre and surrounds. The proposed development will increase the local population and therefore provide a greater number of local residents to help boost the vitality of the town centre. Delivering an alternative traffic route creates the opportunity to improve the town centre highway environment by introducing measures to calm and civilise traffic, increasing its ‘place’ values. It will reduce severance across the town centre, creating a safer and more congenial environment for shoppers and visitors. It introduces the capacity to dedicate more highway space for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and parking. This will boost the economic potential of the town centre, attracting more shoppers and retail uses.

B12798D8/001 69 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Protect, improve, and maintain the local environment and heritage.

This section summarises the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed alignments in relation to the environmental receptors discussed in the previous sections.

Air quality

All of the proposed options could result in negative air quality impacts along Picts Lane, Lower Icknield Way, and Grove Lane. All options, with the exception of options 12 and 17, could result in impacts to Summerleys Road (south) and Station Road. Option 12 and 17 could have an additional impact on Horsenden. Options 11b, 12, 13b, 15b, 16b and 17 could have additional impact on Shootacre Lane. Options 13a and 13b could have additional impacts on Summerleys Road. All options except 15a and 15b have the potential to improve air quality in the Princes Risborough Town Centre through reduced traffic volumes.

Although there are differences between the proposed options, all of them have the potential to result in changes in traffic flow across different sections of the road network. Therefore at this stage no preferred option has been identified for air quality.

Noise and vibration

Similar noise impacts could be expected on the receptors around the existing road network. In addition, the setting of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery on Hemley Hill Scheduled Monument could be affected by noise impacts as it is located approximately 70m from options 11b, 12, 13b, 15b, 16b and 17.

Although there are differences between the proposed options, all of them have the potential to result in changes in traffic flow across the network. Therefore at this stage no preferred option has been identified for noise and vibration.

Cultural heritage

Options 11b, 12, 13b, 15b, 16b and 17 would be located within 500m of four SAMs located around Saunderton. There are also ANAs in this area associated with the SAMs, with options 12 and 17 travelling across one ANA, just south of Horsenden. The majority of Listed Buildings in the study area are located in the Conservation Areas, and are unlikely to be impacted by any of the proposed options. However, the setting of these Conservation Areas could be affected, particularly Alscot Conservation Area (options 11a, 11b, 15a, and 15b) and Horsenden Conservation Area (options 12 and 17).

Based on this option 13a is least likely to impact heritage assets. Options 12 and 17 are the least preferable options as they have the most potential to impact Conservation Areas and archaeological remains.

Landscape

All of the proposed options would require development in the Chilterns AONB and Metropolitan Green Belt. All options with the exception of options 12 and 17 would likely impact TPOs located on Picts Lane; options 13a, 13b and 17 could have an additional impact on TPOs located on Summerleys Road and Horsenden Lane. Options 11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, 16b and 17 would take place within strategic land designated for future development, and this is assessed as having a low sensitivity to landscape impacts. Options 12 and 17 would be developed in land west of Princes Risborough, which could permanently impact the openness of the landscape.

Options 11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, and 16b would all be located in designated development land assessed as low sensitivity to visual impact, and are therefore the preferred options. Options 12 and 17 are the least preferable options in relation to landscape as they could be expected to have the most impact on landscape setting, particularly around Horsenden.

B12798D8/001 70 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Ecology and nature conservation

It is considered unlikely that any of the proposed options will have a direct impact on the national and European designated sites and ancient woodland located within the study area. However, it is possible that designated sites could be indirectly impacted by poor air quality as a result of the scheme; this is particularly true for the Chilterns Beechwoods SAC, which is located approximately 800m from all options.

Options 16a, 16b, and 17 will have a direct impact on Longwick Bog LWS, as the alignments pass directly through the site. Options 12, 13a, and 13b could have an impact on BNSs as the alignments are adjacent the sites. During the design development these impacts would need to be reduced as far as reasonably practicable and mitigation implemented for the residual impact. This could include for example, measures to reduce the construction footprint of the scheme and reviewing specific site sensitivities in order to investigate ways of avoiding areas of higher sensitivity.

There is the potential for protected species at sites in proximity to all the considered options. However, there is greater potential for option 12, 13a, 13b, 16a, 16b, and 17 to impact protected species due their proximity to Local Wildlife Sites and sites designated for their ecological importance.

Options 11a, 11b, 15a, and 15b could be expected to have the least impact on ecology as they are the least likely to impact Local Wildlife Sites. Options 16a, 16b, and 17 are the least preferable options as the alignments would involve a direct uptake of land within an Local Wildlife Site.

Geology and soils

There is potential for contaminated land across all the proposed options. The historic landfill is not located in close proximity to any option, and it is unlikely that there will be land contamination related to the sewage works.

At this stage no option is preferable in relation to land contamination.

Road drainage and the water environment

All of the proposed options would be required to cross the Kingsley Cuttle Brook WFD waterbody and its tributaries, which are designated as flood zone 3. It is unlikely that options 13a and 13b would require new crossings as the route follows Summerleys Road, which will already have crossings in place. There is a risk that water pollution could occur in waterbodies associated with all of the proposed options.

Options 13a and 13b would require the fewest new waterbody crossings, and could therefore be expected to have to lowest impact on the water environment.

Effect on all travellers

All of the proposed options would need to cross the Ridgeway National Trail and National Cycle Route 57. All options would cross or travel adjacent to additional PRoW: options 11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, 16b and 17 could affect 13 additional PRoW; options 13a and 13b could affect an additional 14 PRoW; and option 12 could affect an additional 15 PRoW. Options 12, 13a, 13b and 17 would need to cross the Chilterns Mainline at two locations but all other options would cross the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury line once, which is only a branch line. Therefore it would be expected that options 12, 13a, 13b and 17 would cause the most disruption to railways during the scheme construction.

Options 16a and 16b are likely to cross the fewest PRoW; therefore these options could be expected to have the lowest impact on all travellers. Option 12 is the least preferable option in relation to PRoW and options 12 and 17 are least preferable in terms of railway disruption.

Community and private assets

All of the proposed options have the potential to cause disruption to community assets along the B4009. Options 16a and 16b are located close to allotment gardens and align through a sewage works. All options

B12798D8/001 71 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

would result in temporary and permanent loss of agricultural land. Options 13a and 13b would require the least extent of agricultural land uptake and option 12 would require the largest extent of agricultural land uptake and therefore would result in the greatest loss of the land.

Based on this options 13a and 13b would be expected to have the least impact on community and private assets. Option 12 is the least preferable option as it would result in the largest loss of good quality agricultural land.

Materials

No comparison has been made at this stage as to which option would have the greatest impact on materials and waste.

Summary of environmental considerations and future studies Based on the high level analysis described previously options 13a and 13b could be expected to have the least environmental impact, and are on balance the preferred options from an environmental perspective. Options 12 and 17 are the least preferred options from an environmental perspective. Further study is needed to understand the most appropriate approach to mitigation required for options that are carried forward. Improve the safety/ reduce the risk of death or injury on roads in Princes Risborough, but particularly the A4010 through Princes Risborough.

At this stage of business case and option assessment process traffic volumes on the A4010 are used as a proxy for accident likelihood for each of the options. The baseline data review identified three accident ‘hotspots’, including the A4010/ Grove Lane junction, New Road in the town centre (between the two roundabouts), and Upper Icknield Road/ A4010 junction (north of Shootacre Lane).

The modelling shows that in general traffic volumes on the A4010 between Grove Lane and Shootacre Lane are lower with all road options, although it appears that options 12 and 13a/ 13b have the least benefit.

All options propose a realignment of Grove Lane and therefore it is anticipated that the risk of collisions could reduce in this location. The road traffic volumes on New Road reduce by the greatest amount in option 17, which suggests that this is the best option in terms of reducing the risk of accidents in this location. Options 11a, 13a, 15a and 16a all increase delay at the Upper Icknield Road/ A4010 junction and, unmitigated, this could increase the risk of accidents in this location. Improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport to, from and within the town to the railway stations, town centre, and other key destinations in the town (e.g. schools). This objective relates mostly to the wider emerging transport strategy for the town, however reduced traffic volumes can be used as a proxy for easier pedestrian crossing of roads. As discussed previously all options, except 15a and 15b, reduce traffic volumes in the town centre. All options also result in an increase in traffic on Summerleys Road (south of the railway), which would reduce ease of access to the station from the town centre. Pedestrian access to/ from the station will need to be considered in more detail at a later stage of the design process. Develop a road scheme that is feasible and deliverable in terms including funding (by developers and bid). The feasibility and deliverability of the road scheme is a balance between cost and benefits. The purpose of this stage of the review process is to refine the options that will be assessed using TUBA. Table 9.5 provides a summary of the transport challenges of each of the options. The main differentiator in terms of delivery are route length, proportion of overall cost covered by developer funding, and number of rail bridges. This would suggest that options 12, 13a, 13b and 17 are less deliverable than other options. Options 16a and 16b may not be deliverable as they are contingent upon the sewerage works being relocated. Options 11a, 11b, 13a, 13b, 15a, 15b, 16a and 16b would have a higher proportion of overall scheme cost covered by developer contribution as these are less expensive schemes, when compared to options 12 and 17.

B12798D8/001 72 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Option Approximate Approximate length Road/ rail bridges Crossings of Purchase of houses/ road length of road inside water bodies/ property and land masterplan area flood risk boundary areas

11a/11b 11a: ~ 11a/11b: ~2km Grove Lane 4 Near Grove Lane/ 6.4km Summerleys Road A4010. 11b: ~ Adjacent to Summerleys 6.9km Road, south of railway bridge. Widening of Shootacre Lane into the AONB. 12 ~ 8.1km Nil Grove Lane 4 Near Grove Lane/ Lower Icknield Way A4010. Chinnor Branch Line North of Shootacre Lane. Shootacre Lane Greenfield land between Lower Icknield Way and Shootacre lane west of Horsenden. Widening of Shootacre Lane into the AONB. 13a/13b 13a: ~ Nil Grove Lane 4 Near Grove Lane/ 7.3km Lower Icknield Way A4010. 13b: ~ Summerleys Road Adjacent to Summerleys 7.8km Road, south of railway bridge. Widening of Shootacre Lane into the AONB. 15a/15b 15a: ~ 15a/15b: ~2km Grove Lane 4 Near Grove Lane/ 6.4km Summerleys Road A4010. 15b: ~ Adjacent to Summerleys 6.9km Road, south of railway bridge. Widening of Shootacre Lane into the AONB. 16a/16b 16a: ~ 16a/16b: ~2.1km Grove Lane 4 Near Grove Lane/ 6.6km Summerleys Road A4010. 16b: ~ Adjacent to Summerleys 7.1km Road, south of railway bridge. Widening of Shootacre Lane into the AONB.

B12798D8/001 73 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Option Approximate Approximate length Road/ rail bridges Crossings of Purchase of houses/ road length of road inside water bodies/ property and land masterplan area flood risk boundary areas

17 ~ 7km ~1.2km Grove Lane 4 Near Grove Lane/ South of Lower A4010. Icknield Way North of Shootacre Chinnor Branch Line Lane. Shootacre Lane Greenfield land between crossing of London to Birmingham railway and Shootacre Lane (east of Horsenden). Widening of Shootacre Lane into the AONB.

Table 9.5 Deliverability challenges (transport focus)

Ensure the road infrastructure options for Princes Risborough integrate with the Highway Authority’s emerging strategy to improve north-south connectivity through Buckinghamshire.

There are currently sections of the A4010 in Princes Risborough which experience reduced link speeds, and there are junctions where road users experience delay. This and previous studies forecast significant growth in traffic, even without the additional growth being considered in the Princes Risborough area. This will exacerbate the existing problems, and likely result in more widespread delay, which will impact on north-south connectivity on the A4010 corridor.

The project represents an opportunity to improve an alternative north-south connection between the M40 and the M1 in the north (via the main population centres, including Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Aylesbury and up to Milton Keynes), and centres including Marlow, Maidenhead and Reading to the south. Therefore, this project provides benefit to both the Aylesbury – Princes Risborough – High Wycombe corridor and the wider sub-region.

All of the road options provide an additional route for north-south traffic movement, with options 11a, 11b and 17 performing best. 16b and 12 also offer some improvements to journey time.

It is noted that the definition of the preferred north-south strategic road corridor will be the subject of a separate BCC study.

The previous discussion in this chapter of the OAR suggests that four options will be short listed for TUBA assessment: 11b, 12, 15b, and 17. Figures 9.2 to 9.9 show the traffic flow changes between Scenarios B and C for the AM and PM peak hours.

Comparison between Scenario B and Scenario C shows that traffic reduces on the existing A4010, with options 11b and 17 showing the greatest reduction. The traffic volumes on the A4010 towards Aylesbury and High Wycombe increase compared to 2013 base. This is unsurprising given the additional traffic that would be generated by the PRTP development.

The comparison plots also show that there is no significant increase or decrease in traffic volume on the A4129 towards Thame or B4009 towards Chinnor as a result of the road schemes.

B12798D8/001 74 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 9.2: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for AM peak hour for option 11b

Figure 9.3: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for PM peak hour for option 11b

B12798D8/001 75 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 9.4: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for AM peak hour for option 12

Figure 9.5: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for PM peak hour for option 12

B12798D8/001 76 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 9.6: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for AM peak hour for option 15b

Figure 9.7: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for PM peak hour for option 15b

B12798D8/001 77 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Figure 9.8: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for AM peak hour for option 17

Figure 9.9: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for PM peak hour for option 17

B12798D8/001 78 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

9.4.2 Summary of stage 4 The transport modelling results for the schemes have been evaluated against the project objectives. In summary the following is found. The comparison of journey times vs 2013 base shows that all options offer some improvement against the existing situation, with options 11a, 11b, 16a, 16b, and 17 appearing to offer the greatest benefit, followed by option 12. Review of the options performance against Scenario A journey times shows that options 11a and 11b offer the best journey times, with 16a and 17 performing next best. 16b and 12 also offer some improvements to journey time.

The options provide varying levels of reduction in traffic. The point of reference should be Scenario A as this includes background traffic growth by 2036 for the wider area (excluding the proposed development). It is shown that option 17 provides the greatest reduction in two-way traffic volumes on New Road. Options 11a, 11b, 12, 16a, and 16b also offer some traffic reduction on New Road. Traffic congestion can be considered to be measured by delay at junctions and on links. The delay at junctions has been determined and show that options 11b, 17,15b, and 16b perform best, and options 12, 13a and 15a perform worst. A sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough north-east of the railway line would require the development to provide infrastructure to facilitate travel to/ from the town centre by walking, cycling, and public transport. Options which provide the road through development (11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, and 16b) afford an opportunity to provide dedicated footways and cycleways as part of the scheme. 11a, 11b, 15a and 15b provide a more centralised route through the development site, compared to 16a and 16b, so these would logically be better for travel along the corridor for a greater number of residents and employees. As these are integrated with the scheme this may present better value for money in terms of development economics. It is assumed that the development would provide an internal road, footway/path and cycleway/ path network, if one of option 12, 13a, 13b or 17 was promoted as the preferred scheme. It is also assumed that access for all modes would be provided to Summerleys Road in the southern corner of the development site. Therefore, prior to the development of a masterplan, it has to be assumed that the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough, north of the east-west railway line is an absolute requirement of the development and therefore common to all schemes that are being considered in this OAR. The case for development to contribute to the scheme and the impact on the overall economic viability of the development will need to be discussed with the landowners and developers of the site. The development traffic is forecast to take varying routes, depending upon the new road infrastructure that is provided. Roads which are aligned through the development are more attractive to trips to/ from the proposed development. The connection between Summerleys Road and the A4010 via the development site south of the station is important to reduce traffic on Poppys Road, and the section of Station Road between Summerleys Road and Poppy Road. The modelling shows that the lowest volume of development traffic using any of the schemes is shown to be for option 12. The plots also show that whilst the new section west of Horsenden provides wider road network capacity and therefore would be attractive to through traffic, no development traffic is using this section. Therefore, this section appears to serve no purpose in the context of dependent development in housing and employment in this area. Options 13a and 13b seem to provide some benefit to development traffic, but this is less than options 11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, 16b and 17. All options would include realignment of the Grove Lane/ A4010 junction, which would help facilitate the proposed development.

Based on the high level analysis described previously options 13a and 13b could be expected to have the least environmental impact, and are on balance the preferred options from an environmental perspective. Option 12 is the least preferred option as it would likely have the greatest impact on heritage, landscape, ecology, PRoW, and community assets. However, it should be noted that none of the options are considered at this stage to have insurmountable issues. Providing appropriate mitigation can be implemented, any of the proposed options

B12798D8/001 79 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

could be potentially viable. Further study is needed to understand the detail of the mitigation required for options that are carried forward. At this stage of business case and option assessment process traffic volumes on the A4010 are used as a proxy for accident likelihood for each of the options. Traffic flow plots which show changes in traffic volumes on the A4010 through the Princes Risborough area show that in general traffic volumes on the A4010 between Grove Lane and Shootacre Lane are lower with all road options, although it appears that options 12 and 13a/ 13b have the least benefit.

In general, with the exception of junction delay in the A4010 corridor through Princes Risborough, there is not a significant difference between results for the A and B options for an alignment. Therefore, other considerations regarding deliverability, environment and heritage may take precedence when selecting between the A and B route of an option. For the purposes of this OAR, options B are considered.

Based on the findings of this stage of the project the options that are considered appropriate to consider in stage 5 are: • 11b, • 12, • 15b, and • 17. Whilst it is not the optimal solution in local transport and environmental terms, option 12 is carried forward into stage 5 on the basis that it provides a strategic function for north-south movements and is understood to be a preferred scheme of the Princes Risborough Steering Group. Option 15b is considered as it allows understanding of the operation of a scheme when a speed of 30mph is used on the section of road through the development site. Options 13a/ 13b are removed because they do not appear to serve a strategic traffic function. 16a/ 16b are not carried forward into stage 5 because of the deliverability risks associated with whether the existing sewerage works will be relocated.

9.5 Stage 5

9.5.1 Overview In line with WebTAG guidance, the transport benefit of the scheme is determined from analysis of the road alignment without the anticipated development growth north west of Princes Risborough (Scenario D). The economic assessment of the intervention options shortlisted from stage 4 of the process uses the DfT TUBA software (version 1.9.3) to capture transport user benefits in terms of potential journey time savings and vehicle operating cost savings. The primary inputs to the TUBA process are: • trip number, journey time and distance matrices from the traffic models for the 2021 do something and do minimum, and 2036 do something and do minimum scenarios, for each hourly time slice within the model period (weekday AM (0700-0800) and PM (1700-1800) peak periods) and modelled vehicle type (Car, LGV and HGV); • scheme costs and delivery programme; and • standard TUBA economic parameters for the growth in values of time and fuel costs over the appraisal period. The economic assessment results are presented in a Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE), Public Accounts (PA) and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) tables. The overall impact is presented as a net present value (NPV) and benefit to cost ratio (BCR). The strategic, value for money, financial, commercial, and management cases are also explored and summarised. It is noted that these are discussed in further detail in the SOBC that accompanies this report.

B12798D8/001 80 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

9.5.2 Summary of scheme costs for TUBA For the purposes of the economic appraisal, it has been necessary to develop preliminary indicative scheme costs for the road options that are being considered. These are based on estimated unit rates and quantities determined from a potential road centre line and preliminary indicative cross sections for the road. The alignment of the road options are indicative and would be contingent on future planning decisions, including the emerging masterplan for the development site. Table 9.6 provides a summary of the costs input to TUBA. In order to develop the cost estimates for use in the economic assessment of the options, the following adjustments have been applied: • The cost estimate has been prepared from the design information produced to date for similar schemes, using approximate quantification for the major elements of the works (Method of Measurement for Highway Works) that reflects our current understanding of the proposed scheme. • The cost estimates assume that works will be procured using traditional method of procurement and a standard form of contract. • The cost estimates are based on approximate road lengths and road cross sections at an accuracy commensurate with this stage in the OAR process. The rates used reflect construction projects of a similar size and nature and are at current day prices (2nd Quarter 2015). • Tender inflation and construction inflation are excluded. • Value Added Tax (VAT) is excluded. • The estimate produced at this stage is assumed to have an accuracy level of -40% to +40%. • An optimism bias adjustment of 44% (in line with WebTAG A1.2) has been applied to the road elements of the scheme. An optimism bias of 66% has been applied to the bridge costs. • A scheme risk budget of 20% is included within the cost estimate to broadly reflect a level of design development risk. • Allowance for land purchase for land along the corridor is an estimate. £3 million has been used in other business cases recently produced in BCC, so this is used as the basis for options 11b and 15b. 17 and 12 have additional road infrastructure across greenfield land and therefore allowances of £4 million and £5 million are included respectively. • The estimate assumes that Construction Works will generally be undertaken during normal working hours unless specifically identified as being undertaken out of normal working hours (evenings and weekends), and access to the site is unrestricted. • The estimate also excludes removal of toxic or hazardous materials, removal and/or treatment of contaminated ground material, eradication of invasive plant growth, ground gas venting measures, soil stabilisation measures, site dewatering and pumping, temporary diversion works, extraordinary site investigation, charges and rates on temporary accommodation, licences associated with hoardings, fencing, road traffic orders etc., decanting and relocation costs, employer finance costs associated with the project, planning, building control and licence fees, railway possession, insurance, marketing costs, planning contributions, and compensation to third parties.

Cost Type Option 11b Option 12 Option 15b Option 17

Preparatory £1,960 £1,630 £1,960 £2,040 Construction (inc. preliminaries and site supervision) £26,730 £36,690 £26,730 £40,430 Land (assumption based on previous projects) £3,000 £5,000 £3,000 £4,000 Risk Allowance £5,740 £7,660 £5,740 £8,490 Optimism Bias £15,080 £22,080 £15,080 £24,020 Total £52,510 £73,060 £52,510 £78,980

Table 9.6 TUBA input scheme costs (000’s) + or – 40% range of accuracy

B12798D8/001 81 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

The amount of developer contribution has been estimated based on the infrastructure that could be considered a minimum scheme to facilitate the development only, but not deliver the strategic objectives of the scheme. The indicative cost estimate of this scheme is £46.5 million and has been applied to all of the scheme options. There are discussions being held outside of this project regarding the mitigation of HS2 construction traffic, and the desire to see traffic avoid the roads in and around Princes Risborough. Should the roads in and around Princes Risborough need to accommodate HS2 construction traffic, the B4009 may be a better route and would therefore require upgrade to the Grove Lane railway bridge/junction with A4010 to accommodate HGV traffic. This could be another funding contribution towards the project, but at this stage is not included due to the uncertainty surrounding it.

9.5.3 Economic impacts of the options A summary of some of the economic statistics for the scheme options are presented in Table 9.17, with full details provided in the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE), Public Accounts (PA) and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Tables in Appendix E of this report. The TUBA results in Table 9.17 demonstrate that the options provide a variable amount of benefit, with options 17 and 11b having a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of greater than 1, and options 12 and 15b having a BCR of less than 1. The BCR values are compared to the value for money thresholds shown in DfT guidelines19 and provide the following: • Option 11b has a BCR of 2.9 provides a high value for money. • Option 12 has a BCR of 0.6 which has a poor value for money. • Option 15b has a BCR of -0.8 which gives a negative value for money (the scheme costs more than the benefits accrued). • Option 17 has a BCR of 3.3 which gives a high value for money. As expected for a scheme of this nature, the majority of economic efficiency benefits are generated in the form of journey time savings, with smaller proportions attributable to vehicle operating costs. Table 9.7 provides a summary of the benefits. This shows that whilst option 15b provides travel time benefit to the users, the developer contribution provided results in a negative present value benefit. The modelling work to date also forecast that option 17 will improve network performance by the greatest amount, when time saving (in veh-hours per peak per average day in a year) is considered for each of the schemes. The time savings are shown in Table 9.8.

Monetised Cost and Benefits (£000s)

Option Option 11b Option 12 Option 15b Option 17 Greenhouse Gases 449 311 279 1801 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) Travel Time 11,996 11,292 7,458 25,864 Vehicle Operating Costs 696 393 474 3,149 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) Travel Time 15,025 14,549 9,418 32,454 Vehicle Operating Costs 682 406 468 3,035 Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers Travel Time 25,706 23,910 15,667 57,562 Vehicle Operating Costs 1,657 1,018 928 7,581

19 DfT. 2013. Value for Money Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers.

B12798D8/001 82 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Monetised Cost and Benefits (£000s)

Developer Contributions -38,422 -38,422 -38,422 -38,422

Wider Public Finances (indirect taxation) 1,095 743 668 4,375 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 16,694 12,715 -4,398 88,651 Broad Transport Budget 5,706 21,451 5,706 26,650 Present Value of Costs (PVC) 5,706 21,451 5,706 26,650

Overall Impacts Net Present Value (NPV) 10,988 -8,736 -10,104 62,001 Initial Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.9 0.6 -0.8 3.3 Note 1: Benefits for a 60 year appraisal period Note 2: Figures shown as 2010 prices and values

Table 9.7 Monetised cost and benefits

Year Time period Total saving (veh-hours)

Option 11b Option 12 Option 15b Option 17

2021 AM 51 41 26 102 2021 PM 57 52 29 105 2036 AM 81 70 54 158 2036 PM 83 97 61 172

Table 9.8 Time savings (from BCC Countywide model) The appraisal also considers greenhouse gases a result of changes in traffic flows, speed and traffic composition associated with the introduction of the scheme. All of the options provide benefit, but option 17 provides the greatest benefit. The public accounts sub-objective comprises cost to broad transport budget and indirect tax revenues. Full details for the appraised options are presented in the PA table in Appendix E. The broad transport budget is the net cost to the public sector. It is the same as the PVC which includes optimism bias and is discounted to 2010 prices. The PVC for the options varies. Options 15b and 11b have the lowest PVC so therefore are assumed to require less public funding. Option 12 has the highest PVC at approximately two and a half times that of options 11b and 15b. Option 17 has an PVC of £36,956,000, of which a significant proportion of the cost can be attributed to the bridges and associated optimism bias. An additional cost to the government and ultimately wider society can result from a reduction in indirect tax revenues, primarily from reduced fuel purchase. This shows that option 17 has the greatest disbenefit in terms of indirect tax revenues.

This suggests that the best option is 17 in BCR terms. The next sections of the report consider the strategic, financial, management and commercial cases of each of the options.

9.5.4 Strategic case The strategic case needs to demonstrate that there is a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy objectives. The impacts of the options should also be considered in the context of the project objectives and

B12798D8/001 83 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

targets which have been derived following review of policy and discussion with stakeholders and the Princes Risborough Steering Group.

Strategic aims, responsibilities and objectives The strategic aims of the project are led by the aspirations of the BTVLEP and the need to accommodate significant growth in housing in Wycombe District. The project responsibility is within the jurisdiction of the LEP, BCC and WDC, although the primary drivers for change vary across each organisation. The BTVLEP Strategic Economic Plan sets out the key transport aims of the BTVLEP. The focus being the need to improve connectivity between major settlements and key economic centres, to reduce congestion, improve journey times, and journey time reliability. WDC is preparing an Area Action Plan to set out options for significant growth in Princes Risborough, including up to 2,500 new homes to the west of the town, and 27,000 sqm of new business floor space. Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) worked, and is working, closely with WDC to facilitate this growth. Local stakeholders and the Princes Risborough Steering Group have been engaged in the process of developing project specific objectives which are cognisant of the wider strategic transport and economic growth demands of the BTVLEP, and informed by review of transport data, and national, regional, and local policies pertinent to this project. The schemes that have been considered all support the project objectives (to a varying degree), which in turn align with the strategic objectives of the LEP. The achievement of the aims is stated in the BTVLEP Strategic Economic Plan as being ‘fundamental to ensuring the future smooth operation and growth of the Buckinghamshire economy’, and therefore they are considered to be of primary importance. All of the options have been sifted and assessed against the project objectives. Therefore as the options support the project objectives, they must also support the wider strategic objectives set out by the BTVLEP.

Problems identified and impacts of not changing The town is sensitive to relatively low levels of traffic growth. There are currently sections of the A4010 in Princes Risborough which experience reduced link speeds, and there are junctions where road users experience delay. There is forecast to be significant growth in traffic by 2031, even without the additional growth being considered in the Princes Risborough area as part of Wycombe District Council’s (WDC’s) development plan. This will exacerbate the existing problems, and likely result in more widespread delay, which will impact on north-south connectivity on the A4010 corridor. Therefore, this investment needs to be made up-front, to reduce congestion and delay to existing users of the A4010. Developer contributions raised from the emerging development would then provide the funding to repay part of the finance awarded from the bid. This would allow the LEP to re-invest and promote further economic growth elsewhere. Failure to address the challenges facing the A4010 corridor would likely deter business investment and reduce the viability of existing businesses in the Aylesbury – Princes Risborough – High Wycombe corridor. Unmitigated, this bottleneck on the A4010 would inhibit the delivery of the key strategic transport aims outlined in the BTVLEP Strategic Economic Plan. There is also a local aspiration to deliver an improved town centre environment, which has slower traffic speeds and is therefore more pedestrian and cycle friendly. Key to this will be the reduction in traffic on the existing A4010, and therefore options 11b, 12 and 17 support this. Of these three options, option 17 is forecast to provide the greatest traffic reduction in the town centre.

Scope of the project and measures of success The solutions propose a new road, which could be delivered in conjunction with new development, to the west of Princes Risborough bypassing the existing A4010 through the centre of the town. The viability of the road options are discussed further in the economic, financial, commercial and management cases. The main measures of success are the performance against the project objectives. Journey time is the main measureable, and information is extracted from TUBA. The road must also facilitate the planned development, which supports the case for options 11b, 15b and 17.

B12798D8/001 84 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

The results reported by TUBA support the objective to improve journey time. There is interdependency between many of the objectives e.g. by managing the congestion hotspots and improving journey time reliability, connectivity is improved, which in turn supports growth. Whilst all options provide travel time benefit, the results show that option 17 provides the greatest benefit across the network which is approximately double that reported for the other options. The reduced journey times demonstrated through the TUBA assessment are themselves indicative of reductions in congestion, and as detailed in TAG unit A1.3 a reduction in journey times leads to improved journey time reliability. The journey time savings also suggest an improvement in connectivity for north-south movement, due to the increased capacity in the highway network to facilitate this movement. Furthermore, improvements in journey times and connectivity support economic growth as the reduction in time spent travelling reduces the amount of non-productive time for business travellers. The reductions in journey times and congestion also hint at improvements to noise and air quality.

Interdependencies and constraints The delivery of a successful project requires alignment of stakeholders, landowners, and local residents. Coordination of this project with emerging projects such as East-West Rail and HS2 should also be considered. An extensive stakeholder consultation exercise has been undertaken throughout the project, with members of the local steering group favouring options 12 and 17, but understanding that there are merits of a through development alignment as shown by options 11b and 15b. The challenge that is being faced is the visualisation of how a through residential development route can be designed to facilitate both development and north-south through traffic. Option 11b provides medium benefit and therefore could be pursued, but would require further enterprise to convince the local steering group that the road could serve a dual function. As discussed previously there are environmental constraints to overcome, and this will require further study. The schemes all require new bridges to be constructed so early discussions will be required with Network Rail. It is understood that there is typically a two year notice period required for possession of the railway for works. This will need to be factored into the project programme.

9.5.5 Economic case (value for money) The economic (value for money) case considers the likely benefits and disbenefits of each intervention option in terms of economic, environmental and social impacts, as well as impacts on public accounts. The results of the Value for Money assessment for each option is presented in the Appraisal Summary Tables (AST) included in Appendix F. At this stage potential benefits/disbenefits to be accrued from sub-objectives such as noise, local air quality, landscape, biodiversity, water environment, accident savings, physical activity and journey quality have not been quantified as this is commensurate with the level of detail required for a Stage 1 OAR and SOBC. Table 9.9 provides a summary of the performance options 11b, 12, 15b and 17 against the economic case criteria. This includes the BCR, qualitative assessment and overall value for money category for the four options that have been assessed. The assumptions made in determining the economic case are documented throughout this transport study, and suggest that option 17 offers the greatest value for money and transport benefit. It is noted that key risks associated with the value for money case can be categorised as: • Financial – the consideration of financial risks has focused on a range of contributory factors related to cost and programme risk. The financial risks are discussed further in the financial case. • Performance-related – linked to level of demand and consequent impacts on the potential benefits of the scheme. The consideration of performance-related risks for the scheme centres on the level of overall growth experienced by 2021 and 2036, which are the two forecast years. At this stage the scale of development that will be allocated in the Local Plan is still to be defined, and will evolve during the Local Plan process. It is noted that the VfM has been calculated for each of the road options in isolation of the predicted traffic demand from the proposed PRTP development (Scenario D).

B12798D8/001 85 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

There are environmental considerations to be factored into the assessment. The impact of the options on the environment was discussed previously in this report. This has been incorporated into the AST for each of the options.

In economic terms option 17 has the highest BCR and offers high value for money. Option 11b also offers high value for money but has a lower BCR than option 17.

Option Assessment Criteria Detail 11b 12 15b 17 As defined by Table 9.13 BCR 2.9 0.6 -0.8 3.3 and TEE, PA, and AMCB tables in Appendix E. Benefits anticipated through a reduction in traffic flows on existing sections of the network and at particular junctions, contributing positively to local accessibility, Overall slight to Qualitative Overall slight Overall slight reduced congestion and moderate Overall benefit assessment benefit benefit noise, improved and air benefit quality. Adverse impacts on landscape, biodiversity and the water environment are expected, however, associated with new road construction. Consistent with the level of scheme design, an Optimism Bias adjustment Risk budget Risk budget Risk budget Risk budget of 44% has been applied applied to applied to applied to applied to to construction costs in scheme cost scheme cost scheme cost scheme cost relation to the roads and Environmental 66% applied to the Key risks Environmental Environmental Environmental challenges. bridges. and challenges. challenges. challenges. Constructing Key risks include potential sensitivities Constructing Constructing Constructing bridges four environmental two bridges two bridges four bridges beneath and implications and required beneath and beneath and beneath and above mitigation measures, and above railways above railways above railways railways construction of the railway bridges. A risk allowance of 20% has been applied to total scheme costs. As defined by criteria set out in DfT guidance: VfM Value for Money High Low Low High category Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers

Table 9.9 Summary of value for money criteria

B12798D8/001 86 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

9.5.6 Financial case The financial case considers the affordability of the scheme and the cost of each option has been outlined previously. The scheme with the highest cost is option 17 and the lowest cost are options 11b and 15b. The cost estimates for each scheme include preparatory costs associated with the scheme design, planning application, and planning and statutory processes, construction preliminaries, and scheme construction. These were shown previously in Table 4.6. Land acquisition costs are assumed at this stage and are consistent with other road schemes in the county, although there has been differentiation between the options with land costs for options 11b and 15b being assumed as £3 million, option 17 at £4 million, and option 12 at £5 million. This reflects the cost associated with the additional length of road through greenfield land outside of the masterplan area. At this stage it is assumed that road widening can be accommodated within the highway boundary. This will need to be confirmed as the design of the road evolves parallel to later stages of the business case process. The cost of the scheme funded via public finances can be reduced through developer contribution. This assessment assumes a developer contribution of £46.5 million towards each option. This contribution was estimated from infrastructure that could potentially facilitate the emerging development, but does not necessarily meet the wider strategic objectives of the scheme. The developer contribution contributes approximately 90% of the total cost of options 11b and 15b, 65% of option 12, and 60% of option 17. Therefore options 11b and 15b can be considered more affordable as they yield a higher proportion of the scheme cost from developer contribution. A risk budget of 20% is included in the cost estimate to broadly reflect a level of design development risk, construction risk, employer change risk and employer other risks. In addition to this, optimism bias of 44% has been applied to road works, and 66% applied to the bridges. The cost estimates produced at this stage have an accuracy level of - 40% to + 40%. The risk allocations and optimism bias included are commensurate with the stage in the scheme development process. The cost difference between the developer contribution and the scheme cost is less for options 11b and 15b, compared with 12 and 17. This suggests that 11b and 15b are more viable in terms of funding gap to be filled from the public purse. Costs estimates reflect the level of design development that has been completed at this stage of the project. The estimate is typically based on a coast per unit area. The area of the road has been determined using a centre line of an indicative alignment, and assumptions on the road cross sections. This level of detail is commensurate with a Stage 1 OAR. Maintenance costs are assumed to place a medium to long term ongoing maintenance liability on BCC following adoption of the new road e.g. resurfacing, renewal of the road, drainage clearance, lighting operation, structural inspections etc. The scheme would likely reduce traffic volumes on existing roads, which could have a positive impact upon the condition of these roads. At this stage, however, the cost implications of this are unknown, and have not been incorporated into a whole life VfM assessment. Budget provision for the scheme is could be made through a combination of the following possible sources: • S106 Developer contributions • The central section of options 11b (~2km of road), 15b (~2km of road) and 17 (~1.2km of road) could be delivered as part of the proposed development via appropriate legal agreements. This is also the case for the section of 11b and 15b (~300m of road) through the former Whiteleaf site south of the railway station. • Future BTVLEP Local Growth Funds. • BCC capital programme and revenue funding, but this is considered unlikely at this time. • Property & land value funding mechanism. • Other Government departments e.g. Network Rail through potentially synchronising bridge works required for East-West Rail Phase 2 (Aylesbury Line). Overall options 11b and 15b are considered to be the most affordable.

B12798D8/001 87 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

9.5.7 Commercial case The commercial case relates to the commercial viability of a proposal and the procurement strategy. The viability of a £46.5 million contribution will need to be agreed with the developers of the masterplan area. Sections of the route could be delivered via established legal agreements within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Highways Act, 1980. Options 11b and 15b would have a greater proportion of the overall scheme cost within the extent of these agreements. BCC has a strong track record in the procurement and delivery of major schemes with three notable examples of recent projects that have been delivered or are nearing completion include Aylesbury Vale Parkway, Aylesbury Public Transport Hub and the Chapel Lane Improvement Scheme. The procurement of the business case development, scheme design, and associated services could be via the Transport for Buckinghamshire (TfB) Contract which is an ‘Alliance’ model comprising BCC functions supported by the services of Ringway Jacobs Ltd and Amey. The TfB Alliance contract began in 2009/10 on the basis of an initial 8 year contract period to 2017/18 with an option for annual extensions beyond this period for a further 7 years through to 2024/25. The Alliance brings together a core of professionals to deliver its maintenance and construction programmes. This successful partnership could manage the delivery of the complementary measures on the existing highway network. Risks associated with the overall delivery of the BTVLEP scheme programme would be managed according to the overall monitoring responsibilities set out in the Governance and Accountability Assurance Framework. The Project Board would have overall responsibility for governance and risk associated with the delivery of the scheme. As with all construction projects, there is a need for time, cost and quality issues to be managed and their inevitable tensions balanced. The process of contract selection and formulation will help to ensure scope of project and project-specific risks are controlled through procurement. The construction will need to be an OJEU advertisement and competitive tender. At this stage of business case development, the commercial case has been developed at a strategic level. Details on contract length, human resource issues and contract management will be finalised and updated subject to approval, at a later stage of scheme development. The preliminary output-based specification has been prepared for the schemes as part of the development of the commercial case. This is shown in Table 9.10 and the specification takes into account cost, plus the Scheme’s role in contributing towards job growth in the Aylesbury area, in-line with current growth estimates. Due to the current stage of scheme development and the limited information currently available, a number of assumptions have been made, this includes: • Total Gross Value Added (GVA) increase associated with the Scheme has been calculated based on a GVA estimate of £33,310 per head taken from the 2013 sub-regional GVA figures. It is assumed that 10% to 20% of the jobs created in the area are the result of this scheme. • Direct FTE jobs associated with the Scheme have been assumed to equate 10% to 20% of the 22.5k to 34.5k new jobs anticipated in Aylesbury Vale and Wycombe District by 2031. • Indirect FTE jobs associated with the Scheme have been derived from a typical ratio of project cost to construction worker requirements, assumed to be one construction worker per £100,000 of full project cost.

Outputs Option 11b Option 12 Option 15b Option 17

GVA increase (total) £75,000,000 to £230,000,000 Direct FTE jobs (post construction to 2036) 2,250 to 6,900 Indirect FTE jobs (construction jobs to 2021) 530 702 530 775

Table 9.10 Preliminary output-based specification

This shows that options 17 and 12 offer more indirect FTE construction jobs. Overall the commercial viability of the scheme is greater for 11b and 15b compared to options 12 and 17.

B12798D8/001 88 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

9.5.8 Management case The management case assesses whether a proposal is deliverable in areas such as project planning, governance structure, risk management, and benefits realisation. Locally the scheme is important in delivering the dependent development identified in the PRTP, and a viable scheme is necessary for the PRTP to be considered sound by a planning inspector. Absence of a sound PRTP will result in speculative and piecemeal planning applications which are unlikely to deliver road infrastructure that meets the strategic objectives of the scheme, and facilitate a comprehensive and major expansion of the town. The management / delivery approach that has been proposed for the scheme has been developed with consideration of the overall scheme cost, deliverability and level of risk. It is likely to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each element in line with the development of the scheme. At this stage, the key points to note are: • A project board will be established for road, comprising representation from WDC, BCC, BTVLEP and developers, to oversee delivery of the scheme. An executive/SRO and project manager will be appointed, with the project manager providing the interface between the project board via the project executive and the team managers. • Outline project plans will be developed for the scheme. At this stage, the timescale for project delivery is indicative, and subject to change as the business case develops. Commencement of works on site is estimated to begin Q1 2019/20, with the road opening to traffic in Q4 2020/21. • Consultation activities will continue through the next stage of the business case and a stakeholder engagement strategy will also be prepared to seek views, communicate progress and create consensus during development of proposals for the scheme. • A high level risk register will be developed through the next stage of the business case and updated regularly, with risk owners appointed as appropriate to the type of risk and the stage of scheme delivery at which the risk could be realised. Some relevant risks include: - Acquisition of land outside of the highway boundary (greater risk for options 12 and 17). - Completion of scheme designs and legal agreements, where appropriate. - Political backing and funding from funding streams. - Local public agreement/ opposition. - Possession of the railway to construct the new bridges required. This represents a greater risk to options 12 and 17 as an extra two railway bridges are required, including the London to Birmingham mainline. The bridge work required at Summerleys Road and Grove Lane for options 11b and 15b could potentially be undertaken in conjunction with the East-West Rail project. - Environmental constraints impacting on the scheme alignment and delivery. Longwick Bog is a LWS and the impact of option 17 would need to be considered in further detail to determine whether the impact of this option can be mitigated. • The benefits realisation, monitoring and evaluation plan will be developed as an output of the full business case work to ensure that data collection and reporting is focused tightly on the objectives and success indicators that have been set out in the strategic case. Overall, options 11b and 15b are considered to be more deliverable at this stage as they have a greater proportion of the scheme funded by developers and there are fewer risks associated with providing new road/ railway bridges.

9.6 Preferred option The selection of the preferred option must be based on a balanced review of the strategic, economic, financial, commercial, and management cases. A summary of the schemes against these cases is:

B12798D8/001 89 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

• Strategically the schemes that meet the project objectives best are 11b and 17. Option 12 offers less benefit in terms of facilitating the PRTP development and option 15b offers less benefit to the strategic objective of improving north-south journey time reliability. • In economic terms option 17 has the highest BCR and offers high value for money. Option 11b also offers high value for money but has a lower BCR than option 17. Option 12 offers poor value for money and option 15b has a negative BCR. • Overall options 11b and 15b are considered to be the most financially affordable. • In commercial terms options 17 and 12 offer more indirect FTE construction jobs, but overall the commercial viability of the scheme is greater for 11b and 15b compared to options 12 and 17. • Overall, options 11b and 15b are considered to be more deliverable at this stage as they have a greater proportion of the scheme funded by developers and there are fewer risks associated with providing new road/ railway bridges. Additional benefits are anticipated through changes in traffic volume as well as improvements in the walking and cycling environment, providing accident savings, physical activity and journey quality enhancements. Changes in noise and local air quality will be assessed as part of the further stages of business case development, and outcomes will be used to inform any noise mitigation requirements. Key risks that would have the potential to lead to an overall increase in scheme costs have been identified and a risk budget has been included in both the scheme cost estimate and the economic appraisal. The additional rail bridges required represent a deliverability risk to options 12 and 17. The developer contribution provides approximately 90% of the total cost of options 11b and 15b, 65% of option 12, and 60% of option 17. Therefore options 11b and 15b can be considered more affordable as they yield a higher proportion of the scheme cost from developer contribution. There are also environmental considerations to be made when selecting the preferred scheme, with all options having challenges that require further analysis and study. The results of the appraisal has identified that option 17 is the best performing scheme in economic terms. However, 11b is more affordable, viable, and deliverable than option 17.

9.7 Wider transport strategy

The delivery of the western road and emerging PRTP development will facilitate opportunities for a separate transport strategy for the wider town. It is noted that this is not part of the funding ask for the scheme considered in the business case. This has been discussed with stakeholders and the local steering group, and will evolve in conjunction with the emerging plan. A preliminary transport strategy of other schemes is set out in Figure 9.10, and this includes: • Road - town centre local area enhancement to reduce traffic speeds and improve urban realm; - extend 30mph limit north Mill Lane to north of the Cadsden Road/ A4010 roundabout; - extend 30mph limit northwards on Longwick Road as part of emerging PRTP development; - create 20mph zone on Summerleys Road; - create 20mph zone on A4010 and Peters Lane outside of the school; - reduce rat-running of traffic through Askett; - 3.5t weight limit of the existing A4010 (post opening of the new western road); - provide roundabouts at the The Holloways/ A4010, Mill Lane/ A4010, Peters Lane/ A4010, Windsor Hill/ A4010, The Avenue/ A4010, Park Street/ A4010, Clifford Road/ A4010, Station Road/ A4010, and Poppy Road/ A4010 junctions; - new link road through development site between Picts Lane and Summerleys Road; and - upgraded road/ rail bridge at Summerleys Road to remove signalised shuttle working.

B12798D8/001 90 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

• Public transport - East-West Rail (project being delivered by Network Rail); - Expand car and cycle parking at railway stations (requires negotiation with Chiltern Rail); and - Provide bus service through emerging PRTP development, either through a commercial operator or the local community bus scheme. • Walking and cycling - improved crossing of the railway at Princes Risborough Station and across the East-West Railway; - town centre local area enhancement to reduce traffic speeds and improve urban realm; and - expanded cycle network north west of the East-West Railway to integrate the new development with the town and connect better with the Phoenix Trail.

B12798D8/001 91 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey Map with permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s stationary office Crown copyright reserved Licence No. AL 100017326

Figure 9.10: Wider transport strategy

B12798D8/001 92 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

The schemes above have been assessed broadly against their ability to contribute to the following scheme appraisal criteria: • Deliverability: Consideration of issues around deliverability, e.g. in terms of political, planning, timescales or third party issues. • Feasibility: Consideration of practicalities which may present issues in delivery, e.g. physical constraints, land availability and design standards. • Affordability: Assessing to what extent funding would be required to deliver the scheme, and whether this is likely to be available through existing funding sources.

Table 9.11 provides an overview of possible constraints, in relation to each scheme and the criteria above. The process aims to provide an easily presentable means of identifying possible options to be considered further. It is envisaged that the schemes would be supported by behavioural change programmes.

Any assumptions made regarding cost or timescale, in relation to an option, is purely indicative, and is based on Jacobs experience of timescales and costs associated with implementing similar schemes; it should not be used for any purpose other than this initial assessment. The broad categories used are described below: • Short term: up to 2021; Medium term: 2021 to 2031; Long term: Post 2031 • Outline cost: Low <£1m; Medium £1m to £10m; High>£10m

Option Timescale Cost Deliverability Feasibility Affordability

Likely to be deliverable but The affordability Town centre local area Likely to be Medium Medium requires relates to the enhancement feasible alternative road scheme design corridor Extend 30mph limit north Funding would Mill Lane to north of the Likely to be Likely to be Short Low need to be Cadsden Road/ A4010 deliverable feasible sourced roundabout Extend 30mph limit Delivered in northwards on Longwick Short to Likely to be Likely to be conjunction with Road as part of Low medium deliverable feasible emerging emerging PRTP development development Funding would Create 20mph zone on Likely to be Likely to be Short Low need to be Summerleys Road deliverable feasible sourced Create 20mph zone on Funding would Likely to be Likely to be A4010 and Peters Lane Short Low need to be deliverable feasible outside of the school sourced Likely to be deliverable but The affordability Reduce rat-running of Likely to be Short Low requires relates to the traffic through Askett feasible alternative traffic scheme design route Likely to be 3.5t weight limit of the deliverable but The affordability existing A4010 (post Likely to be Medium Medium requires relates to the opening of the new feasible alternative road funding available western road) corridor

B12798D8/001 93 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Option Timescale Cost Deliverability Feasibility Affordability

Provide roundabouts at The Holloways/ A4010, Mill Lane/ A4010, Peters Likely to be Lane/ A4010, Windsor deliverable but The affordability Hill/ A4010, The Avenue/ Likely to be Medium Medium requires relates to the A4010, Park Street/ feasible alternative road scheme design A4010, Clifford Road/ corridor A4010, Station Road/ A4010, and Poppy Road/ A4010 junctions New link road through Link required as development site Likely to be Likely to be Short Medium part of emerging between Picts Lane and deliverable feasible development Summerleys Road Potentially Upgraded road/ rail deliverable as bridge at Summerleys Link required as Medium to part of emerging Likely to be Road to remove Medium part of emerging High development or feasible signalised shuttle development road scheme working option East-West Rail (project Medium to being delivered by High Within jurisdiction of Network Rail Long Network Rail) Expand car and cycle parking at railway Short to stations (requires Unknown Within jurisdiction of Chiltern Railway Medium negotiation with Chiltern Rail) Provide bus service through emerging PRTP Link required as development, either Likely to be Likely to be Medium Medium part of emerging through local community deliverable feasible development bus scheme or other provider S106 funding Improved crossing of the secured for railway at Princes Short to Likely to be Likely to be crossing at Risborough Station and Medium Medium deliverable feasible Princes across the East-West Risborough Railway Station Expanded cycle network north west of the East- West Railway to Links required as Likely to be Likely to be integrate the new Medium Medium part of emerging deliverable feasible development with the development town and connect better with the Phoenix Trail

Table 9.11: Wider transport strategy options appraisal

B12798D8/001 94 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

10. Summary and Next Steps

10.1 Summary

10.1.1 Overview

Jacobs is the framework consultants to the Transport for Buckinghamshire Alliance (TfB) between Ringway Jacobs and Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC). Under the terms of this contract, Jacobs is commissioned to undertake transport planning, modelling and assessment studies on behalf of the County Council, working in partnership with the District Councils.

Jacobs has been commissioned by BCC and WDC to produce a Stage 1 OAR and SOBC to support a BTVLEP bid for financial support from the DfT. The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of a WebTAG scheme appraisal process to determine the preferred alignment and form of a western relief road at Princes Risborough.

The findings from this OAR also inform the delivery of the emerging PRTP.

10.1.2 The scheme and project objectives

The western relief road is a new road intended to serve a dual function of facilitating improved north-south travel, and the emerging PRTP development at Princes Risborough. The project objectives are shown in Table 10.1. An additional outcome from the scheme will be the opportunity to change the character of the existing A4010 and improve the quality of the public realm in the town centre.

Table 10.1: Project objectives

Identifier Objective

B12798D8/001 95 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

10.1.3 Need for intervention

The need for the intervention is driven by the need to encourage economic growth by addressing a known constraint to north-south movement in the county. Failure to address this constraint will stifle economic growth and result in greater traffic congestion and delay in the future.

The need for intervention is also driven by the context of dependent development of the major expansion of Princes Risborough to contribute to meeting the objectively assessed housing need of Wycombe District Council. Without major new road infrastructure, the potential of Princes Risborough to expand is severely constrained

The road infrastructure also has the potential to improve the environmental conditions, and reduce the risk of Personal Injury Accidents on the A4010 through the town.

10.1.4 Scheme development and appraisal

The development of the schemes for appraisal arose from a combination of previous study, public exhibition, stakeholder discussions, and feedback from the local steering group.

The appraisal of the schemes has been undertaken using the project objectives and EAST. This process shortlisted four options for consideration using TUBA, and assessment against five criteria: strategic, value for money (economic), delivery (management), financial, and commercial cases. The shortlisted options were 11b, 12, 15b, and 17.

10.1.5 Economic assessment

The economic assessment for options 11b, 12, 15b, and 17 using TUBA yielded the BCR results shown in Table 10.2. This shows options 17 and 11b have the best BCR ratios and provide ‘high’ and ‘medium’ value for money respectively. At this stage the potential benefits/ disbenefits to be accrued from sub-objectives such as noise, air quality, and accident savings have not been accounted for.

Table 10.2: Summary of option BCR ratios

Option Assessment Criteria 11b 12 15b 17 BCR 2.9 0.6 -0.8 3.3

10.2 Conclusion The results of the economic appraisal have identified that options 17 and 11b should be taken forward as schemes for consideration. 11b is a stronger option in terms of the financial, commercial and management cases because it is more affordable, viable, and deliverable than option 17. Option 17 has a higher BCR than option 11b. Both options align with the project and policy objectives, provide a good strategic fit, and facilitate the emerging development. It is clear that the decision on the preferred scheme is interdependent with the availability of funds to bridge the gap between the developer contribution and total scheme cost. At this stage option 11b has a greater prospect of success, although option 17, if deliverable, offers the greatest economic benefit.

B12798D8/001 96

Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Appendix A. Transport Planning Policy Review

B12798D8/001

Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

National policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

In March 2012, the Department for Communities and Local Government published the NPPF20, which sets out the government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies. The NPPF aims to reform the planning system and is underpinned by a presumption in favour of sustainable development which for plan making means that ‘local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area’.

There is a focus on planning for prosperity, people and places, promoting increased levels of development and supporting infrastructure, whilst also protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment. It is designed, however, to be interpreted and implemented locally; and delegates responsibility for achieving this vision to local planning authorities.

Localism Act

The previous Conservative-Liberal Democrat (henceforth termed the ‘Coalition’) Government’s Localism Act21 provides the legislative foundation for this change. This decentralises power to: • giving local government new freedom and flexibilities; • provides new rights and powers for communities and individuals; • reforms the planning system; • and enables decisions to be taken locally.

The previous Coalition Government’s vision for transport was also one that encourages growth, but is greener, safer and improves the quality of life in our communities. The Government’s transport priorities and key actions are set out within the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Business Plan22, which is updated annually.

There is a focus on improving road safety, reducing congestion and pollution and making changes at a local level. The ‘Local Transport White Paper – Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen’23 published in January 2011 set out the previous Coalition Government’s vision for a sustainable local transport system that supports the economy and reduces carbon emissions.

The focus is on enabling local authorities to meet local transport needs, through a simplified approach to funding and increased power and flexibility. It emphasises that effective sustainable local transport is achieved through solutions developed for the places they serve, tailored for the specific needs and behaviour patterns of individual communities.

20 National Planning Policy Framework http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf 21 Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: an essential guide http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1793908.pdf 22 Business Plan 2013-15 http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/business-plan/11 23 Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen http://www.official- documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7996/7996.pdf

B12798D8/001 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Planning Practice Guidance – Transport evidence bases in plan making and decision taking24

On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched the planning practice guidance. The Transport evidence bases in plan making and decision taking section was updated most recently on the 13 March 2015. Core messages from this include: • A robust assessment of the transport implications of the local plan should be undertaken and establish evidence to support initiatives that enhance accessibility, sustainable transport, enable new infrastructure, improve health and wellbeing, and support economic vitality. • The transport evidence base will need to assess the existing situation, growth in travel demand, and cumulative impact of development in economic, environmental, and social terms. Opportunities to support a development pattern that facilitate travel by more sustainable modes and reduces the need to travel should be considered. Short, medium, and long term transport priorities should be determined across all modes, including an assessment of the quality and capacity of transport infrastructure to meet forecast demands. • Transport assessment should be produced in partnership with all relevant transport and planning authorities, transport providers, and key stakeholders. The assessment is likely to be scenario based and consider a range of potential options. The use of any area-wide traffic models should be agreed with the relevant transport and highway authority. • All modes of transport should be considered and accident analysis will help inform the safety considerations. Critical locations on the road network with poor accident records should be identified. • Assessments should adopt the principles and framework of objectives in WebTAG. Although this approach is typically applied when planning for local transport infrastructure, adopting this approach for Local Plan transport assessments will ensure that any proposed land allocation impact is considered in the context of two alternative scenarios – ‘with development’ and ‘without development’ – and will enable a comparative analysis of the transport effects of the proposed allocation.

Regional/ local policy and guidance

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP): Executive Summary of Strategic Economic Growth Plan and Local Growth Deal (2014)

The Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (BTVLEP) is a business-led 'partnership of equals' between local government and the private sector, building the conditions for sustainable economic growth in the county.

The LEP’s Strategic Economic Growth Plan and Local Growth Deal sets out the transport and business sector priorities for the LEP area. This includes improving north-south connectivity in Buckinghamshire and references the development of the A355 improvement scheme. The A4010 is an alternative corridor connecting the M40 and destinations in the north of the county.

24 Planning Practice Guidance, Updated 13/03/2015, http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/transport-evidence-bases-in-plan- making/transport-evidence-bases-in-plan-making-guidance/

B12798D8/001 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP Strategic Economic Plan – Transport and Business Sector Priorities25

25 http://www.buckstvlep.co.uk/uploads/downloads/BTVLEP%20SEP%20Report%20Summary.pdf

B12798D8/001 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2011 to 2016

The LTP sets out the council’s policies, strategies, and the way the local transport authority will prioritise funding over the LTP period. The LTP was adopted in April 2011 and is the third LTP for the county. The LTP focuses on five themes, including: • delivering a thriving economy; • sustainable environment; • safer communities; • health and wellbeing; and • cohesive string communities.

The LTP recognises the need for cross boundary working due to growth in neighbouring authorities. The vision outlined in the LTP is:

“To make Buckinghamshire a more successful, healthy and safe place to live, work and visit. Maintaining and enhancing the excellent environment, whilst ensuring that businesses thrive and grow the county’s economy.

The maintenance or improvement of the reliability of journey times on key routes is cited as an objective in the LTP.

Buckinghamshire LTP 2011 to 2016: Local Area Strategies

The County LTP3 Strategy is supported by the Local Area Strategy for the North West Chilterns, covering the same period. The Local Area Strategy seeks to deliver enhanced access and ease of movement for a vibrant bustling community. The urban strategy sets out to the following priorities: • manage the challenge of residential and employment growth; • manage the negative impacts of the A4010; • access between princes Risborough centre and rail station; and • parking provision and management.

The approach contains a mix of schemes and initiatives involving the transfer of journeys to sustainable modes, improvements to public realm, traffic management on primary routes, and longer term solutions to managing the A4010 traffic flows.

Local Area Plan – North West Chilterns (November 2014)

The purpose of this document is to set out a list of local priorities for the area. The forum is a meeting between local county, district and parish councillors, emergency services, voluntary community sector partners and local residents to discuss needs and priorities for an area. The priorities outlined in the local area plan include: • public transport in rural areas; • local access to services; • traffic management, with focus on speeding; and • town planning and affordable housing.

B12798D8/001 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Wycombe District Local Development Framework

WDC has an emerging Local Development Framework comprising the following: • adopted Core Strategy 200826 • emerging New Wycombe District Local Plan27 • Delivery and Site Allocations (DSA) Plan, June 201228 • Wycombe Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), May 201229

The adopted Core Strategy sets out the vision and spatial strategy for Wycombe District up to 2026. The focus is on setting the overarching principles to achieve sustainable development and locational principles for new land use development.

Policy CS6 describes Princes Risborough as a vibrant market town and lists six key policy development areas which are Community, Economy, Transport and Access, Tourism, Town Centre and Environment. In relation to Community, the Policy sets out the need to ‘identify specific opportunities to provide a minimum of 480 new dwellings’ within the plan period (to 2026). In terms of Transport and Access, the Core Strategy policy sets out the intention to: • Review the key transport issues in the town, including the divisive effect of through traffic on the A4010 passing through the heart of the town (as part of a strategic review) and the relationship between vehicles and pedestrians in the High Street and town centre • Improve access to the station and secure appropriate levels of station car parking

The emerging WDLP will replace the adopted Core Strategy as well as the saved policies from the existing Local Plan (2004). The new WDLP will also address economic issues and identify land for business development. The need for a new WDLP is triggered by the abolition of the South East Plan housing targets through the Localism Bill, which informed the adopted WDC Core Strategy. The new WDLP will set housing targets for the District and address strategic housing and economic issues. It will also set out the detailed policies to manage development.

The DSA translates the high level policies of the Core Strategy into more detailed policies and site specific allocations for town centres. It also identifies and plans the delivery of the infrastructure needed to support this development. The DSA includes ‘District-wide Development Management Policies’ as per policy DM2 which aims to tackle the transport related challenges created by major developments and adds further detail to supplement Core Strategy policy CS20.

This policy states ‘all developments that require the submission of a Transport Assessment, in line with Appendix B of the DfT Guidance on Transport Assessment (March 2007), or any replacement to this guidance, or as required by the Highway Authority, should provide’ a range of transport improvements relating to public transport, walking and cycling, travel plans, car clubs, and car sharing.

26 Adopted Core Strategy http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/wycombe- development-framework/adopted-core-strategy.aspx 27 New Local Plan http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/new-local-plan.aspx 28 Delivery and Site Allocations Plan http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning- policy/delivery-and-site-allocations-plan-examination.aspx 29 Wycombe Infrastructure Delivery Plan http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning- policy/community-infrastructure-levy/examination.aspx

B12798D8/001 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

The design of development should allow for bus penetration through the sites and priority bus routing, traffic management that ensures queues are managed in a way that mitigates their impact on the primary highway network, and layout and design that realises high quality places that are not dominated by the needs of vehicular traffic. WDC will as far as practicable seek to ensure that new development has a neutral effect on the highway network.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

The Wycombe CIL was formally introduced in 2012. CIL is a local tariff that enables Local Authorities to set a charge for most types of new land use development. The money is available to fund a wide range of local and strategic infrastructure that is required as result of development such as transport schemes, green infrastructure, schools and community facilities.

The DSA sets out that ‘it is vitally important that new development provides appropriate measures to encourage sustainable transport behaviour as well as, through the CIL, contributions towards the wider strategy as produced by the County Council so as to offset the wider traffic impacts and meet the travel needs of users of the development’.

Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Neighbourhood Plan (Consultation Draft, June 2015) Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish (LcIP) comprises the main village of Longwick together with the small hamlets of Ilmer, Owlswick, Little Meadle and Meadle as well as a small part (6 properties only) of Horsenden. In common with many areas in the south east of England which have seen both population growth and pressures on housing stocks, Longwick has grown considerably in the last 40 years and it is recognised that this trend is likely to continue up to 2033 (the Local Plan period) and beyond. The hamlets, with the exception of Little Meadle, each enjoy the safeguard of having a Conservation Area status and so are not subject to the same expansionary pressures.

The vision for Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish by 2033 includes: • Be a Parish that has managed growth with infrastructure and services appropriate to the needs of all its residents, both current and future. • Have easy access and safe movement for pedestrians and cyclists to and through Longwick village, with good connections to the hamlets and key locations in the area. • Have regular, convenient and long term public transport services by bus to destinations such as Princes Risborough town centre and railway station.

The objectives set out for transport are: • To put in place improved bus services, cycle ways and footways on the highway network, together with better local footpaths and bridleways to facilitate travel within the whole Parish and to neighbouring communities. • To provide safe and effective traffic movement within and through the village, for all users of the public realm – including pedestrians, cyclists, the young and elderly. Transport assessments, including of junction capacities and the impact of future development site allocations on the local highway network, should seek to improve current conditions, and make due allowance for known developments in adjoining parishes and districts, through traffic calming measures, capacity enhancements and speed restrictions.

The transport infrastructure improvements suggested in the plan include: • Improvements to walking and cycling routes in the village - surface maintenance, overgrown planting, enforcement of speed limits alongside narrow pavements.

B12798D8/001 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

• Improvements to walking and cycling routes in the village - add new or increase narrow pavements - e.g. north side of Chestnut Way, Bar Lane and Thame Road, and add additional pedestrian crossings within the village. • Change highway design (with road narrowing etc.), reduce speed limits and apply enforcement on roads and junctions approaching the hamlets and Longwick: Thame Road, Lower Icknield Way, Bar Lane, Stockwell Lane at Meadle, Little Meadle and Owlswick, including reviewing recommended lorry routes. • Improvements to walking and cycling routes from the village to Princes Risborough town centre and railway station, via Longwick and Summerleys Roads, by adding missing sections of pavement, and cycle provision. • Traffic management and safety improvements for drivers and other public realm users in Longwick at the junctions on Walnut Tree Lane, Bar Lane, Chestnut Way, Thame Road, Lower Icknield Way, and Stockwell Lane. • Higher quality, long-term and sustainable public transport services to Princes Risborough and the railway station

The objectives set out for housing and jobs are outlined below: • To support local businesses and employment locally, allowing some managed mixed employment growth both within the village and, if appropriate, in the hamlets. This will be in the form of appropriate facilities for use by existing and expanding businesses, and new enterprises, as well as for use by community societies and home-based workers; ideally these should be located within walking distance of the main residential areas. • To protect and enhance the needs of an evolving Parish community with housing provision that meets local needs through a mix of new homes, affordable and starter homes, and appropriate accommodation for an ageing population, with supporting infrastructure.

The following sites are allocated for housing development: • Land at Thame Road-Bar Lane corner - 0.56ha site for open space • Land at Boxer Road/ Barn Road - 0.79ha site for open space • Land on Thame Road south of Chestnut Way junction - 1 ha site to accommodate around 12-20 residential units, at 12-20 dwelling units/ha • Land at Rose Farm - Three sites of 0.24 ha, 0.31 ha, and 0.5ha

Recent studies

Princes Risborough Area Transport Study (January 2014)

Jacobs was commissioned by BCC to undertake a transport study to assess the implications of housing growth and potential associated transport infrastructure requirements. Key findings from this study were: • The patterns of traffic movement are influenced by the A4010 and there is a relatively high proportion of through traffic in this area. • The most significant levels of congestion and delay in Princes Risborough in 2013 are the town centre links and junctions in the vicinity of New Road and Bell Street, and the Grove Lane arm of the A4010 near Little Kimble. • ‘do minimum’ traffic volumes were forecast to increase by approximately 20% by 2031. • Three land use scenarios were considered on land to the west of Princes Risborough. All had an impact on the operation of the local road network. • A Western Relief Road provides benefits to vehicle movement and as part of a package of wider sustainable transport measures can provide

B12798D8/001 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

benefit to Princes Risborough Town Centre.

Princes Risborough Background Report (December 2014)

Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design was appointed by WDC to undertake a study exploring the potential expansion of Princes Risborough. The background report was prepared to summarise the background technical and physical information to determine the opportunities and constraints.

The following constraints are identified in the report: • The railway line is a barrier to integrating the existing settlement with the new development. • A4010 is congested, particularly around the town centre. • The main railway station and town centre are not close together which makes effective public transport routes more difficult. • Existing roads are not felt to be safe, placing higher reliance on the use of the private car. • The area is at the foot of the Chiltern escarpment, with views over the area being very important. • Flooding and drainage, including ground and surface water flooding, means that some areas are less appropriate for development, or need mitigation to deal with the issue. • Surrounding villages do not want to be subsumed by the expanded town, and Monks Risborough wants to retain its district identity. • Alscot Conservation Area lies in the heart of the search area. There is a statutory duty to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this built environment. • There are two designated wildlife sites, and other potential wildlife interests to be protected. • Former unlicenced landfill on the Hypnos site means that further investigations will be required to establish whether this land is suitable for residential development. • The sewerage works alongside the railway may constrain the type and location of development nearby. • Attracting inward investment in the form of jobs may be difficult.

The following opportunities were identified in the report: • Use new roads necessary to service the new development to reduce the traffic on the A4010, and identify opportunities for a better town centre. • Improve links under/ over the railway to make a connected town so residents support the town centre and other town centre facilities. • The relatively flat topography provides an opportunity for cycling to be a convenient travel choice by improving routes in the existing town and making new routes. • The Crowbrook provides an opportunity to improve biodiversity, and a leisure use, as a linear park. • The hedgerows, rights of way, potential views to local landmarks, and the character of the area can provide a structure to the masterplan for the area. • To use landscape design as the driving force behind the masterplan to acknowledge the AONB setting. • To provide new community facilities such as schools and open space, to meet the needs of new residents, and for the use of the wider town. • To establish a country park to maintain the gap between Longwick and Princes Risborough.

B12798D8/001 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Appendix B. Environmental Constraints Plans

B12798D8/001

/ Constraints 1 Route options Regional trails Option 11a National Cycle Network Option 11b Option 12 National Trails Option 13a Historic landfill Option 13b Special Area of Option 15a Conservation (SAC) Option 15b Sites of Special Option 16a Scientific Interest 1 Option 16b (SSSI) Option 17 Ancient Woodland 1km buffer Local Nature Reserve 2 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Greenbelt Tree Preservation Biological Notification Order Areas

Rivers Local Wildlife Sites

3 ! Public Right of Way Community and (! private assets

Ordnance Survey data © 7 6 Crown copyright and database right 2014 Community and private assets ii 1) Public place of worship 0 20/11/2015 Initial Issue EW MT SW RS 2) Public house Rev. Date Purpose of revision Drawn Check'd Rev'd Appr'd iii 3) Allotment gardens Churchill House, Churchill Way, Cardiff, CF10 2HH, UK 4) Allotment gardens Tel: +44(0)29 2035 4200 Fax: +44(0)29 2035 3222 www.jacobs.com b 5) Sewage works Client 6) Factory 7) Football/cricket grounds

Project c Biological Notification Areas Princes Risborough C h i l t e r n s i) Summerleys Cottage Wood AONB ii) Fields around Roundabout Wood Drawing Title Constraints plan iii) Garden and Orchard, Saunderton Sheet 1

Local Wildlife Sites a) Longwick Bog Scale @ A3 1:35,000 DO NOT SCALE b) Saunderton Marsh Jacobs No. BXXXXXXX c) Saunderton Railway 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 © Crown copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 10018341 This drawing is not to be used in whole in or part other than for the intended purpose Metres and project as defined on this drawing. Refer to the contract for full terms and conditions.

P:\Transport Modelling\B0000000 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Spatial\ArcGIS\002_Constraints\Princes_Risborough_001_Constraints_RevA_sheet1.mxd

Constraints 2

Route options

/ Constraints 3 Route options Option 11a Option 11b Option 12 Option 13a Option 13b Option 15a Option 15b Option 16a Option 16b Option 17 Agricultural land classification Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Non-agricultural Urban

0 19/11/2015 Initial Issue EW MT SW RS

Rev. Date Purpose of revision Drawn Check'd Rev'd Appr'd

1180 Eskdale Road, Winnersh, Reading, RG41 5TU, UK. Tel: +44 (0)118 946 7000 www.jacobs.com

Client

Project

Princes Risborough

Drawing Title Constraints plan Sheet 3

FOR INFORMATION ONLY Scale @ A3 1:25,000 DO NOT SCALE Jacobs No. BXXXXXXX

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Meters © Crown copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 10018341 This drawing is not to be used in whole in or part other than for the intended purpose and project as defined on this drawing. Refer to the contract for full terms and conditions. \\europe.jacobs.com\Reading\Data\JI_Projects\Transport Modelling\B0000000 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Spatial\ArcGIS\002_Constraints\Princes_Risborough_003_ALC.mxd

Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Appendix C. Uncertainty Logs

B12798D8/001

Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Scenario A (do-minimum) development uncertainty log

Planning Business Case 2036 Forecast Year Development Application Application Modelling Description Status Number Included? Quantum Assumption Princes Risborough (NTEM zone 11UF6) Resolution to grant planning Former Whiteleaf, 14/05386/OUT permission subject 60 houses and 24 flats Picts Lane to legal agreement. Former Molins Application 14/07148/OUT Not included (90 dwellings) Sports Ground withdrawn Ker Maria Nursing Pending 15/05349/FUL 70 assisted living units Home consideration No application Leo Laboratories No application yet 107 dwellings yet Princes Risborough No application No application yet Not included. Scale unknown Secondary School yet Princes Risborough No application No application yet Expansion yet 2,500 houses 2no primary schools 2 forms of entry each 27000 sqm business uses located as on preliminary masterplan 500 sqm retail in local centre

Community uses in local centre GP surgery, community hall Rural (Wycombe) (NTEM zone 11UF0)

Mill Lane 14/06162/OUT Appeal in progress 192 dwellings De Gravens Pending 15/06332/OUT 152 dwellings Meadow consideration Thame Road (OS Application 14/08253/OUT 20 dwellings parcel 2075) withdrawn

Land off Boxer Pending 14/06965/OUT 50 dwellings Road/ Barn Road consideration Thame Road (OS No application parcels 6232 and No application yet 50 dwellings yet 7428) Thame Road (Rose No application No application yet 20 dwellings Farm) yet

B12798D8/001

Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Scenario B (do minimum with development) development uncertainty log

Business Case 2036 Forecast Year Planning Development Application Modelling Application Description Status Number Included? Quantum Assumption

Princes Risborough (NTEM zone 11UF6) Resolution to grant planning Former Whiteleaf, 14/05386/OUT permission subject 60 houses and 24 flats Picts Lane to legal agreement. Former Molins Application 14/07148/OUT Not included (90 dwellings) Sports Ground withdrawn Ker Maria Nursing Pending 15/05349/FUL 70 assisted living units Home consideration No application New secondary school. 2 form Leo Laboratories No application yet yet entry expansion Princes Risborough No application No application yet 105 houses Secondary School yet Princes Risborough No application No application yet Expansion yet 2,500 houses 2no primary schools 2 form entry and 1 form entry 27000 sqm business uses located as on preliminary masterplan 500 sqm retail in local centre

Community uses in local centre GP surgery, community hall Rural (Wycombe) (NTEM zone 11UF0)

Mill Lane 14/06162/OUT Appeal in progress 192 dwellings

De Gravens Pending 15/06332/OUT 152 dwellings Meadow consideration

Thame Road (OS Application 14/08253/OUT 20 dwellings parcel 2075) withdrawn

Land off Boxer Pending 14/06965/OUT 50 dwellings Road/ Barn Road consideration

Thame Road (OS No application parcels 6232 and No application yet 50 dwellings yet 7428) Thame Road (Rose No application No application yet 20 dwellings Farm) yet

B12798D8/001

Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Appendix D. EAST Outputs

B12798D8/001

Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) - Expanded Print View Option Name/No. East of railway via dev site Date 08/07/2015

Description Option 1: Route considered in the 2014 study which runs along Lower Icknield Way, across development site (east of railway), through railway bridge on Summerleys Road, Picts Lane and Shootacre Lane to A4010. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 4 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental conditions. objectives Fit with other objectives 4 Option fits well with local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Options is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety)

Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Degree of consensus 4 This option is very similar one discussed and raised in consultation over outcomes with the Princes Risborough Steering Group. WDC preferred alignment. BCC support this alignment in principle providing it meets the objectives set out by the LEP. Economic Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. Will improve north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 3. Amber The new road is slightly longer in distance, but quicker in journey time with less delay at junctions. Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green The new road facilitates new residential growth in this area. impacts and the regions

Local environment 4. Amber/green The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a result of removing through traffic. The construction of a new road will impact the environment on the new alignment, however this is subject to redevelopment for c. 2500 homes and is also currently agricultural land only. Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Practical feasibility 4 Option is feasible, but does require third party land and widening of an existing rail bridge. What is the quality of the 3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Option has supporting evidence? local government and public support. Additional appraisal of the option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR and accompanying SOBC. Key risks Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals. Financial Affordability 4 Affordability to be confirmed, but considered to be one of the most affordable options. Funding through a combination of government and developer money. Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 3 There is flexibility in the geometric design and the urban design context of the corridor. Where is funding coming Funding submission to the local growth fund. Developer contributions to support. from? Any income generated? No (£m) Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) - Expanded Print View Option Name/No. West of railway via Horsenden Date 08/10/2015

Description Option 2: Route considered in the 2014 study which runs along Lower Icknield Way, across fields west of railway but crossing former railway to Chinnor, via Horsenden, Picts Lane and Shootacre Lane to A4010. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 3 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time, if a road of a higher speed/ design standard can be provided. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 3 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety). There may be heritage and environmental impacts which reduce the viability of the route. Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Horsenden is a sensitive area and is likely to be met with public opposition. Degree of consensus 3 This option is very similar one discussed and raised in consultation over outcomes with the Princes Risborough Steering Group. Economic Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. Will improve north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 2. Red/amber The new road is longer in distance than options provided east of the railway, but quicker in journey time with less delay at junctions when compared with the existing A4010. The attractiveness of the road to trips generated by the new development is less certain, which may mean these will use the existing A4010.

Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green The new road facilitates new residential growth in this area. impacts and the regions

Local environment 2. Red/amber The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a result of removing through traffic, however air quality would be worse through Horsenden, and the new development trips may still use the A4010. The construction of a new road will impact the environment on the new alignment. Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Expected VfM category 3. Medium 1.5-2 No BCR undertaken yet, but anticipate the option will deliver medium benefit. Managerial Implementation 6. 5-10 years Target year of opening is 2021 timetable Public acceptability 3 Similar to options shortlisted in Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop. Impact on Horsenden might be less publically acceptable. Practical feasibility 4 Option is feasible, but does require third party land and widening of an existing rail bridge, plus a new structure across/ under the railway to Chinnor. What is the quality of the 3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Option has supporting evidence? local government and public support. Additional appraisal of the option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR. Option likely to be discounted due to impact on Horsenden. Key risks Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability. Financial Affordability 3 Affordability to be confirmed, but considered to be one of the most affordable options. Funding through a combination of government and developer money, although the alignment might attract a smaller developer contribution. Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 2 There is some flexibility in the geometric design, although will need to be more of a DMRB design to achieve journey time benefit.

Where is funding coming Funding submission to the local growth fund. Developer contributions to support. from? Any income generated? No (£m) Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) - Expanded Print View Option Name/No. W of railway and Horsenden Date 14/08/2015

Description Option 4: Route option proposed during public exhibition. The routes bypasses Horsenden and crosses railway at Picts Lane before joining the A4010 via Shootacre Lane. The route also crosses the water bodies south west of Horsenden. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 3 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time, if a road of a higher speed/ design standard can be provided. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 3 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety). However, there is likely to be a high environmental/ heritage impact as a result of this alignment. Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Degree of consensus 4 Raised during public exhibition and similar option raised by Princes over outcomes Risborough Steering Group. Economic Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development, although not all new trips to/ from the development will use the new road. Providing the design standards allow it will improve north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 2. Red/amber The new road is longer in distance than options provided east of the railway, but quicker in journey time with less delay at junctions when compared with the existing A4010. The attractiveness of the road to trips generated by the new development is less certain, which may mean these will use the existing A4010.

Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green impacts and the regions

Local environment 3. Amber The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a result of removing through traffic, but the new development trips may still use the A4010. The construction of a new road will impact the environment on the new alignment. Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Expected VfM category 3. Medium 1.5-2 No BCR undertaken yet, but anticipate the option will deliver medium benefit. Managerial Implementation 6. 5-10 years Target year of opening is 2021 timetable Public acceptability 4 Similar to options shortlisted in Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop. Impact on Horsenden might be less publically acceptable. Practical feasibility 4 Option is feasible, but does require third party land and widening of an existing rail bridge, plus a new structure across/ under the railway to Chinnor. What is the quality of the 3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Option has supporting evidence? local government and public support. Additional appraisal of the option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR. Key risks Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability, cost of the scheme. Financial Affordability 3 Affordability to be confirmed, but considered to be one of the most affordable options. Funding through a combination of government and developer money, although the alignment might attract a smaller developer contribution. Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 3 There is some flexibility in the geometric design, although will need to be more of a DMRB design to achieve journey time benefit.

Where is funding coming Funding submission to the local growth fund. Developer contributions to support, although lower from? level likely due to alignment not being through the development. Any income generated? No (£m) Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) - Expanded Print View Option Name/No. Via dev site and W of Horsenden Date 14/08/2015

Description Option 6: Alignment is via the development site, beneath railways, west of Horsenden, via Picts Lane and Shootacre Lane to A4010. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 3 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time, if a road of a higher speed/ design standard can be provided, if the design standards and road speed facilitate this. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 2 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety). However, there is likely to be environmental/ heritage impacts as a result of this alignment. Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Degree of consensus 2 Raised during public exhibition, but less likely to have stakeholder over outcomes support. Economic Economic growth 4. Amber/green Will facilitate new residential development, although not all new trips to/ from the development will use the new road. Providing the design standards allow it will improve north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 2. Red/amber The new road is longer in distance than options provided east of the railway, but quicker in journey time with less delay at junctions when compared with the existing A4010. The attractiveness of the road to trips generated by the new development is less certain, which may mean these will use the existing A4010.

Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green Would facilitate some development locally. impacts and the regions

What is the quality of the 3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Option has supporting evidence? local government and public support. Additional appraisal of the option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR. Option likely to be discounted due to impact on Horsenden. Key risks Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability, cost of the scheme. Financial Affordability 2 Affordability to be confirmed, but considered to be one of the most affordable options. Funding through a combination of government and developer money, although the alignment might attract a smaller developer contribution. Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 3 There is some flexibility in the geometric design, although will need to be more of a DMRB design to achieve journey time benefit.

Description Option 8: North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 4 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 4 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety).

Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. The status of the sewerage works as to whether this will be closed or not. Degree of consensus 4 Raised during public exhibition. over outcomes Economic Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. Carbon emissions 3. Amber Improvement in the town centre, but construction would have a carbon footprint. Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green impacts and the regions

Local environment 4. Amber/green The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a result of removing through traffic. The construction of a new road will impact the environment on the new alignment. The southern section of the alignment also passes through existing residential development which would need to be purchased to and demolished to provide the route. Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Expected VfM category 2. High 2-4 No BCR undertaken yet, but anticipate the option will deliver high benefit. Managerial Implementation 6. 5-10 years Target year of opening is 2021 timetable Public acceptability 4 Similar to options shortlisted in Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop. Practical feasibility 2 Option is feasible, but does require widening of railway bridge and removal of sewerage plant. Houses would also need to be acquired to deliver the option. What is the quality of the 3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Option has supporting evidence? local government and public support. Additional appraisal of the option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR. Key risks Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability, cost of the scheme. Financial Affordability 3 Affordability to be confirmed, but considered to be one of the most affordable options. Funding through a combination of government and developer money. Additional cost incurred though due to need to CPO houses. Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 3 There is some flexibility in the geometric design, although will need to be more of a DMRB design to achieve journey time benefit.

Description Option 10: North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 4 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time, if a road of a higher speed/ design standard can be provided, if the design standards and road speed facilitate this. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 2 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety). However, there is likely to be an unacceptable environmental/ heritage impact as a result of this alignment. The feasibility is debatable due to crossing railway line south of where it bifurcates.

Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Degree of consensus 2 Raised during public exhibition, but unlikely to have stakeholder over outcomes support. Economic Economic growth 4. Amber/green Will facilitate new residential development, although not all new trips to/ from the development will use the new road. Providing the design standards allow it will improve north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 3. Amber The new road is longer in distance than options provided east of the railway, but quicker in journey time with less delay at junctions when compared with the existing A4010. The attractiveness of the road to trips generated by the new development is less certain, which may mean these will use the existing A4010.

Socio-distributional 3. Amber impacts and the regions

What is the quality of the 3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Option has supporting evidence? local government and public support. Additional appraisal of the option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR. Key risks Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability, cost of the scheme. Financial Affordability 2 Affordability to be confirmed. Funding through a combination of government and developer money, although the alignment might attract a smaller developer contribution. Capital Cost (£m) 06. 50-100 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 3 There is some flexibility in the geometric design, although will need to be more of a DMRB design to achieve journey time benefit.

Description Options 11a and 11b: Princes Risborough Steering Group option. Similar alignment to Option 1.

Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 4 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 4 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety).

Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Degree of consensus 4 Raised during Princes Risborough Steering Group meeting. over outcomes Economic Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. Providing the design standards allow it will improve north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 3. Amber The alignment is likely to be quicker than the existing A4010, with more free flowing traffic speed and fewer junctions. Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green impacts and the regions

Local environment 4. Amber/green The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a result of removing through traffic. The construction of a new road will impact the environment on the new alignment. Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Practical feasibility 4 Option is feasible.

What is the quality of the 3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Option has supporting evidence? local government and public support. Additional appraisal of the option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR. Key risks Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability, cost of the scheme. Financial Affordability 4 Affordability to be confirmed, but considered to be one of the most affordable options. Funding through a combination of government and developer money. Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 3 There is some flexibility in the geometric design, although will need to be more of a DMRB design to achieve journey time benefit.

Description Option 12: North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 3 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time, if a road of a higher speed/ design standard can be provided. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 3 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety).

Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Degree of consensus 4 Raised during Princes Risborough Steering Group meeting. over outcomes Economic Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development, although not all new trips to/ from the development will use the new road. Providing the design standards allow it will improve north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 2. Red/amber The new road is longer in distance than options provided east of the railway, but quicker in journey time with less delay at junctions when compared with the existing A4010. The attractiveness of the road to trips generated by the new development is less certain, which may mean these will use the existing A4010.

Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green impacts and the regions

Local environment 3. Amber The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a result of removing through traffic, but the new development trips may still use the A4010. The construction of a new road will impact the environment on the new alignment. Additional traffic would travel on Lower Icknield Way. Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Expected VfM category 3. Medium 1.5-2 No BCR undertaken yet, but anticipate the option will deliver medium benefit. Managerial Implementation 6. 5-10 years Target year of opening is 2021 timetable Public acceptability 4 Option was proposed in Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop. Practical feasibility 4 Option is feasible, but does require third party land and amendments to multiple rail bridges. What is the quality of the 3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Option has supporting evidence? local government and public support. Additional appraisal of the option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR. Key risks Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability, cost of the scheme. Financial Affordability 2 Affordability to be confirmed. Funding through a combination of government and developer money, although the alignment might attract a smaller developer contribution. Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 3 There is flexibility in the geometric design, although will need to be more of a DMRB design to achieve journey time benefit. Where is funding coming Funding submission to the local growth fund. Developer contributions to support, although lower from? level likely due to alignment not being through the development. Any income generated? No (£m) Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) - Expanded Print View Option Name/No. Options 13a and 13b Date 14/08/2015

Description Option 13a and 13b: North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 3 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time, if a road of a higher speed/ design standard can be provided. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 4 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety).

Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Degree of consensus 4 Raised during Princes Risborough Steering Group meeting. over outcomes Economic Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development, although not all new trips to/ from the development will use the new road. Providing the design standards allow it will improve north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 3. Amber The new road is longer in distance than options provided east of the railway, but quicker in journey time with less delay at junctions when compared with the existing A4010. The attractiveness of the road to trips generated by the new development is less certain, which may mean these will use the existing A4010.

Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green Would facilitate some development locally. impacts and the regions

Local environment 4. Amber/green The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a result of removing through traffic, but the new development trips may still use the A4010. The construction of a new road will impact the environment on the new alignment. Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Practical feasibility 4 Option is feasible, but does require third party land and widening of existing rail bridges. What is the quality of the 3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Would be supporting evidence? subject to further review as part of OAR.

Key risks Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability, cost of the scheme. Financial Affordability 3 Affordability to be confirmed. Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 2 There is minimal flexibility in the geometric design, although will need to be more of a DMRB design to achieve journey time benefit.

Description Option 15a and 15b: North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 4 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 4 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety).

Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Degree of consensus 4 WDC preferred option. Same alignment as proposed by Princes over outcomes Risborough Steering Group. Economic Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. The design standards will need to allow improved north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 3. Amber The route is aligned through existing greenfield sites. The route will facilitate a traffic reassignment away from the existing A4010 and therefore improve air quality in this area. Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green impacts and the regions

Local environment 4. Amber/green The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a result of removing through traffic. The construction of a new road will impact the environment on the new alignment. Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Key risks Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability, cost of the scheme. Financial Affordability 4 Affordability to be confirmed, but considered to be one of the most affordable options. Funding through a combination of government and developer money. Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 3 There is some flexibility in the geometric design. Where is funding coming Funding submission to the local growth fund. Developer contributions to support. from? Any income generated? No (£m) Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) - Expanded Print View Option Name/No. 16a and 16b Date 09/02/2015

Description Option 16a and 16b: North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 4 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 3 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety). Feasibility needs review due to alignment through existing sewerage works. Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Degree of consensus 4 Alternative alignment that would bypass new development, but still over outcomes be located east of the railway. Economic Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. The design standards will need to allow improved north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 3. Amber The route is aligned through existing greenfield sites. The route will facilitate a traffic reassignment away from the existing A4010 and therefore improve air quality in this area. Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green impacts and the regions

Local environment 4. Amber/green The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a result of removing through traffic. The construction of a new road will impact the environment on the new alignment. Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Description Option 17: North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Strategic Identified problems and North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough objectives already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development access road for the new development. Scale of impact 4 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is more reliable in terms of journey time. Fit with wider transport 4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency, and government stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the objectives existing A4010 by removing through traffic. Fit with other objectives 3 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation. Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north- south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety). Feasibility needs review due to alignment through existing sewerage works. Key uncertainties Land required to provide new road alignment.

Degree of consensus 3 Alignment would be through northern part of development and pass over outcomes between Horsenden and the London to Birmingham mainline

Economic Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. The design standards will need to allow improved north-south journey time and journey time reliability. Carbon emissions 3. Amber The route is aligned through existing greenfield sites. The route will facilitate a traffic reassignment away from the existing A4010 and therefore improve air quality in this area. Socio-distributional 4. Amber/green impacts and the regions

Local environment 3. Amber The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a result of removing through traffic. The construction of a new road will impact the environment on the new alignment. A route east of Horsenden will need to avoid TPOs and the conservation area. Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Expected VfM category 2. High 2-4 No BCR undertaken yet, but anticipate the option will deliver high benefit. Managerial Implementation 6. 5-10 years Target year of opening is 2021 timetable Public acceptability 4 Similar to option 8, which was shortlisted in the public If provides improved journey times then would attract support. Practical feasibility 4 Option is feasible, but does require third party land and widening of existing rail bridges. It is achievable. What is the quality of the 3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling at time of supporting evidence? EAST. Option has local government and public support. Additional appraisal of the option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR.

Key risks Land ownership, public acceptability, cost of the scheme. Financial Affordability 3 Affordability to be confirmed. Would be expensive, but might attract some developer funding. Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50 Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely. Cost profile Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 3 There is some flexibility in the geometric design. Where is funding coming Funding submission to the local growth fund. Developer contributions to support. from? Any income generated? No (£m) Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Appendix E. TEE, PA and AMCB Tables

B12798D8/001

Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Table (Option 11B)

Consumers ALL MODES ROAD Bus & Coach RAIL Other User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Passengers Travel time 27021 27021 0 0 0 Vehicle operating costs 1378 1378 0 User charges 0 0 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 NET CONSUMER BENEFITS 28399 (1) 28399 0 0 0

Business Business Cars & User benefits Goods Vehicles Passengers Freight Passengers LGVs Travel time 25706 8613 17093 0 0 0 0 Vehicle operating costs 1657 950 707 0 User charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 27363 (2) 9563 17800 0 0 0 0 Private sector provider impacts Freight Passengers Revenue 0 Operating costs 0 Investment costs 0 Grant/subsidy 0 Subtotal 0 (3) Other business impacts Developer contributions -38422 (4) NET BUSINESS IMPACT -11059 (5) = (2) + (3) + (4)

TOTAL Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits 17340 (6) = (1) + (5)

Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2010 prices and values. Public Accounts (PA) Table (Option 11B)

ALL MODES ROAD BUS and COACH RAIL OTHER Local Government Funding TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE Revenue 0 0 0 Operating Costs 0 0 0 Investment Costs 0 0 0 Developer and Other Contributions -38422 -38422 0 0 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 0 0 0 NET IMPACT -38422 (7) -38422 0 0 0

Central Government Funding: Transport Revenue 0 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 0 Investment Costs 44128 44128 0 Developer and Other Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 0 0 0 NET IMPACT 44128 (8) 44128 0 0 0

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport Indirect Tax Revenues 1095 (9) 1095 0 0 0

TOTALS Broad Transport Budget 5706 (10) = (7) + (8) Wider Public Finances 1095 (11) = (9)

Notes: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and ‘Developer and Other Contributions' appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values in 2010 prices and values. Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (Option 11B)

Noise 0 (12) Local Air Quality 0 (13) Greenhouse Gases 449 (14) Journey Quality 0 (15) Physical Activity 0 (16) Accidents 0 (17) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 12692 (1a) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 15706 (1b) Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers -11058 (5) -1095 - (11) - sign changed from PA Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) table, as PA table represents costs, not benefits

16694 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB) + (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) - (11)

Broad Transport Budget 5706 (10)

Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) 5706 (PVC) = (10)

OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) 10988 NPV=PVB-PVC Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.926 BCR=PVB/PVC

Note : This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions. Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Table (Option 12)

Consumers ALL MODES ROAD Bus & Coach RAIL Other User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Passengers Travel time 25841 25841 0 0 0 Vehicle operating costs 799 799 0 User charges 0 0 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 NET CONSUMER BENEFITS 26640 (1) 26640 0 0 0

Business Business Cars & User benefits Goods Vehicles Passengers Freight Passengers LGVs Travel time 23909 8053 15856 0 0 0 0 Vehicle operating costs 1019 472 547 0 User charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 24928 (2) 8525 16403 0 0 0 0 Private sector provider impacts Freight Passengers Revenue 0 Operating costs 0 Investment costs 0 Grant/subsidy 0 Subtotal 0 (3) Other business impacts Developer contributions -38422 (4) NET BUSINESS IMPACT -13494 (5) = (2) + (3) + (4)

TOTAL Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits 13146 (6) = (1) + (5)

Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2010 prices and values. Public Accounts (PA) Table (Option 12)

Central Government Funding: Transport Revenue 0 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 0 Investment Costs 59873 59873 0 Developer and Other Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 0 0 0 NET IMPACT 59873 (8) 59873 0 0 0

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport Indirect Tax Revenues 743 (9) 743 0 0 0

TOTALS Broad Transport Budget 21451 (10) = (7) + (8) Wider Public Finances 743 (11) = (9)

Noise 0 (12) Local Air Quality 0 (13) Greenhouse Gases 311 (14) Journey Quality 0 (15) Physical Activity 0 (16) Accidents 0 (17) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 11686 (1a) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 14955 (1b) Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers -13494 (5) -743 - (11) - sign changed from PA Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) table, as PA table represents costs, not benefits

12715 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB) + (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) - (11)

Broad Transport Budget 21451 (10)

Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) 21451 (PVC) = (10)

OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) -8736 NPV=PVB-PVC Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.593 BCR=PVB/PVC

Consumers ALL MODES ROAD Bus & Coach RAIL Other User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Passengers Travel time 16876 16876 0 0 0 Vehicle operating costs 942 942 0 User charges 0 0 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 NET CONSUMER BENEFITS 17818 (1) 17818 0 0 0

Business Business Cars & User benefits Goods Vehicles Passengers Freight Passengers LGVs Travel time 15666 5086 10580 0 0 0 0 Vehicle operating costs 928 480 448 0 User charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 16594 (2) 5566 11028 0 0 0 0 Private sector provider impacts Freight Passengers Revenue 0 Operating costs 0 Investment costs 0 Grant/subsidy 0 Subtotal 0 (3) Other business impacts Developer contributions -38422 (4) NET BUSINESS IMPACT -21828 (5) = (2) + (3) + (4)

TOTAL Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits -4010 (6) = (1) + (5)

Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2010 prices and values. Public Accounts (PA) Table (Option 15B)

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport Indirect Tax Revenues 668 (9) 668 0 0 0

TOTALS Broad Transport Budget 5706 (10) = (7) + (8) Wider Public Finances 668 (11) = (9)

Noise 0 (12) Local Air Quality 0 (13) Greenhouse Gases 279 (14) Journey Quality 0 (15) Physical Activity 0 (16) Accidents 0 (17) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 7932 (1a) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 9886 (1b) Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers -21827 (5) -668 - (11) - sign changed from PA Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) table, as PA table represents costs, not benefits

-4398 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB) + (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) - (11)

Broad Transport Budget 5706 (10)

Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) 5706 (PVC) = (10)

OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) -10104 NPV=PVB-PVC Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) -0.771 BCR=PVB/PVC

Consumers ALL MODES ROAD Bus & Coach RAIL Other User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Passengers Travel time 58318 58318 0 0 0 Vehicle operating costs 6184 6184 0 User charges 0 0 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 NET CONSUMER BENEFITS 64502 (1) 64502 0 0 0

Business Business Cars & User benefits Goods Vehicles Passengers Freight Passengers LGVs Travel time 57561 20742 36819 0 0 0 0 Vehicle operating costs 7581 5380 2201 0 User charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 65142 (2) 26122 39020 0 0 0 0 Private sector provider impacts Freight Passengers Revenue 0 Operating costs 0 Investment costs 0 Grant/subsidy 0 Subtotal 0 (3) Other business impacts Developer contributions -38422 (4) NET BUSINESS IMPACT 26720 (5) = (2) + (3) + (4)

TOTAL Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits 91222 (6) = (1) + (5)

Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2010 prices and values. Public Accounts (PA) Table (Option 17)

Central Government Funding: Transport Revenue 0 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 0 Investment Costs 65072 65072 0 Developer and Other Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 0 0 0 NET IMPACT 65072 (8) 65072 0 0 0

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport Indirect Tax Revenues 4375 (9) 4375 0 0 0

TOTALS Broad Transport Budget 26650 (10) = (7) + (8) Wider Public Finances 4375 (11) = (9)

Noise 0 (12) Local Air Quality 0 (13) Greenhouse Gases 1801 (14) Journey Quality 0 (15) Physical Activity 0 (16) Accidents 0 (17) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 29014 (1a) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 35490 (1b) Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers 26721 (5) -4375 - (11) - sign changed from PA Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) table, as PA table represents costs, not benefits

88651 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB) + (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) - (11)

Broad Transport Budget 26650 (10)

Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) 26650 (PVC) = (10)

OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) 62001 NPV=PVB-PVC Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.326 BCR=PVB/PVC

Appendix F. Appraisal Summary Table

B12798D8/001

Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: 18 11 2015 Contact: Name of scheme: Princes Risborough Western Relief Road (Option 11b) Name Stephen Moody Organisation Jacobs Description of scheme: The road alignment comprises widening of Lower Icknield Way, a section of new road through a proposed development site, connecting to Summerleys Road through to Picts Lane and Shootacre Lane Role Transport Planner Impacts Assessment Qualitative Monetary Distributional Summary of key impacts Quantitative 7-pt scale/ £(NPV) vulnerable grp Value of journey time changes(£) 25.7M The scheme will reduce journey times and junction delays in the region and facilitate travel around the western side of the town. Slight to Business users & transport Net journey time changes (£) The additional capacity will cause a better distribution of traffic volumes amongst the existing roads and reduce the traffic volumes in the town centre of Princes Risborough. Hence, all Moderate 27.4M providers road users will benefit from this scheme. This supports the aspirations of the BTVLEP. 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min Beneficial 16,444 10,609 1,843 Slight to Reliability impact on Business The scheme will improve journey time reliability for all users, including business users, through less congestion and shorter delays during peak hours making the overall traffic situation N/A Moderate N/A

Economy users more predictable. Overall north-south journey times improve. Beneficial Regeneration Not assessed - scheme does not impact upon a designated regeneration area. N/A N/A N/A Wider Impacts The scheme will contribute to facilitating significant long-term regional economic growth and emerging Local Plan development. N/A N/A N/A

The scheme would cause an increase in noise levels along the new road alignment. The effect of change in traffic flows on the existing network is yet to be defined. Noise levels could WebTAG noise Noise decrease in the town centre. Not quantified at this stage Slight beneficial analysis not carried out at this stage.

WebTAG noise Air Quality Reduced delay and less congestion could have a positive impact on air quality along existing roads. However, air quality could get worse in areas in close proximity to the new road. Not quantified at this stage Slight beneficial analysis not carried out at this stage.

Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) -9614 Slight to The scheme could result in a slight decrease of GHG emissions during the appraisal period as traffic emissions are reduced by shorter travel times and Greenhouse gases Moderate 449K less stop and go traffic. Moreover, vehicles are expected to get environmentally cleaner during the next years. Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) -4 Beneficial

Slight to Landscape Disruption of the existing agricultural area and visual impacts on the landscape aesthetic value as scheme would intorduce a new road into rural landscape. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse Townscape Not applicable N/A N/A N/A Environmental Slight to Historic Environment Potential to disturb archaeological remains. An Archaeological DBA and surveys may be required at a later stage in the project. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse

Slight to Biodiversity Potential to impact protected species and damage natural habitat in the vicinity of the new road. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse

Slight to Water Environment Potential risk of water pollution impacting. The road also crosses flood zones and would require a FRA. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse Value of journey time changes(£) 27M Net journey time changes (£) Commuting and Other users The scheme will reduce journey times for north-south journeys. Slight beneficial 28.4M 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min 14,925 12,746 2,387 Reliability impact on The scheme will increase journey time reliability for commuters and other users through reduced delay and congestion. N/A Slight beneficial N/A Commuting and Other users

Physical activity Reduced traffic volumes on the existing A4010 will improve pedestrian and cycling environment. This should help stimulate walking and cycling. Unable to quantify at this stage Slight beneficial N/A

Journey quality Reduced driver frustration and improved journey quality through higher reliability. N/A Slight beneficial N/A

Accident rates are generally unpredictable and dependent on external factors. However, smaller level of congestion and improved junction performance Accidents Not quantified at this stage Slight beneficial N/A might slightly decrease accident risks, especially at junctions and roundabouts along the A4010 corridor. Social Security The scheme will have a negligible impact on security. N/A N/A N/A

Access to services The scheme will improve access to services available in the town centre by all modes. N/A Slight Benefit N/A

Affordability The time savings created by the new road will have a positive impact on the generalised costs of a journey and the vehicle operation costs. N/A Slight Benefit N/A

Severance The new road is not expected to hinder any movements in the area as there are currently no movements taking place. N/A N/A N/A

Option and non-use values User of motor vehicles would experience improvement in conditions with less congestion. Unable to quantify at this stage Slight Benefit N/A

Cost to Broad Transport Expected scheme costs including a 44% optimism bias for road, and 66% for bridges. A 20% risk allowance (at 2015 prices) is also included. N/A N/A £19.5M Budget

Public Indirect Tax Revenues Negligible impacts on indirect tax revenues. N/A N/A Tuba Accounts Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: 18 11 2015 Contact: Name of scheme: Princes Risborough Western Relief Road (Option 12) Name Stephen Moody Organisation Jacobs Description of scheme: The road alignment comprises widening of Lower Icknield Way, a section of new road west of Horsenden, and then connecting to Shootacre Lane. Role Transport Planner Impacts Assessment Qualitative Monetary Distributional Summary of key impacts Quantitative 7-pt scale/ £(NPV) vulnerable grp Value of journey time changes(£) 23.9M The scheme will reduce journey times and junction delays in the region and facilitate travel around the western side of the town. Slight to Business users & transport Net journey time changes (£) The additional capacity will facilitate some through movement and therefore reduce the traffic volumes in the town centre of Princes Risborough. North-south journey times improve as Moderate 17.6M providers a result of the scheme. This supports the aspirations of the BTVLEP. 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min Beneficial 15,038 7,344 3,449 Slight to Reliability impact on Business The scheme will improve journey time reliability for all users, including business users, through less congestion and shorter delays during peak hours making the overall traffic situation N/A Moderate N/A

Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) -6620 Slight to The scheme could result in a slight decrease of GHG emissions during the appraisal period as traffic emissions are reduced by shorter travel times and Greenhouse gases Moderate 311K less stop and go traffic. Moreover, vehicles are expected to get environmentally cleaner during the next years. Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) 3 Beneficial

Moderate Landscape Disruption of the existing agricultural area and visual impacts on the landscape aesthetic value as scheme would intorduce a new road into rural landscape. N/A N/A Adverse

Townscape Not applicable N/A N/A N/A Environmental Slight to Historic Environment Potential to disturb archaeological remains. An Archaeological DBA and surveys may be required at a later stage in the project. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse

Slight to Biodiversity Potential to impact protected species and damage natural habitat in the vicinity of the new road. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse

Slight to Water Environment Potential risk of water pollution impacting. The road also crosses flood zones and would require a FRA. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse Value of journey time changes(£) 25.8M Net journey time changes (£) Commuting and Other users The scheme will reduce journey times for north-south journeys. Slight beneficial 26.6M 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min 15,411 8,484 3,695 Reliability impact on The scheme will increase journey time reliability for commuters and other users through reduced delay and congestion. N/A Slight beneficial N/A Commuting and Other users

Journey quality Reduced driver frustration and improved journey quality through higher reliability. N/A Slight beneficial N/A

Access to services The scheme will improve access to services available in the town centre by all modes. N/A Slight Benefit N/A

Affordability The time savings created by the new road will have a positive impact on the generalised costs of a journey and the vehicle operation costs. N/A Slight Benefit N/A

Severance The new road is not expected to hinder any movements in the area as there are currently no movements taking place. N/A N/A N/A

Option and non-use values User of motor vehicles would experience improvement in conditions with less congestion. Unable to quantify at this stage Slight Benefit N/A

Cost to Broad Transport Expected scheme costs including a 44% optimism bias for road, and 66% for bridges. A 20% risk allowance (at 2015 prices) is also included. N/A N/A £51M Budget

Public Indirect Tax Revenues Negligible impacts on indirect tax revenues. N/A N/A Tuba Accounts Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: 18 11 2015 Contact: Name of scheme: Princes Risborough Western Relief Road (Option 15b) Name Stephen Moody Organisation Jacobs Description of scheme: The road alignment comprises widening of Lower Icknield Way, a section of new road through a proposed development site, connecting to Summerleys Road through to Picts Lane and Shootacre Lane Role Transport Planner Impacts Assessment Qualitative Monetary Distributional Summary of key impacts Quantitative 7-pt scale/ £(NPV) vulnerable grp Value of journey time changes(£) 15.7M The scheme will reduce journey times and junction delays in the region and facilitate travel around the western side of the town. Slight to Business users & transport Net journey time changes (£) The additional capacity will cause a better distribution of traffic volumes amongst the existing roads and reduce the traffic volumes in the town centre of Princes Risborough. Hence, all Moderate minus 8.7M providers road users will benefit from this scheme. This supports the aspirations of the BTVLEP. 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min Adverse 13,206 3,244 2,599 Slight to Reliability impact on Business The scheme will improve journey time reliability for all users, including business users, through less congestion and shorter delays during peak hours making the overall traffic situation N/A Moderate N/A

Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) -5939 Slight to The scheme could result in a slight decrease of GHG emissions during the appraisal period as traffic emissions are reduced by shorter travel times and Greenhouse gases Moderate 279K less stop and go traffic. Moreover, vehicles are expected to get environmentally cleaner during the next years. Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) -3 Beneficial

Slight to Biodiversity Potential to impact protected species and damage natural habitat in the vicinity of the new road. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse

Slight to Water Environment Potential risk of water pollution impacting. The road also crosses flood zones and would require a FRA. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse Value of journey time changes(£) 16.9M Net journey time changes (£) Commuting and Other users The scheme has less benefit in terms of reducing north-south journey times, but does provide additional capacity in the road network. Slight beneficial 17.8M 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min 12,767 4,127 3,572 Reliability impact on The scheme may increase journey time reliability for commuters and other users as the local road network has greater capacity. N/A Slight beneficial N/A Commuting and Other users

Physical activity Reduced traffic volumes on some sections of the existing A4010 will improve pedestrian and cycling environment. This should help stimulate walking and cycling. Unable to quantify at this stage Slight beneficial N/A

Journey quality Reduced driver frustration and improved journey quality through alternative route option, although journey time savings lower in this option. N/A Slight beneficial N/A

Access to services The scheme may improve access to services available in the town centre by all modes. N/A Slight Benefit N/A

Affordability The additional local road capacity provides alternative routes, which may allow some users to reduce the cost of their journeys. N/A Slight Benefit N/A

Severance The new road is not expected to hinder any movements in the area as there are currently no movements taking place. N/A N/A N/A

Option and non-use values User of motor vehicles would experience improvement in conditions as there are a greater number of route options. Unable to quantify at this stage Slight Benefit N/A

Cost to Broad Transport Expected scheme costs including a 44% optimism bias for road, and 66% for bridges. A 20% risk allowance (at 2015 prices) is also included. N/A N/A £19M Budget

Public Indirect Tax Revenues Negligible impacts on indirect tax revenues. N/A N/A Tuba Accounts Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: 18 11 2015 Contact: Name of scheme: Princes Risborough Western Relief Road (Option 17) Name Stephen Moody Organisation Jacobs Description of scheme: The road alignment comprises widening of Lower Icknield Way, a section of new road through a proposed development site, east of Horsenden and the connecting with Shootacre Lane Role Transport Planner Impacts Assessment Qualitative Monetary Distributional Summary of key impacts Quantitative 7-pt scale/ £(NPV) vulnerable grp Value of journey time changes(£) 57.6M The scheme will reduce journey times and junction delays in the region and facilitate travel around the western side of the town. Business users & transport Net journey time changes (£) The additional capacity will cause a better distribution of traffic volumes amongst the existing roads and reduce the traffic volumes in the town centre of Princes Risborough. Hence, all Beneficial 37.7M providers road users will benefit from this scheme. This supports the aspirations of the BTVLEP. 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min 16,553 35,780 5,985

Reliability impact on Business The scheme will improve journey time reliability for all users, including business users, through less congestion and shorter delays during peak hours making the overall traffic situation N/A Beneficial N/A

Economy users more predictable. Overall north-south journey times improve.

Regeneration Not assessed - scheme does not impact upon a designated regeneration area. N/A N/A N/A Wider Impacts The scheme will contribute to facilitating significant long-term regional economic growth and emerging Local Plan development. N/A N/A N/A

Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) -35,567 Slight to The scheme could result in a slight decrease of GHG emissions during the appraisal period as traffic emissions are reduced by shorter travel times and Greenhouse gases Moderate 1.8M less stop and go traffic. Moreover, vehicles are expected to get environmentally cleaner during the next years. Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) 24 Beneficial

Slight to Biodiversity Potential to impact protected species and damage natural habitat in the vicinity of the new road. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse

Slight to Water Environment Potential risk of water pollution impacting. The road also crosses flood zones and would require a FRA. N/A Moderate N/A Adverse Value of journey time changes(£) 58.3M Net journey time changes (£) Commuting and Other users The scheme will reduce journey times for north-south journeys. Beneficial 64.5M 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min 17,358 37,931 3,809 Reliability impact on The scheme will increase journey time reliability for commuters and other users through reduced delay and congestion. N/A Beneficial N/A Commuting and Other users

Journey quality Reduced driver frustration and improved journey quality through higher reliability. N/A Beneficial N/A

Accident rates are generally unpredictable and dependent on external factors. However, smaller level of congestion and improved junction performance Accidents Not quantified at this stage Beneficial N/A might slightly decrease accident risks, especially at junctions and roundabouts along the A4010 corridor. Social Security The scheme will have a negligible impact on security. N/A N/A N/A

Access to services The scheme will improve access to services available in the town centre by all modes. N/A Slight Benefit N/A

Affordability The time savings created by the new road will have a positive impact on the generalised costs of a journey and the vehicle operation costs. N/A Beneficial N/A

Severance The new road is not expected to hinder any movements in the area as there are currently no movements taking place. N/A N/A N/A

Option and non-use values User of motor vehicles would experience improvement in conditions with less congestion. Unable to quantify at this stage Beneficial N/A

Cost to Broad Transport Expected scheme costs including a 44% optimism bias for road, and 66% for bridges. A 20% risk allowance (at 2015 prices) is also included. N/A N/A £40M Budget

Public Indirect Tax Revenues Negligible impacts on indirect tax revenues. N/A N/A Tuba Accounts Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Appendix G. TUBA Outputs

B12798D8/001

TUBA_OUT.OUT Transport User Benefit Appraisal TUBA (64-BIT) v1.9.4(1xB) Program run on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 16:05:35

TUBA ECONOMICS FILE DIFFERENCES STANDARD ECONOMICS FILE USED

INPUT_SUMMARY Run name Princes Risborough Option 11b DM scheme Do Min DS scheme Do Som

Economic parameter file C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt

Scheme parameter file M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\11B\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt

First year of scheme costs 2015 First Appraisal Year 2021 Last Appraisal Year 2080 Modelled years 2021 2036

Time period Total hours AM peak 678 PM peak 705 Total 1383

Note: All monetary values are in 2010 market prices. All monetary values discounted to 2010 unless otherwise stated.

Economy:Economic Efficiency of the Transport System(TEE)

Consumer - Commuting user benefits All Modes Road

Travel Time 11996 11996 Vehicle operating costs 696 696 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 NET CONSUMER - COMMUTING BENEFITS 12692 12692 Consumer - Other user benefits All Modes Road

Travel Time 15025 15025 Vehicle operating costs 682 682 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 NET CONSUMER - OTHER BENEFITS 15706 15706

Business All Modes Road Personal Road Freight Bus Personal Bus Freight Travel Time 25706 17093 8613 Vehicle operating costs 1657 707 950 User charges 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 Subtotal 27364 17800 9563

Private Sector Provider Impacts Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 0 0 Grant/subsidy 0 0 Page 1 TUBA_OUT.OUT Subtotal 0 0

Other business Impacts Developer contributions -38422 -38422 NET BUSINESS IMPACT -11058

TOTAL Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (TEE) 17340 Note: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices

Public Accounts Local Government Funding ALL MODES Road Revenue 0 0 Operating Costs 0 0 Investment Costs 0 0 Developer Contributions -38422 -38422 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 NET IMPACT -38422 -38422

Central Government Funding: Transport ALL MODES Road Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 44128 44128 Developer Contributions 0 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 NET IMPACT 44128 44128

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport

Indirect Tax Revenues 1095 1095

TOTALS Broad Transport Budget 5706 5706 Wider Public Finances 1095 1095 Note: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and developer contributions appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits

Greenhouse Gases 449

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 12692 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 15706 Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers -11058 Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -1095 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 16694

Broad Transport Budget 5706 Present Value of Costs (PVC) 5706

OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) 10988 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.926 Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions. Page 2 TUBA_OUT.OUT

TUBA Run Information - calculations completed File Summary - Scheme File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\11B\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt - Economic File : C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt - Output File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\11B\TUBA_OUT.OUT Elapsed time :

Page 3 TUBA_OUT.OUT Transport User Benefit Appraisal TUBA (64-BIT) v1.9.4(1xB) Program run on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 16:04:18

TUBA ECONOMICS FILE DIFFERENCES STANDARD ECONOMICS FILE USED

INPUT_SUMMARY Run name Princes Risborough Option 12 DM scheme Do Min DS scheme Do Som

Economic parameter file C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt

Scheme parameter file M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\12\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt

First year of scheme costs 2015 First Appraisal Year 2021 Last Appraisal Year 2080 Modelled years 2021 2036

Time period Total hours AM peak 678 PM peak 705 Total 1383

Note: All monetary values are in 2010 market prices. All monetary values discounted to 2010 unless otherwise stated.

Economy:Economic Efficiency of the Transport System(TEE)

Consumer - Commuting user benefits All Modes Road

Travel Time 11292 11292 Vehicle operating costs 393 393 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 NET CONSUMER - COMMUTING BENEFITS 11686 11686 Consumer - Other user benefits All Modes Road

Travel Time 14549 14549 Vehicle operating costs 406 406 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 NET CONSUMER - OTHER BENEFITS 14955 14955

Business All Modes Road Personal Road Freight Bus Personal Bus Freight Travel Time 23910 15856 8053 Vehicle operating costs 1018 547 472 User charges 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 Subtotal 24928 16403 8525

Private Sector Provider Impacts Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 0 0 Page 1 TUBA_OUT.OUT Grant/subsidy 0 0 Subtotal 0 0

Other business Impacts Developer contributions -38422 -38422 NET BUSINESS IMPACT -13494

TOTAL Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (TEE) 13147 Note: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices

Public Accounts Local Government Funding ALL MODES Road Revenue 0 0 Operating Costs 0 0 Investment Costs 0 0 Developer Contributions -38422 -38422 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 NET IMPACT -38422 -38422

Central Government Funding: Transport ALL MODES Road Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 59873 59873 Developer Contributions 0 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 NET IMPACT 59873 59873

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport

Indirect Tax Revenues 743 743

TOTALS Broad Transport Budget 21451 21451 Wider Public Finances 743 743 Note: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and developer contributions appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits

Greenhouse Gases 311

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 11686 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 14955 Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers -13494 Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -743 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 12715

Broad Transport Budget 21451 Present Value of Costs (PVC) 21451

OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) -8736 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.593 Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should Page 2 TUBA_OUT.OUT not be used as the sole basis for decisions.

TUBA Run Information - calculations completed File Summary - Scheme File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\12\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt - Economic File : C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt - Output File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\12\TUBA_OUT.OUT Elapsed time :

Page 3 TUBA_OUT.OUT Transport User Benefit Appraisal TUBA (64-BIT) v1.9.4(1xB) Program run on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 16:20:20

TUBA ECONOMICS FILE DIFFERENCES STANDARD ECONOMICS FILE USED

INPUT_SUMMARY Run name Princes Risborough Option 15b DM scheme Do Min DS scheme Do Som

Economic parameter file C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt

Scheme parameter file M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\15B\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt

First year of scheme costs 2015 First Appraisal Year 2021 Last Appraisal Year 2080 Modelled years 2021 2036

Time period Total hours AM peak 678 PM peak 705 Total 1383

Note: All monetary values are in 2010 market prices. All monetary values discounted to 2010 unless otherwise stated.

Economy:Economic Efficiency of the Transport System(TEE)

Consumer - Commuting user benefits All Modes Road

Travel Time 7458 7458 Vehicle operating costs 474 474 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 NET CONSUMER - COMMUTING BENEFITS 7932 7932 Consumer - Other user benefits All Modes Road

Travel Time 9418 9418 Vehicle operating costs 468 468 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 NET CONSUMER - OTHER BENEFITS 9886 9886

Business All Modes Road Personal Road Freight Bus Personal Bus Freight Travel Time 15667 10580 5086 Vehicle operating costs 928 448 480 User charges 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 Subtotal 16595 11029 5566

Private Sector Provider Impacts Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 0 0 Page 1 TUBA_OUT.OUT Grant/subsidy 0 0 Subtotal 0 0

Other business Impacts Developer contributions -38422 -38422 NET BUSINESS IMPACT -21827

TOTAL Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (TEE) -4009 Note: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices

Public Accounts Local Government Funding ALL MODES Road Revenue 0 0 Operating Costs 0 0 Investment Costs 0 0 Developer Contributions -38422 -38422 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 NET IMPACT -38422 -38422

Central Government Funding: Transport ALL MODES Road Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 44128 44128 Developer Contributions 0 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 NET IMPACT 44128 44128

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport

Indirect Tax Revenues 668 668

TOTALS Broad Transport Budget 5706 5706 Wider Public Finances 668 668 Note: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and developer contributions appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits

Greenhouse Gases 279

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 7932 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 9886 Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers -21827 Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -668 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) -4398

Broad Transport Budget 5706 Present Value of Costs (PVC) 5706

OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) -10104 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) -0.771 Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should Page 2 TUBA_OUT.OUT not be used as the sole basis for decisions.

TUBA Run Information - calculations completed File Summary - Scheme File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\15B\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt - Economic File : C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt - Output File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\15B\TUBA_OUT.OUT Elapsed time :

Page 3 TUBA_OUT.OUT Transport User Benefit Appraisal TUBA (64-BIT) v1.9.4(1xB) Program run on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 16:02:38

TUBA ECONOMICS FILE DIFFERENCES STANDARD ECONOMICS FILE USED

INPUT_SUMMARY Run name Princes Risborough Option 17 DM scheme Do Min DS scheme Do Som

Economic parameter file C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt

Scheme parameter file M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\17\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt

First year of scheme costs 2015 First Appraisal Year 2021 Last Appraisal Year 2080 Modelled years 2021 2036

Time period Total hours AM peak 678 PM peak 705 Total 1383

Note: All monetary values are in 2010 market prices. All monetary values discounted to 2010 unless otherwise stated.

Economy:Economic Efficiency of the Transport System(TEE)

Consumer - Commuting user benefits All Modes Road

Travel Time 25864 25864 Vehicle operating costs 3149 3149 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 NET CONSUMER - COMMUTING BENEFITS 29014 29014 Consumer - Other user benefits All Modes Road

Travel Time 32454 32454 Vehicle operating costs 3035 3035 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 NET CONSUMER - OTHER BENEFITS 35490 35490

Business All Modes Road Personal Road Freight Bus Personal Bus Freight Travel Time 57562 36819 20742 Vehicle operating costs 7581 2201 5380 User charges 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 Subtotal 65143 39021 26122

Private Sector Provider Impacts Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 0 0 Grant/subsidy 0 0 Page 1 TUBA_OUT.OUT Subtotal 0 0

Other business Impacts Developer contributions -38422 -38422 NET BUSINESS IMPACT 26721

TOTAL Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (TEE) 91225 Note: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices

Public Accounts Local Government Funding ALL MODES Road Revenue 0 0 Operating Costs 0 0 Investment Costs 0 0 Developer Contributions -38422 -38422 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 NET IMPACT -38422 -38422

Central Government Funding: Transport ALL MODES Road Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 65072 65072 Developer Contributions 0 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 NET IMPACT 65072 65072

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport

Indirect Tax Revenues 4375 4375

TOTALS Broad Transport Budget 26650 26650 Wider Public Finances 4375 4375 Note: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and developer contributions appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits

Greenhouse Gases 1801

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 29014 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 35490 Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers 26721 Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -4375 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 88651

Broad Transport Budget 26650 Present Value of Costs (PVC) 26650

OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) 62001 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.326 Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions. Page 2 TUBA_OUT.OUT

TUBA Run Information - calculations completed File Summary - Scheme File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\17\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt - Economic File : C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt - Output File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\17\TUBA_OUT.OUT Elapsed time :

Page 3 Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Appendix H. Preliminary Scheme Costs

B12798D8/001 11B and 15B Total Carriageway Area (m^2) 45,319 Total Main Carriageway Length (m) N/A Width (m) N/A Total Area (m^2) 38034.10 Total Interchange Diameter (m) per Junc N/A Area (m^2) per Junc N/A Total Area (m^2) 7284.47

REF. Description. Work Qty. Unit. Unit Rate. Total A Preliminaries 45,319 m2 101.11 £4,582,204.09 B Road Works £8,940,735.59 B1 Site Clearance 45,319 m2 1.19 £53,929.61 B2 Fencing 45,319 m2 4.28 £193,965.32 B3 Road Restraint Systems 45,319 m2 4.54 £205,748.26 B4 Earthworks 45,319 m2 46.67 £2,115,037.73 Main Carriageway B5 Drainage and Service Ducts 38,034 m2 30.04 £1,142,544.36 B6 Pavements 38,034 m2 79.21 £3,012,681.06 B7 Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas 38,034 m2 17.60 £669,400.16 Interchange B8 Drainage and service Ducts 7,284 m2 30.04 £218,825.62 B9 Pavements 7,284 m2 66.65 £485,510.24 B10 Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas 7,284 m2 17.60 £128,206.75 Signs, Motorway Communications and Lighting B11 Traffic Signs and Road Markings 45,319 m2 4.04 £183,088.76 Road Lighting Columns, Brackets and CCTV m2 B12 Masts 45,319 1.48 £67,072.12 Electrical Work for Road Lighting and Traffic m2 B13 Signs 45,319 3.04 £137,769.76 B14 Motorway Communications 45,319 m2 0.25 £11,329.75 Landscape and Ecology B15 Landscape and Ecology 51,238 m2 6.16 £315,626.08 C Structures £11,177,116.04 C1 North Bridge 642 m2 9704.58 £6,234,416.28 C2 South Bridge 355 m2 9704.58 £3,442,699.76 C3 Culverts / bridges over existing watercourses 3 Nr 500000.00 £1,500,000.00 D Accomodation Works 45,319 m2 5.10 £231,126.90 E Facilitating Works £1,801,430.25 E1 Temporary and permanent Diversion Works 45,319 m2 35.83 £1,623,779.77 E2 Extraordinary Site Investigation Works 45,319 m2 3.92 £177,650.48 F Project / Design Team Fees £1,955,968.04 F1 Consultant's Fees 45,319 m2 16.72 £757,733.68 F2 Main Contractor's Pre-Construction Fees 45,319 m2 7.11 £322,218.09 F3 Main Contractor's Design Fees 45,319 m2 19.33 £876,016.27 Total £28,688,580.90 G Risks (Design, Construction, Employer Risk G1 Allowance for Risk Contingency @ 20% 0.20 % 28688580.90 £5,737,716.18 G2 Allowance for optimism bias @ 44% 0.44 % 17511464.87 £7,705,044.54 G3 Allowance for optimism bias @ 66% Bridges 0.66 % 11177116.04 £7,376,896.59 Grand Total £49,508,238.21

11B and 15B Preparatory £1,955,968.04 Highway Works (including preliminaries) £26,732,612.86 Land Not Included Risk Allowance £5,737,716.18 Optimism Bias £15,081,941.13 Total £49,508,238.21

Alignment One (rounded) Preparatory £1,960,000.00 Highway Works (including preliminaries) £26,730,000.00 Land Not Included Risk Allowance £5,740,000.00 Optimism Bias £15,080,000.00 Total £49,510,000.00 12 Total Carriageway Area (m^2) 37,725 Total Main Carriageway Length (m) N/A Width (m) N/A Total Area (m^2) 34488.70 Total Interchange Diameter (m) per Junc N/A Area (m^2) per Junc N/A Total Area (m^2) 3235.58

REF. Description. Work Qty. Unit. Unit Rate. Total A Preliminaries 37,725 m2 101.11 £3,814,374.75 B Road Works £7,447,681.89 B1 Site Clearance 37,725 m2 1.19 £44,892.75 B2 Fencing 37,725 m2 4.28 £161,463.00 B3 Road Restraint Systems 37,725 m2 4.54 £171,271.50 B4 Earthworks 37,725 m2 46.67 £1,760,625.75 Main Carriageway B5 Drainage and Service Ducts 34,489 m2 30.04 £1,036,040.55 B6 Pavements 34,489 m2 79.21 £2,731,849.93 B7 Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas 34,489 m2 17.60 £607,001.12 Interchange B10 Drainage and service Ducts 3,236 m2 30.04 £97,196.72 B11 Pavements 3,236 m2 66.65 £215,651.18 B12 Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas 3,236 m2 17.60 £56,946.15 Signs, Motorway Communications and Lighting B13 Traffic Signs and Road Markings 37,725 m2 4.04 £152,409.00 B14 Road Lighting Columns, Brackets and CCTV Masts 37,725 m2 1.48 £55,833.00 B15 Electrical Work for Road Lighting and Traffic Signs 37,725 m2 3.04 £114,684.00 B16 Motorway Communications 37,725 m2 0.25 £9,431.25 Landscape and Ecology B17 Landscape and Ecology 37,725 m2 6.16 £232,386.00 C Structures £23,734,416.28 C1 North Bridge 642 m2 9704.58 £6,234,416.28 C2 B2 1 Nr 6000000.00 £6,000,000.00 C3 B3 1 Nr 4000000.00 £4,000,000.00 C4 B4 1 Nr 6000000.00 £6,000,000.00 C5 Culverts / bridges over existing watercourses 3 Nr 500000.00 £1,500,000.00 D Accomodation Works 37,725 m2 5.10 £192,397.50 E Facilitating Works £1,499,568.75 E1 Temporary and permanent Diversion Works 37,725 m2 35.83 £1,351,686.75 E2 Extraordinary Site Investigation Works 37,725 m2 3.92 £147,882.00 F Project / Design Team Fees £1,628,211.00 F1 Consultant's Fees 37,725 m2 16.72 £630,762.00 F2 Main Contractor's Pre-Construction Fees 37,725 m2 7.11 £268,224.75 F3 Main Contractor's Design Fees 37,725 m2 19.33 £729,224.25 Total £38,316,650.18 G Risks (Design, Construction, Employer Risk G1 Allowance for Risk Contingency @ 20% 0.20 % 38316650.18 £7,663,330.04 G2 Allowance for optimism bias @ 44% 0.44 % 14582233.89 £6,416,182.91 G3 Allowance for optimism bias @ 66% Bridges 0.66 % 23734416.28 £15,664,714.75 Grand Total £68,060,877.87

12 Preparatory £1,628,211.00 Highway Works (including preliminaries) £36,688,439.18 Land n/a Risk Allowance £7,663,330.04 Optimism Bias £22,080,897.66 Total £68,060,877.87

Alignment One (rounded) Preparatory £1,630,000.00 Highway Works (including preliminaries) £36,690,000.00 Land n/a Risk Allowance £7,660,000.00 Optimism Bias £22,080,000.00 Total £68,060,000.00 17 Total Carriageway Area (m^2) 47,277 Total Main Carriageway Length (m) N/A Width (m) N/A Total Area (m^2) 40419.80 Total Interchange Diameter (m) per Junc N/A Area (m^2) per Junc N/A Total Area (m^2) 6856.92

REF. Description. Work Qty. Unit. Unit Rate. Total A Preliminaries 47,277 m2 101.11 £4,780,177.47 B Road Works £9,298,325.62 B1 Site Clearance 47,277 m2 1.19 £56,259.63 B2 Fencing 47,277 m2 4.28 £202,345.56 B3 Road Restraint Systems 47,277 m2 4.54 £214,637.58 B4 Earthworks 47,277 m2 46.67 £2,206,417.59 Main Carriageway B5 Drainage and Service Ducts 40,420 m2 30.04 £1,214,210.79 B6 Pavements 40,420 m2 79.21 £3,201,652.36 B7 Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas 40,420 m2 17.60 £711,388.48 Interchange B8 Drainage and service Ducts 6,857 m2 30.04 £205,981.76 B9 Pavements 6,857 m2 66.65 £457,013.46 B10 Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas 6,857 m2 17.60 £120,681.72 Signs, Motorway Communications and Lighting B11 Traffic Signs and Road Markings 47,277 m2 4.04 £190,999.08 B12 Road Lighting Columns, Brackets and CCTV Masts 47,277 m2 1.48 £69,969.96 B13 Electrical Work for Road Lighting and Traffic Signs 47,277 m2 3.04 £143,722.08 B14 Motorway Communications 47,277 m2 0.25 £11,819.25 Landscape and Ecology B15 Landscape and Ecology 47,277 m2 6.16 £291,226.32 C Structures £24,234,416.28 C1 North Bridge 642 m2 9704.58 £6,234,416.28 C2 B2 1 Nr 6000000.00 £6,000,000.00 C3 B3 1 Nr 4000000.00 £4,000,000.00 C4 B4 1 Nr 6000000.00 £6,000,000.00 C5 Culverts / bridges over existing watercourses 4 Nr 500000.00 £2,000,000.00 D Accomodation Works 47,277 m2 5.10 £241,112.70 E Facilitating Works £1,879,260.75 E1 Temporary and permanent Diversion Works 47,277 m2 35.83 £1,693,934.91 E2 Extraordinary Site Investigation Works 47,277 m2 3.92 £185,325.84 F Project / Design Team Fees £2,040,475.32 F1 Consultant's Fees 47,277 m2 16.72 £790,471.44 F2 Main Contractor's Pre-Construction Fees 47,277 m2 7.11 £336,139.47 F3 Main Contractor's Design Fees 47,277 m2 19.33 £913,864.41 Total £42,473,768.14 G Risks (Design, Construction, Employer Risk G1 Allowance for Risk Contingency @ 20% 0.20 % 42473768.14 £8,494,753.63 G2 Allowance for optimism bias @ 44% 0.44 % 18239351.86 £8,025,314.82 G3 Allowance for optimism bias @ 66% Bridges 0.66 % 24234416.28 £15,994,714.75 Grand Total £74,988,551.33

17 Preparatory £2,040,475.32 Highway Works (including preliminaries) £40,433,292.82 Land n/a Risk Allowance £8,494,753.63 Optimism Bias £24,020,029.56 Total £74,988,551.33

Alignment One (rounded) Preparatory £2,040,000.00 Highway Works (including preliminaries) £40,430,000.00 Land n/a Risk Allowance £8,490,000.00 Optimism Bias £24,020,000.00 Total £74,990,000.00