DOCSLIB.ORG

East Solent Shoreline Management Plan Stage 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EAST SOLENT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN STAGE 1 Volume I The Open Coast Contents Page Preface ............................................................................................................................................................... I Contents.............................................................................................................................................................3 Glossary.............................................................................................................................................................4 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................7 1.1 Strategic background............................ .........................................................................7 1.2 The SMP process............................................................................................................ 7 1.3 The East Solent S M P ......................................................................................................7 1.4 Report outline .................................................................................................................8 2 C on su ltatio n ...................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Consultees ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Consultation process ....................................................................................................12 3 Coastal p ro cesses..............................................................................................................................15 3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................15 3.2 Geological evolution.....................................................................................................15 3.3 Beach sediment distribution ........................................................................................17 3.4 Historical evolution.......................................................................................................17 3.5 Tidal regim e...................................................................................................................23 3.6 Wave clim ate............... .................................................................................................25 3.7 Sediment transport........................................................................................................27 3.8 Joint probability conditions and existing defence standards..................................29 3.9 Future changes............... ...............................................................................................30 3.10 Existing monitoring programmes ..............................................................................35 4 Existing shoreline management ....................................................................................................37 4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................37 4.2 R eview ............................ !..............................................................................................37 5 The natural environm ent................................................................................................................ 43 5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................43 5.2 Designated nature conservation are as........................................................................43 5.3 Riture designations ......................................................................................................46 5.4 Responsibilities and restrictions due to conservation designations.......................47 5.5 Implications for shoreline management.................................: ............. ................. 47 6 Land use and the human environm ent................................................... ..................................49 6.1 Land use and recreation............................................................................................... 49 6.2 Nearshore activities......................................................................................................53 6.3 Landscape conservation and historic site s.................................................................53 6.4 Implications for shoreline management................. .............................. ............... 56 6.5 Future trends .................................................................................................................56 E*m Sole* Shoreline M iU|«nM i PUi Volume I Preface The East Solent Shoreline Management Plan is presented in four volumes. This document is Volume I. It presents background information on coastal processes, existing management operations, the natural environment, land use and the human environment that is necessary in the formulation of management plans for the open coastline between Pagham and the River Hamble, including Pagham Harbour. The remaining three Volumes of the East Solent Shoreline Management Plan include: the coastal defence objectives, management units, preferred management options, recommended further studies and future review programme for the open coast (Volume II) • the background management information for Chichester, Langstone and Portsmouth Harbours (Volume HI) • the coastal defence objectives, management approach, preferred management options, recommended further studies and future review programme for the harbours, including Pagham Harbour (Volume IV). Chichester District Council, acting on behalf of the East Solent Coastal Group, commissioned HR Wallingford to undertake the Shoreline Management Plan in accordance with the Consultant’s Brief and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food document “Shoreline Management Plans - A Guide for Coastal Defence Authorities". The Steering Committee for the Group comprised: Mr D Bell - Technical Services Department - Chichester District Council (Lead Authority) Mr A Greenhouse and Mr P Willey- Planning and Development Department - Fareham Borough Council Mr M Wheeler - Engineering Services -Gosport Borough Council Mr G Uoyd - Engineering Services - Portsmouth City Council Mr M Smith - Technical Services - Havant Borough Council Mr C Harding - Environment Agency Dr R Ekins - English Nature Mr D Green - Directorate of Planning and Housing - Arun District Council (Observer) Mr Chris Harding of the Environment Agency was the Project Manager for the Group. Mr Malcolm Smith of Havant Borough Council was Chairman of the Steering Committee. The Plan was formulated by a project team led by HR Wallingford with support from Rendel Palmer & Tritton, the RACER Group of Portsmouth University, and Ecological Planning and Research Ltd. The Project Manager was M r Tom Coates of HR Wallingford. Contributing authors included Mr Mark Lee (RPT), Mr Jerzy Motyka (HRW), Dr Kathryn Carpenter (HRW), Mr Andrew Bradbury (RPT) and Dr Malcolm Bray (RACER). The HR Wallingford job number was CGR 2024. Prepared by P r , .................. (job title) Approved by Date © HR Wallingford Limited 1997 E i* S<M ShorrlMK PUa 1 Votamc I CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL IIf Havant BOROUGH COUNCIL Portsmouth CITY COUNCIL BOROUGH FAREHAM COUNCIL GOSPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL f ENGLISH En v ir o n m e n t NATURE Ag e n c y i aa— »T»niir . East Solent Shoreline Management Plan Volume I The Open Coast Report EX 3441 June 1997 HR Wallingford Address and Registered Office: HR W allingford Ltd. Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxon 0X10 8BA Tel: + 44 (0)1491 835381 Fax: + 44 (0)1491 832233 Ragijtarad In England No. 2562099. HR Wallingford l» ■ wtio*y o w iw d subsictary ol HR Wallingford Group Ltd. Ean Solent Shoreline Management Plan Volume I Tables Tabic 1 Consultees involvement in Stage 1 and summary of interests ................................................. 13 Table 2 Lithological descriptions of the East Solent solid and drift formations................................. 15 Table 3 Tide levels and'predicted extreme water levels (m O D )............................................................23 Table 4 Extreme wave heights (non-directional).......................................................................................25 Table 5 Worst case joint probabilities conditions .....................................................................................29 Table 6 Definition of site designations ...................................................................................................... 43 Table 7 Historic environment designations relevant to the open c o a s t.................................................54 Table 8 A summary of relevant planning policies for the East Solent (see relevant local plans for details)...............................................................................................................................60 Table 9 Hampshire County Structural Plan (Review) - Strategic policies for the coast.................... 63 Table 10 West Sussex County Structure plan (Deposit Draft) - Shoreline Policies for the Coast. 64 Table 11 Strategic and local gaps..................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • 126. South Coast Plain Area Profile: Supporting Documents

    126. South Coast Plain Area Profile: Supporting Documents

    National Character 126. South Coast Plain Area profile: Supporting documents www.naturalengland.org.uk 1 National Character 126. South Coast Plain Area profile: Supporting documents Introduction National Character Areas map As part of Natural England’s responsibilities as set out in the Natural Environment White Paper,1 Biodiversity 20202 and the European Landscape Convention,3 we are revising profiles for England’s 159 National Character Areas North (NCAs). These are areas that share similar landscape characteristics, and which East follow natural lines in the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a good decision-making framework for the natural environment. Yorkshire & The North Humber NCA profiles are guidance documents which can help communities to inform West their decision-making about the places that they live in and care for. The information they contain will support the planning of conservation initiatives at a East landscape scale, inform the delivery of Nature Improvement Areas and encourage Midlands broader partnership working through Local Nature Partnerships. The profiles will West also help to inform choices about how land is managed and can change. Midlands East of Each profile includes a description of the natural and cultural features England that shape our landscapes, how the landscape has changed over time, the current key drivers for ongoing change, and a broad analysis of each London area’s characteristics and ecosystem services. Statements of Environmental South East Opportunity (SEOs) are suggested, which draw on this integrated information. South West The SEOs offer guidance on the critical issues, which could help to achieve sustainable growth and a more secure environmental future.
  • Portsmouth Harbour

    Portsmouth Harbour

    Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) Categories approved by Recommendation 4.7 (1990), as amended by Resolution VIII.13 of the 8th Conference of the Contracting Parties (2002) and Resolutions IX.1 Annex B, IX.6, IX.21 and IX. 22 of the 9th Conference of the Contracting Parties (2005). Notes for compilers: 1. The RIS should be completed in accordance with the attached Explanatory Notes and Guidelines for completing the Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands. Compilers are strongly advised to read this guidance before filling in the RIS. 2. Further information and guidance in support of Ramsar site designations are provided in the Strategic Framework for the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Wise Use Handbook 7, 2nd edition, as amended by COP9 Resolution IX.1 Annex B). A 3rd edition of the Handbook, incorporating these amendments, is in preparation and will be available in 2006. 3. Once completed, the RIS (and accompanying map(s)) should be submitted to the Ramsar Secretariat. Compilers should provide an electronic (MS Word) copy of the RIS and, where possible, digital copies of all maps. 1. Name and address of the compiler of this form: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY. DD MM YY Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House City Road Designation date Site Reference Number Peterborough Cambridgeshire PE1 1JY UK Telephone/Fax: +44 (0)1733 – 562 626 / +44 (0)1733 – 555 948 Email: [email protected] 2. Date this sheet was completed/updated: Designated: 28 February 1995 3. Country: UK (England) 4. Name of the Ramsar site: Portsmouth Harbour 5.
  • A Valuation of the Chichester Harbour Provisioning Ecosystem Services Provided by Shellfish

    A Valuation of the Chichester Harbour Provisioning Ecosystem Services Provided by Shellfish

    Rpep A valuation of the Chichester Harbour Provisioning Ecosystem Services provided by shellfish Report for Sussex IFCA and the Environment Agency Title: A valuation of the Chichester Harbour Provisioning Ecosystem Services provided by shellfish Date: January 25th 2018 Authors: Chris Williams, William Davies and Jake Kuyer Client: Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (SxIFCA) NEF Consulting is the consultancy arm of the leading UK think tank, New Economics Foundation. We help to put new economic ideas into practice. TheNew content Economicss of this report Foundation can be shared isfreely the within UK’s the only organisation people named-powered above as think the client tank.. However, please contact us if you would like to publish the report, or extracts from the report, on a websiteThe Foundation or in any other way.works Unless to explicitlybuild a agreed new otherwise,economy all where publishing people rights remainreally with take NEFcontrol. Consulting. NEF Consulting Limited New Economics Foundation 10 Salamanca Place London SE1 7HB www.nefconsulting.com Tel: 020 7820 6361 [icon] Contents 1. Background and context …………………………………………………………………….…4 Chichester harbour ...................................................................................................................... 5 Conservation significance and status ........................................................................................ 5 Shellfishery context .....................................................................................................................
  • 2018-09-14 RHMC Marine Director and Harbour Master's Report and Current Issues

    2018-09-14 RHMC Marine Director and Harbour Master's Report and Current Issues

    HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Report Committee: River Hamble Harbour Management Committee Date: 24 June 2021 Title: Marine Director and Harbour Master's Report and Current Issues Report From: Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services Contact name: Jason Scott Tel: 01489 576387 Email: [email protected] Purpose of this Report 1. The purpose of this report is to record formally RHHA patrol operations and inform the Duty Holder of significant events and trends having a bearing on the Marine Safety Management System. Recommendation 2. It is recommended that the River Hamble Harbour Management Committee supports the contents of this report to the Harbour Board. Executive Summary 3. This report summarises the incidents and events which have taken place in the Harbour and addresses any issues currently under consideration by the Harbour Master. Contextual Information Patrols 4. The Harbour has been patrolled by the Duty Harbour Master at various times between 0700 and 2230 daily. Mooring and pontoon checks have been conducted daily throughout the period. Issues 6. 6 Monthly Audit by the Designated Person of the Marine Safety Management System – The MSMS was audited by the RHHA Designated Person on 18 May. As part of our drive for continuous improvement, a number of new initiatives will be pursued to ensure that River Users are informed better of trends in the River and also, in so doing, reminded of the Bye Laws. The Designated Person has affirmed continued compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code. 7. Annual Trinity House Audit – An officer of Trinity House conducted an annual light inspection on 22 March to confirm compliance with the River Hamble Harbour Authority’s status as a Local Lighthouse Authority.
  • X5 Bus Time Schedule & Line Route

    X5 Bus Time Schedule & Line Route

    X5 bus time schedule & line map X5 Fareham View In Website Mode The X5 bus line (Fareham) has 6 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Fareham: 6:05 PM - 6:30 PM (2) Fareham: 7:00 PM (3) Gosport: 7:15 AM - 6:30 PM (4) Southampton City Centre: 6:36 AM - 5:10 PM (5) Stubbington: 6:45 PM (6) Warsash: 5:40 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest X5 bus station near you and ƒnd out when is the next X5 bus arriving. Direction: Fareham X5 bus Time Schedule 44 stops Fareham Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday Not Operational Bus Station, Gosport 2 South Street, Gosport Tuesday 6:05 PM - 6:30 PM Police Station, Gosport Wednesday 6:05 PM - 6:30 PM South Cross Street, Gosport Thursday 6:05 PM - 6:30 PM Creek Road, Newtown Friday 6:05 PM - 6:30 PM Creek Road, Gosport Saturday Not Operational Methodist Church, Newtown 27 Stoke Road, Gosport Waitrose, Newtown 131 Stoke Road, Gosport X5 bus Info Direction: Fareham The White Hart, Alverstoke Stops: 44 White Hart Road, Gosport Trip Duration: 43 min Line Summary: Bus Station, Gosport, Police Station, War Memorial Hospital, Alverstoke Gosport, Creek Road, Newtown, Methodist Church, Newtown, Waitrose, Newtown, The White Hart, Privett Road, Alverstoke Alverstoke, War Memorial Hospital, Alverstoke, Privett Road, Alverstoke, Bury Hall Lane, Alverstoke, Bury Hall Lane, Alverstoke South Close, Alverstoke, Stokes Bay Sailing Club, Bury Hall Lane, Gosport Alverstoke, Alverbank Hotel, Alverstoke, Stokes Bay Home Park, Alverstoke, Kingƒsher Caravan Park, South
  • Cleaning Symbiosis Among California Inshore Fishes

    Cleaning Symbiosis Among California Inshore Fishes

    CLEANING SYMBIOSIS AMONG CALIFORNIA INSHORE FISHES EDMUNDS. HOBSON' ABSTRACT Cleaning symbiosis among shore fishes was studied during 1968 and 1969 in southern California, with work centered at La Jolla. Three species are habitual cleaners: the seAoriF, Ozyjulis californica; the sharpnose seaperch, Phanerodon atripes; and the kelp perch, Brachyistius frenatus. Because of specific differences in habitat, there is little overlap in the cleaning areas of these three spe- cies. Except for juvenile sharpnose seaperch, cleaning is of secondary significance to these species, even though it may be of major significance to certain individuals. The tendency to clean varies between in- dividuals. Principal prey of most members of these species are free-living organisms picked from a substrate and from midwater-a mode of feeding that favors adaptations suited to cleaning. Because it is exceedingly abundant in a variety of habitats, the seiiorita is the predominant inshore cleaning fish in California. Certain aspects of its cleaning relate to the fact that only a few of the many seiioritas present at a given time will clean, and that this activity is not centered around well-defined cleaning stations, as has been reported for certain cleaning fishes elsewhere. Probably because cleaners are difficult to recognize among the many seiioritas that do not clean, other fishes.generally do not at- tempt to initiate-cleaning; rather, the activity is consistently initiated by the cleaner itself. An infest- ed fish approached by a cleaner generally drifts into an unusual attitude that advertises the temporary existence of the transient cleaning station to other fish in need of service, and these converge on the cleaner.
  • Relative Gut Lengths of Coral Reef Butterflyfishes (Pisces

    Relative Gut Lengths of Coral Reef Butterflyfishes (Pisces

    Relative gut lengths of coral reef butterflyfishes (Pisces: Chaetodontidae) ML Berumen1, 2 *, MS Pratchett3, BA Goodman4 1. Red Sea Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 23955, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2. Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, USA 3. ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia 4. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309 * Corresponding author: Email: [email protected] Phone: +966 544700019 Keywords: Chaetodontidae; corallivory; Papua New Guinea; relative gut length Abstract Variation in gut length of closely related animals is known to generally be a good predictor of dietary habits. We examined gut length in 28 species of butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae), which encompass a wide range of dietary types (planktivores, omnivores, corallivores). We found general dietary patterns to be a good predictor of relative gut length, although we found high variation among groups and covariance with body size. The longest gut lengths are found in species that exclusively feed on the living tissue of corals, while the shortest gut length is found in a planktivorous species. Although we tried to control for phylogeny, corallivory has arisen multiple times in this family, confounding our analyses. The butterflyfishes, a speciose family with a wide range of dietary habits, may nonetheless provide an ideal system for future work studying gut physiology associated with specialisation and foraging behaviours. Introduction Relative gut lengths of vertebrates have long been studied and compared within and among species (e.g., Al-Hussaini 1949). The most common explanations for relatively longer guts in herbivores focus on the chemical defences of plants (e.g., Levin 1976; Hay and Fenical 1988), the indigestibility of plant fibre (e.g., Stevens 1989; Karasov and Martinez del Rio 2007), or the poor nutritional quality of plants as food.
  • The Gulf of Mexico Workshop on International Research, March 29–30, 2017, Houston, Texas

    The Gulf of Mexico Workshop on International Research, March 29–30, 2017, Houston, Texas

    OCS Study BOEM 2019-045 Proceedings: The Gulf of Mexico Workshop on International Research, March 29–30, 2017, Houston, Texas U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico OCS Region OCS Study BOEM 2019-045 Proceedings: The Gulf of Mexico Workshop on International Research, March 29–30, 2017, Houston, Texas Editors Larry McKinney, Mark Besonen, Kim Withers Prepared under BOEM Contract M16AC00026 by Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Drive Corpus Christi, TX 78412 Published by U.S. Department of the Interior New Orleans, LA Bureau of Ocean Energy Management July 2019 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region DISCLAIMER Study collaboration and funding were provided by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, under Agreement Number M16AC00026. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REPORT AVAILABILITY To download a PDF file of this report, go to the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management website at https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-EnvData/, click on the link for the Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS), and search on 2019-045. CITATION McKinney LD, Besonen M, Withers K (editors) (Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Corpus Christi, Texas).
  • Proposed Langstone Harbour Air Base

    Proposed Langstone Harbour Air Base

    Proposed Langstone Harbour Air Base Photograph of a Short S.23 Empire flying boat that might one day have flown from Langstone Harbour. Havant History Booklet No. 57 To view, comment, and order all booklets visit: www.hhbkt.com £3 2 Proposed Langstone Harbour Air Base For some time past the Air Ministry, in conjunction with Imperial Airways have been seeking a suitable place to establish a base in this country to form the terminus for the long distance Empire and Trans-Atlantic air routes. These long distance routes are to be operated by means of flying boats rather than land planes and a number of large machines are at present being built for Imperial Airways. The Air Ministry required a site having a considerable area of sheltered water, of reasonable depth, free from obstructions to flying and in a situation not subject to fogs in order that the air liners could operate at all seasons of the year. It was also of material advantage if the site were easily accessible by road and rail from London. After considering a number of alternative sites in Ireland, on the Medway, at Southampton and Portsmouth, the Air Ministry and Imperial Airways have decided that Langstone Harbour, which is on the East side of Portsmouth, is suitable and the Portsmouth City Council are proposing to proceed with a comprehensive scheme estimated to cost about £1,200,000 for the development of the harbour as an Empire Air Base. In view of the fact that a large portion of Langstone Harbour is situated within the Urban District of Havant and Waterloo it is necessary for the County Council to consider the possible effect of the proposed scheme on the areas of the County which adjoin the harbour.
  • Peat Database Results Hampshire

    Peat Database Results Hampshire

    Baker's Rithe, Hampshire Record ID 29 Authors Year Allen, M. and Gardiner, J. 2000 Location description Deposit location SU 6926 1041 Deposit description Deposit stratigraphy Preserved timbers (oak and yew) on peat ledge. One oak stump in situ. Peat layer 0.15-0.26 m deep [thick?]. Associated artefacts Early work Sample method Depth of deposit 14C ages available -1 m OD Yes Notes 14C details ID 12 Laboratory code R-24993/2 Sample location Depth of sample Dated sample description [-1 m OD] Oak stump Age (uncal) Age (cal) Delta 13C 3735 ± 60 BP 2310-1950 cal. BC Notes Stump BB Bibliographic reference Allen, M. and Gardiner, J. 2000 'Our changing coast; a survey of the intertidal archaeology of Langstone Harbour, Hampshire', Hampshire CBA Research Report 12.4 Coastal peat resource database (Hazell, 2008) Page 1 of 86 Bury Farm (Bury Marshes), Hampshire Record ID 641 Authors Year Long, A., Scaife, R. and Edwards, R. 2000 Location description Deposit location SU 3820 1140 Deposit description Deposit stratigraphy Associated artefacts Early work Sample method Depth of deposit 14C ages available Yes Notes 14C details ID 491 Laboratory code Beta-93195 Sample location Depth of sample Dated sample description SU 3820 1140 -0.16 to -0.11 m OD Transgressive contact. Age (uncal) Age (cal) Delta 13C 3080 ± 60 BP 3394-3083 cal. BP Notes Dark brown humified peat with some turfa. Bibliographic reference Long, A., Scaife, R. and Edwards, R. 2000 'Stratigraphic architecture, relative sea-level, and models of estuary development in southern England: new data from Southampton Water' in ' and estuarine environments: sedimentology, geomorphology and geoarchaeology', (ed.s) Pye, K.
  • Gazetteer.Doc Revised from 10/03/02

    Gazetteer.Doc Revised from 10/03/02

    Save No. 91 Printed 10/03/02 10:33 AM Gazetteer.doc Revised From 10/03/02 Gazetteer compiled by E J Wiseman Abbots Ann SU 3243 Bighton Lane Watercress Beds SU 5933 Abbotstone Down SU 5836 Bishop's Dyke SU 3405 Acres Down SU 2709 Bishopstoke SU 4619 Alice Holt Forest SU 8042 Bishops Sutton Watercress Beds SU 6031 Allbrook SU 4521 Bisterne SU 1400 Allington Lane Gravel Pit SU 4717 Bitterne (Southampton) SU 4413 Alresford Watercress Beds SU 5833 Bitterne Park (Southampton) SU 4414 Alresford Pond SU 5933 Black Bush SU 2515 Amberwood Inclosure SU 2013 Blackbushe Airfield SU 8059 Amery Farm Estate (Alton) SU 7240 Black Dam (Basingstoke) SU 6552 Ampfield SU 4023 Black Gutter Bottom SU 2016 Andover Airfield SU 3245 Blackmoor SU 7733 Anton valley SU 3740 Blackmoor Golf Course SU 7734 Arlebury Lake SU 5732 Black Point (Hayling Island) SZ 7599 Ashlett Creek SU 4603 Blashford Lakes SU 1507 Ashlett Mill Pond SU 4603 Blendworth SU 7113 Ashley Farm (Stockbridge) SU 3730 Bordon SU 8035 Ashley Manor (Stockbridge) SU 3830 Bossington SU 3331 Ashley Walk SU 2014 Botley Wood SU 5410 Ashley Warren SU 4956 Bourley Reservoir SU 8250 Ashmansworth SU 4157 Boveridge SU 0714 Ashurst SU 3310 Braishfield SU 3725 Ash Vale Gravel Pit SU 8853 Brambridge SU 4622 Avington SU 5332 Bramley Camp SU 6559 Avon Castle SU 1303 Bramshaw Wood SU 2516 Avon Causeway SZ 1497 Bramshill (Warren Heath) SU 7759 Avon Tyrrell SZ 1499 Bramshill Common SU 7562 Backley Plain SU 2106 Bramshill Police College Lake SU 7560 Baddesley Common SU 3921 Bramshill Rubbish Tip SU 7561 Badnam Creek (River
  • Fareham Railway Station Travel Plan

    Fareham Railway Station Travel Plan

    Fareham Railway Station Travel Plan A Better Connected South Hampshire Hampshire County Council March 2013 Fareham Railway Station Travel Plan A Better Connected South Hampshire Hampshire County Council March 2013 This Station Travel Plan was developed by a partnership of Hampshire County Council, South West Trains, Network Rail and Stagecoach Bus. © Hampshire County Council 2013 Contents 1 Executive Summary 5 1.1 Introduction 5 1.2 The Travel Plan Process 5 1.3 Survey and Workshop Results 5 1.4 Aims, Objectives and Actions 6 1.5 Monitoring 7 2 Introduction 8 2.1 A Better Connected South Hampshire 8 2.2 This Document 8 3 Policy Background 9 3.1 Travel Planning 9 3.2 Station Travel Planning 9 3.3 Local Policy 10 4 The Travel Plan Process 14 5 Station Characteristics 15 5.1 Station Location 15 5.2 Use of the station 15 5.3 Station Access and Facilities 17 5.4 Planned Schemes 27 6 Survey and Workshop Results 28 6.1 Station Usage 28 6.2 Passenger Survey 28 6.3 Stakeholder Workshop 37 7 Key Issues 41 7.1 Station Approach and forecourt 41 7.2 Additional Entrance 41 7.3 Links to the bus network and Eclipse 42 8 Objectives and Aims 43 8.1 Objectives 43 8.2 Specific Aims 43 9 Action Plan 45 10 Monitoring and Reviewing the plan 52 10.1 Monitoring 52 10.2 Review 52 Appendices Appendix A Surrounding Area Appendix B Passenger Survey Appendix C Station User Origins by Mode 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction As part of the “Better Connected South Hampshire” project, Halcrow is working with Hampshire County Council to produce Station Travel Plans for several railway stations in the project area.