Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Ref No. Transport SPT18(09/10) Approval to Make Planning Applications, Publish Draft Compulsory Purchase Orders and Make a Funding Bid for the A24 Ashington to Gap Closure and Junction Improvement Scheme Key Decision: Yes

October 2009 Part I Report by Director Operations Infrastructure Electoral Divisions: Southwater

Executive Summary The A24 south of is a national primary route carrying over 30,000 vehicles per day and is one of very few remaining high standard dual carriageways in the County to retain gaps in the central reserve. This stretch of the A24 consequently has a significantly higher accident rate than the national average for a road of its type

Interim safety measures have been partially successful in limiting the numbers of injury accidents at these gaps, but radical reductions depend upon the closure of all 28 gaps between Ashington and Southwater. This in turn requires the provision of 3 two- level interchanges to permit turning movements and minimise detours.

The A24 Ashington to Southwater Gap Closure and Junction Improvement Scheme involves the closure of all 28 central reservation gaps and the provision of grade separated junctions at Buck Barn, Road junction and . The scheme was granted planning permission in April 2005, which expires in April 2012. The planning conditions include the provision of additional accommodation works, notably a grade separated crossing at Pollards Hill and an alternative access to Hill House Farm.

The Department for Transport (DfT) provisionally accepted the scheme for a start of construction in 2006. However, the scheme was not initially prioritised for funding when the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA1) process was introduced in 2005/06. Consequently, the County Council decided to defer further technical work on the scheme until the situation regarding central Government funding was clarified. Subsequently the Regional Transport Board (RTB) and the Secretary of State confirmed that the scheme should be a priority, albeit with a later implementation date (2015/16). Following a refresh of the prioritisation of schemes in 2008/09, the RTB recommended to the DfT that the scheme start date should be brought forward to July 2012 and the recommendation was recently accepted by Ministers.

The total estimated cost of the scheme is £31.88m (including allowance for inflation). The DfT has agreed to make a total provisional contribution of £28.087million with West County Council contributing £3.793million. A re-run of the scheme economic assessment in 2005 produced a reasonably high benefit to cost ratio of 3.44 which makes the scheme exceptionally worthwhile. However, owing to the delayed start date and the associated increased cost estimate, the Secretary of State has asked the County Council to re-run the scheme economic assessment and submit a new Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) to enable the DfT to re-confirm the scheme’s Programme Entry status.

Conclusions The statutory procedures entail obtaining planning permission for the scheme and acquiring either ownership or rights over land required for the scheme. In order to partly satisfy conditions attached to the planning permission granted to the scheme in April 2005, it is proposed to seek Cabinet Member approval to make separate supplementary planning applications for accommodation works required by the planning conditions. In addition, the Finance Director will now be requested to publish a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) and Side Road Order (SRO) in respect of land required for the scheme.

Recommendations The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport is recommended to approve the following: a) That the scheme for the A24 gap closures and junction improvements, as shown on drawing numbers 507144/EXT/001, 507144/PRE/001-008, 507144/CPO/001-007 and 507144/SRO/001-008, be approved.

b) That separate planning applications be made for the accommodation works listed in Section 2.4 and shown in drawing numbers 507144/004-005 and 007. c) That a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) be made, sealed and submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport under the provisions of Sections 239, 240, 246 and 250 of the Highways Act 1980 for the acquisition of approximately 228,556 square metres of land shown coloured pink and acquisition of rights to approximately 29,603 square metres of land shown coloured blue on drawing numbers 507144/CPO/001- 007. These are for the purposes of the construction and use in connection with the new highways and improvement of existing highways and private accesses. d) That the Head of Legal Services be authorised to take all necessary action to secure entry onto all such land covered by the CPO. e) That a Side Roads Order be made sealed and submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport for confirmation under Sections 14, 124 and 125 of the Highways Act 1980 for the stopping up, diversion, improvement and alteration of sections of existing highway and of any private accesses and the provision of new private accesses as necessary. f) A Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) be submitted to the Department for Transport for re-confirmation of the scheme’s Programme Entry status.

1. Background

1.1 The section of the A24 to road is a national primary route and forms an important element of the West Sussex Strategic Road Network. The Ashington to Southwater section carries over 30,000 vehicles per day and is one of very few remaining high standard dual carriageways in the County retaining gaps in the central reserve. This stretch of the A24 consequently has a significantly higher accident rate than the national average for a road of its type. Table 1 is the West Sussex Junction Study List-Top Ten Worst Case Junctions: July 2006 to June 2009. It lists the top ten worst case junctions in terms of accidents in the County over a three year period to the end of June 2009. It shows that of the 470 junctions on the major road network in West Sussex that are regularly monitored by the Highway Authority for their collision rates, the A24/A272 junction at Buck Barn expressed the worst casualty rate. It also shows that there were a total of 14 collisions during the period involving 2 serious and 17 slight casualties. The A24/B2135 junction ranked 18 out of 470 (a ranking of 1 represents the worst case). 77% of collisions involving serious injury were within 20 meters of a junction. Therefore, the primary objective of the A24 Ashington to Southwater scheme is to reduce the number and severity of personal injury accidents along this stretch of the A24.

1.2 In March 2002 the County Council approved a Route Safety Strategy for the West Sussex section of the A24 (Decision SES6 of 2002/03 refers). This includes the closure of all the 28 gaps between Ashington and Southwater, installation of a continuous central reserve crash barrier and major junction improvements with the A272 at Buck Barn, the B2135 at Steyning Road junction and with Grinders Lane at Dial Post. The provision of these junctions will allow safe turning movements and limit the lengths of detours for drivers joining the A24 between the junctions, while helping the County Council to meet national and Local Transport Plan targets for accident reduction. This was followed by the grant of provisional approval by the DfT in December 2002, which permits the County Council to seek planning consents and publish CPOs and SROs for the scheme.

1.3 West Sussex County Council progressed this scheme in close consultation with the Statutory Environmental Bodies, land owners, residents, local councils and interested groups and reached the stage where it would normally seek to acquire the necessary land through CPO. However, in 2005 the scheme was referred, along with others, to the RTB for an assessment of regional priority. The RTB, in its January 2006 advice to the DfT, did not prioritise the scheme for funding. Consequently, the County Council decided to defer further technical work on the scheme until the situation regarding central Government funding was clarified (Published in the Members Information Service on 28 June 2005). Subsequently the RTB and the Secretary of State confirmed that the scheme should be a priority, albeit with a 2015/16 implementation date and subject to the submission of an MSBC that shows the scheme to be value for money at the higher cost and later start date.

1.4 The RTB undertook a refresh of the prioritisation of schemes in 2008/09 and recommended to the DfT that the scheme start date should be brought forward to July 2012 instead of 2015. This recommendation was accepted by Ministers recently. Prior to making its recommendation to the DfT, the RTB sought and was given an assurance by the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport that West Sussex County Council will make available the necessary resources for scheme development towards achieving the July 2012 start date. The County Council has therefore made budgetary provision for scheme development.

1.5 A re-run of the scheme economic assessment in 2005 produced a reasonably high benefit to cost ratio of 3.44 which makes the scheme exceptionally worthwhile in terms of its value for money. However, in accordance with the Secretary of State’s request West Sussex County Council will re-run the scheme economic assessment and submit an MSBC to seek re-confirmation of the scheme’s Programme Entry status.

2. Discussion

2.1 In order for this scheme to be progressed it is necessary to undertake a number of statutory procedures. These include:

Planning Permission 2.2 Under the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, local authorities must apply for planning permission for their own development proposals, including local road schemes. Such applications must follow the same publicity procedures as would apply to any planning application; and where they affect existing or proposed highways, they should be notified to the Secretary of State. The scheme was granted planning permission in April 2005 following confirmation by the Secretary of State that he does not wish to intervene in the determination of the application. This in effect confirmed the boundaries of the proposed junctions and associated accommodation works.

2.3 A review of the planning permission has been carried out and the approved scheme plans have been updated to incorporate additional accommodation works under the planning conditions and to allow for changes in the highway design standards.

2.4 It has been determined that separate supplementary planning consents are required for the following accommodation works: • Provision of a grade separated crossing (underpass) and access links at Pollards Hill to serve the needs of agricultural vehicles and public rights of way users (ref Dwg. 507144/PRE/007) • Provision of an access road from the B2135 junction to Hill House Farm, running parallel to the A24 on the west side (ref Dwg. 507144/PRE/004).

2.5 Other revisions to the scheme (listed below) are minor and fall largely or wholly within the red line boundary as consented in April 2005. On this basis, it has been determined that they represent a minimal change to the existing planning consent and do not require a separate planning application.

• Provision of diverge and merge lanes to access Grinders Cottage in place of proposed service road (ref dwg. 507144/PRE/001). • Re-alignment of the proposed access road to Plattsgreen Cottages to minimise the environmental impact of the scheme (ref Dwg. 507144/PRE/002) • Provision of a double diverge slip lane off the northbound A24 at Buck Barn in order to maintain direct access from the A24 to Buck Barn Services (ref Dwg. 507144/PRE/005). • Re-alignment of the proposed access road to Buckwood Cottages to minimise the environmental impact of the scheme (ref Dwg. 507144/PRE/005) • Modifications to the junctions of the A24 with Bar Lane and New House Farm Access on the southbound A24 to provide a slip lane for Bar Lane and New House Farm access as well as closure of the central reserve gap at the western end of Bar Lane (Gap 25A) instead of Gap 25 at the eastern end (ref Dwg. 507144/PRE/006).

Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) 2.6 Compulsory Purchase Orders confer authority to acquire land and create new rights over land on a compulsory basis for highway purposes under the Highways Act 1980. The procedure involves advertising of orders, serving notice on persons with statutory interests and submitting the orders to the Secretary of State for Transport for confirmation using powers set out in the Highways Act 1980.

2.7 The CPO process is necessary to ensure that all the land needed is available by the time construction commences and is not subjected to protracted negotiations. It will also allow any residual interests in land required for the scheme to be taken care of. However, efforts will be made during the CPO process to acquire land by negotiation and agreement where practicable.

2.8 The CPO drawings numbered 507144/CPO/001-007 show the land required for the purpose of construction and use in connection with the new highways and private accesses and improvement of existing highways and mitigation under the scheme. The total land area required is approximately 258,159 square metres. This is made as follows:

• 228,556 square metres (approx.) of land shown coloured pink to be acquired and used for the scheme • 29,603 square metres of land shown coloured blue for which rights need to be acquired.

2.9 The CPO procedure makes provision for the submission of objections to the Secretary of State for Transport. Efforts would be made to resolve all objections by negotiation. However failure to resolve any statutory objections could result in the Secretary of State appointing an Independent Inspector to examine the merits of the objections and make recommendations at public inquiry which will then serve as basis for a decision by the Secretary of State to either confirm (with or without modification) or reject the CPO.

2.10 A CPO would be made sealed and submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport under the provisions of Sections 239, 240, 246 and 250 of the Highways Act 1980.

Side Roads Order (SRO) 2.11 Side Roads Orders give authority to stop up, divert, raise, lower or otherwise alter highways which cross or enter the route of a classified road being constructed and/or improved, and to stop up private means of access to premises and provide new means of access.

2.12 The A24 Gap Closure and Junction Improvement Scheme involves alterations to an existing highway as well as stopping up of central reservation gaps and private accesses and provision of new means of access as shown on the scheme drawings. A SRO would be made sealed and submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport for confirmation under provisions in the Highways Act 1980 to give effect to these measures.

Traffic Regulation Orders 2.13 Also, following confirmation of a CPO and SRO by the Secretary of State, an application will be made for temporary and permanent Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. These will be required in order to temporarily close sections of the A24 for up to 18 months to facilitate implementation of the works and to change the existing speed limits both during and after scheme implementation. . Requisition for Information 2.14 As a prelude to publishing CPOs for the scheme, a requisition for information has been sent to all the affected land owners/occupiers with a view to seeking confirmation of their interests in land required for the scheme. A representation was received from the owners/occupants of Grinders Cottage regarding the proposed closure of their existing frontage access off the A24 and its replacement with an alternative service road. Following a review the proposed service road is to be replaced with an improved diverge and merge lanes (ref dwg 507144/PRE/001)

3. Proposals

3.1 The Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport is recommended to approve the following:

a) That the scheme for the A24 gap closures and junction improvements, as shown on drawing numbers 507144/EXT/001, 507144/PRE/001-008, 507144/CPO/001-007 and 507144/SRO/001-008, be approved.

b) That separate planning applications be made for the accommodation works listed in Section 2.4 and shown in drawing numbers 507144/004-005 and 007 as these works fall wholly outside the red line boundary as consented in April 2005.

c) That a Compulsory Purchase Order be made, sealed and submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport under the provisions of Sections 239, 240, 246 and 250 of the Highways Act 1980 for the acquisition of approximately 228,556 square metres of land shown coloured pink and acquisition of rights to approximately 29,603 square metres of land shown coloured blue on drawing numbers 507144/CPO/001-007. These are for the purposes of the construction and use in connection with the new highways and improvement of existing highways and private accesses.

d) That the Head of Legal Services be authorised to take all necessary action to secure entry onto all such land.

e) That a Side Roads Order be made sealed and submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport for confirmation under Sections 14, 124 and 125 of the Highways Act 1980 for the stopping up, diversion, improvement and alteration of sections of existing highway and of any private accesses and the provision of new private accesses as necessary.

f) A Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) is submitted to the Department for Transport for re-confirmation of the scheme’s Programme Entry status.

3.2 The table below shows the key milestone dates for the scheme.

Milestone Date Preliminary Design Complete Preliminary Design of accommodation works Nov. 2009 Consents Submit Planning Application for Accommodation Roads Nov. 2009 Obtain Planning Permission for Accommodation Roads April 2010 Confirmation of Programme Entry Submit MSBC to DfT March 2010 Prog. Entry confirmed by DfT Sept 2010 All following are subject to this confirmation Early Contractor Involvement-Procurement Start ECI (Works) Procurement January 2010 Appoint ECI Contractor Sept 2010 Orders Publish Orders Jan 2010 Sec of State Announces Public Inquiry (Relevant Date) June 2010 Public Inquiry October 2010 CPO confirmed July 2011 Detailed Design Start Detailed Design October 2010 Complete Detailed Design June 2011 Confirm Target Price Sept 2011 Full Approval Bid Submit Full Approval (FA) bid to DfT October 2011 FA granted January 2012 Construction Start Construction April 2012 Scheme open to Traffic October 2013

3.3 There has been a representation from a local pressure group to the effect that further technical work on the scheme should be suspended until Government has guaranteed funding for the scheme. However, Government funding will only be guaranteed when the scheme achieves Full Approval status and Full Approval will only be granted after confirmation of the scheme’s Orders and works procurement is completed. Since the ongoing technical work is needed for the confirmation of Orders and for works procurement, it would be counterproductive to suspend further technical work at this stage.

4. Consultation

4.1 Comprehensive consultation procedures have been followed since the start of the scheme’s initial design in 2002 and dialogue has continued throughout the development of the preliminary design. There have been several presentations to Parish Councils, Landowners/Residents, Amenity Societies and pressure groups, as well as press releases and newsletters/leaflets. There were public exhibitions locally in March and June 2002 as well as July 2004. The Strategic Environmental Services Select Committee, the Deputy Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport and the Policy Advisor and have all been consulted and have expressed their support for the recommendations of this report.

4.2 Officers presented the scheme proposals to the A24 Route Safety Strategy Meeting at Council (HDC) offices on 12 October 2009. The meeting, which was chaired by the Cabinet Member, was attended by Local Members, District/Parish Councillors, HDC Officers and . The County and Local Councillors who attended were generally supportive of the proposals and no objections were raised. In addition, the following have been individually consulted and many locally affected residents have been spoken to directly.

Parish (PC) / Elected Members of the Other Organisations District County Council (past Councils (DC) and present) and local MPs Ashington PC Lt Col Tex Pemberton Sussex Police Ashurst PC Lionel Barnard Sussex Ambulance Service PC Brad Watson West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service PC Frank Wilkinson Dial Post Residents Association Findon PC Amanda Jupp Federation of Sussex Amenity Societies Horsham DC Owen Davies Campaign for the Protection of Rural PC Geoffrey Wilson (CPRE) Shipley PC Steve Waight English Nature Southwater PC Colin O’Neill Environment Agency PC Christopher Sedgwick Sussex Wildlife Trust PC Mick Hodgson English Heritage Washington PC Derek Deedman WSCC, Environmental PC Rt. Hon Francis Maude MP Policy/Conservation and the Rural Wiston PC Mr Nick Herbert MP Strategy Groups Rt. Hon Howard Flight Countryside Access Forum former MP for West Sussex (CAFWS) Members of the Strategic British Horse Society Environmental Services Sustrans Select Committee (Sept Cyclists Touring Club 2009) Ramblers’ Association

4.2 In respect of the accommodation works, the affected landowners/businesses, the Public Rights of Way (PROW) Officer and PROW groups such at British Horse Society, Cyclists Touring Club and Ramblers’ Association have been consulted throughout the process of developing the feasibility and preliminary designs of the access roads to their properties/businesses and footpaths/bridleways and they are happy with the proposed modifications to the scheme at Pollards Hill and Hill House Farm, The Bar and Buck Barn.

5. Resources Implications and Value for Money

5.1 At the time of Provisional Approval in 2002 the DfT agreed an £18.954m contribution comprising 50% grant and 50% supported County Council borrowing towards implementation of the scheme. Subsequently the scheme cost estimate has increased to £31.88m to take account of inflation (due to the delays) and increased scope due to the accommodation works required in order to implement the planning permission. The revised scheme estimate is made up of £1.85m for scheme preparation costs and £30.03m for scheme construction and land acquisition costs.

5.2 Following recent discussions between the DfT and the County Council, the DfT has agreed to provisionally increase its contribution to a total of £28.087m, made up of £826,000 (maximum) for scheme preparation costs and £27.261m for scheme construction costs.

5.3 On the basis of a £28.087m contribution from the DfT, West Sussex County Council’s total contribution to the scheme will be £3.793m made up of £1.023m for scheme preparation costs and £2.77m for scheme construction costs. Given that actual payments from the DfT will only commence after the scheme has achieved Full Approval Status (currently programmed for January 2012), the County Council will have to pre-finance DfT’s share of scheme preparatory costs until 2012.

5.4 There is currently £1.636m identified in the published capital programme for scheme preparation costs to 2011/12. Consequently, a further budgetary provision of £213k is required in addition to the £1.636m already budgeted. This will be addressed as part of capital programme preparations for 2010/11.

5.5 Given that there is a high risk of blight claims if the scheme is either delayed following confirmation of CPOs or rescinded, additional budgetary provision may become necessary to cover any such claims.

5.6 The cost of the specific recommendations included in this report is £31.88million. If the MSBC is not approved by DfT, the land proposed to be acquired through CPOs will have a resale value, so the entire expenditure is not at risk.

5.7 The scheme is expected to deliver benefits in terms of reduced road casualties and the promotion of road user safety. Specifically, this will involve reducing the number and severity of road traffic accidents involving personal injury in this section of the A24 by a further 32%. The scheme will also address future congestion and minimise environmental impacts. Finally it will reduce severance by providing improved access to and egress from the A24 for local residents and public rights of way users as well as facilitating access to bus services.

5.8 The County Council commissioned a detailed options appraisal for the 2002 funding bid to the DfT. This led to the production of a Detailed Options Report which was used to consult all stakeholders before being finalised for submission to the DfT. Options considered included:

• Closure of all the central reservation gaps between Ashington and Southwater without making any provision for right turns across the central reserve and minimising severity of cross-over accidents. • Closure of all the central reservation gaps and provision of improved access control and U-turn facilities at three junctions. Sub-options considered included various combinations of grade separation north of Dial Post, grade separation east of Dial Post, at grade roundabout south of Dial Post, grade separation at junction, grade separation at A272 Buck Barn junction and at grade signalised gyratory at Buck Barn.

The options were assessed for their performance against the objectives of environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration and the preferred option involving the provision of 2-level grade separated junctions at Dial Post (East Option), Partridge Green junction and A272 Buck Barn junction was selected and is now being taken forward.

5.9 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is a value for money measure, which indicates how much net benefit will be obtained from a project in return of each unit cost to public accounts. The DfT’s stated policy is to generally fund most, if not all schemes with a high BCR (i.e. Schemes with a BCR of 2 or more). The A24 Ashington to Southwater scheme was re-assessed in 2005 and produced a BCR 3.44, which shows that the cost of the scheme represents a high value for money. The DfT has requested that the business case be updated and an MSBC is due to be completed over the next few months for submission to the DfT in February 2010, which will involve a re-appraisal of the scheme against the above-mentioned objectives.

5.10 As outlined above the proposals contribute significantly to the County Council priority of reduction of road casualties and the promotion of road user safety and the proposal is the best option in terms of its high value for money.

6. Risk Management Implications

Risk Description of Risk Like- Mitigation Ref lihood 1. The DfT does not confirm Low Continue with on-going close liaison with Programme Entry(PE)/Full the DfT through the development of the Approval (FA) owing to MSBCs for PE and FA to ensure that they increased scheme costs meet the DfT’s requirements. 2 The DfT does not confirm Low The outcome of the Comprehensive Programme Entry (PE)/Full Spending Review 2010, which will set Approval (FA) because of a Government’s spending plans for the reduction in its capital three years from 2011/12, will be known funding. before a contract is let for scheme construction. 3 The scheme’s planning Low Closely monitor scheme progress permission expires before against programme. Award ECI contract start of construction leading early to ensure that a contractor is to delays to scheme available to start advanced works at construction short notice. 4 Unknown residual interests Low Use Compulsory Purchase Orders in the land required for the scheme and the potential for negotiations with landowners to become protracted 5 WSCC unable to resolve Med Make allowance in scheme programme objections to CPO/SRO for the full CPO process including Public through negotiations with Inquiry and Secretary of State decisions. potential impacts on cost Maintain on-going dialogue with and programme landowners. 6 Secretary of State does not Low Ensure that the CPO meets the confirm Orders requirements of the Government Office. Allow time in scheme programme to address issues raised by Secretary of State. 7 Programming problems with Med Maintain early dialogue with Statutory statutory undertakers Undertakers and allow time in scheme programme to deal with unforeseen circumstances 8 Protests Med Continue dialogues with key stakeholders and protest groups and maintain a strong community liaison strategy. 9 Blight claims if the scheme High Make budgetary provision for settlement is not implemented of potential blight claim

7. Customer Focus Appraisal

A Customer Focus Appraisal has been undertaken and is attached as Appendix 2 to this report.

8. Crime and Disorder Act Implications

8.1 Officers have sought the views of the Police in relation to crime and disorder implications of the scheme. The Police have confirmed that the Crime & Disorder Act (CDA) implications of the scheme be broken down into three phases, namely the Planning Application Phase, the Construction Phase and the Post-Implementation Phase.

8.2 The main CDA problems may come at the construction phase when there may be some protests/demonstrations, which could involve civil disobedience. However there is no specific intelligence, at this time, to support that stance. Once built the only CDA issue may relate, in some circumstances, to slightly extended emergency service response times. However there will be an adequate number of underpasses and roundabouts to minimise any adverse effect and in general traffic delays would be reduced.

8.3 County Council Officers do not consider that the CDA implications arising out of the Construction Phase and the Post-Implementation Phase should preclude the scheme going ahead as the expected road traffic safety benefits from the scheme far exceed the CDA implications. The Construction phase will be monitored by Officers to deal with any CDA issues that may arise.

9. Human Rights Act Implications

The rights of those living near to the A24 between Ashington and Southwater have been considered. The concerns of officers set out in paragraph 1.1 and the policy objective to reduce road traffic related casualties have been set against the rights set out in the Human Rights Act, in particular the right to respect for private and family life and protection of property. The persons with interests in the land affected will be entitled to proper compensation through Part I and Part II claims under the Land Compensation Act 1973. Taking these points into consideration it is believed that the implementation of the A24 Ashinton to Southatwer scheme is still justified.

Tony Toynton

Director of Operations – Infrastructure

Appendices

Scheme Plans: Can be viewed at: http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/ccm/content/roads-and- transport/major-projects/a24-ashington---southwater.en Or by contacting Daniel Dei

507144/EXT/001- Extents of Route 507144/PRE/001- Sheet 1 of 7, Ashington to Plattsgreen 507144/PRE/002- Sheet 2 of 7, Dial Post Junction 507144/PRE/003- Sheet 3 of 7, Gap Closure 8 – 14, Rookcross Lane 507144/PRE/004- Sheet 4 of 7, B2135 Junction, Hill House Farm Access 507144/PRE/005- Sheet 5 of 7, A272/Buck Barn Hill House Farm 507144/PRE/006- Sheet 6 of 7, The Bar 507144/PRE/007- Sheet 7 of 7, Pollards Hill to Southwater 507144/CPO/001-007 Compulsory Purchase Orders Plans 507144/SRO/001-008 Side Road Orders Plans

Appendix 1: Accident Data. West Sussex Junction Study List-Top Ten Worst Case Junctions: July 2006 to June 2009

Appendix 2: Customer Focus Appraisal

Contact: Daniel Dei, Ext. 77555