Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: 12/11/2019 Contact:

Name of scheme: A31 Improvements: Road Investment Strategy PCF Stage 3 Name Description of scheme: Widening of the A31 from two to three lanes (over a road section of close to 1km) and improving the merge to the A31 from the A338 junction at Ringwood, provided as a lane-gain. The Proposed Scheme is intended to reduce westbound mainline traffic congestion and to Organisation Highways improve access from Ringwood town centre. The extent of the scheme is entirely within the highway boundary between Mile marker Post (MP) 17/3 and MP 18/3. The West Street access to the A31 would be closed to all traffic. Access to the Fish Inn from the Role Promoter/Official - Project Manager A31 would be closed with access maintained only from West Street and Ringwood town centre.

Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Distributional £(NPV) 7-pt scale/ vulnerable grp

Value of Journey Time Changes £28.6m

The scheme generates significant journey time savings of £28.6m, for business trips, mainly due to reduced journey time for the westbound movement on the A31 at Ringwood. The Net journey time changes (£) time benefits are highest at the level with more than 5 minutes of travel time saving. 0 to 2 min 2 to 5 min >5 min The scheme also produces benefit of £2.6m through a reduction in Vehicle Operating Costs for business users, adding to the scheme net benefit for VOC (£3.8m). There is also disbenefit of -£5.2m due to construction delays for the business users. £2.2m £2.4m £24.0m Business users & transport providers Not applicable PBV = £26.0m Reliability impact on The increased capacity would lead to more predictable journey times, reduce driver stress, and create a more reliable route for business users. The MyRIAD analysis suggests Total Journey Reliability and Incident Delay Benefits: Not applicable PBV = £0.8m Business users moderate monetary benefit from the scheme. £0.8m

The scheme supports the development aspirations within the District Council Core Strategy (2009) and has considered their draft Local Plan Review 2016- 2036 that

Economic includes policies for housing, employment and retail growth. New Forest District Council and County Council would need to review the traffic impact of these development Regeneration aspirations on Ringwood Town Centre. N/A Not applicable N/A The scheme’s objectives also align with a number of other local planning policies included in the , and Local Transport Plan 2011-2016, Enterprise M3 LEP Growth Agenda, Transport for South Hampshire (TFSH) Transport Delivery Plan (2012-2026), and South-Hampshire Growth Point.

Wider Impacts Increased capacity will result in shorter and more reliable journey times on the A31 westbound in this area. Reduced congestion would allow developments to proceed and lead to £3.1m Not applicable £3.1m economic growth in the area, as well as benefit seasonal tourism. As per TAG Unit 2.2 (paragraph) 4.3.1, the additional welfare effects are estimated by applying a 10% uplift factor to the business and freight user benefits (from TUBA). The result of this uplift is £3.1m.

The Proposed Scheme would result in more receptors experiencing decreases in noise during the daytime compared to the number of receptors which will experience increases in Households experiencing increased daytime noise in the DS - Income quintile 1: Neutral Income quintile 2: noise over the long term (DS2039). The changes in noise in the area surrounding the Proposed Scheme, will occur as a result of increased traffic on the A31, the redistribution of traffic DM forecast year (2039): 125 Large Adverse on the surrounding road network and natural traffic increase. This results in 30 dwellings with a perceptible noise level change increase (more than 1dB) in the opening year (DS2024) Households experiencing reduced daytime noise in DS - DM Income quintile 3: Moderate Beneficial Income and 0 dwellings in the forecast year (DS2039) (more than 3 dB). However, there are 93 dwellings with perceptible decreases of daytime noise in the opening year (DS2024) and 6 forecast year (2039): 92 quintile 4: Large Beneficial Income quintile 5: Noise dwellings in the forecast year (DS2039). There are no perceptible noise increases or decreases during night-time at any dwelling in the forecast year (DS2039). There are 6 other Households experiencing increased night time noise in DS - Not applicable NPV = -£139,492 Neutral

Environmental sensitive receptors that experience a perceptible increase in noise in the short-term (DS2024) and 1 that experience a perceptible decrease in noise. There are no other sensitive DM forecast year (2039): 80 receptors which are predicted to experience a perceptible increase in noise during the daytime. There is 1 receptor experience a perceptible decrease in the long-term (DS2039). Households experiencing reduced night time noise in DS - DM forecast year (2039): 65

The Proposed Scheme would result in a net deterioration in local air quality concentrations in the opening (2024) and design (2039) years. Concentrations of pollutants would be likely Opening Year (2024) Change in NOx Emissions: +0.4 tonnes NOx to increase near to the scheme main roads (more specifically at the Ringwood Junction and along the widened area of the A31) due to the attraction of extra traffic onto the road Forecast Year (2039) Change in NOx Emissions: +0.0 tonnes Income quintile 1: Neutral Income quintile 2: network. Total AQ valuation for the sensitivity test NPV is: -£40,041 Neutral Areas further away from the Proposed Scheme would benefit from improved local air quality due to the movement of traffic away from these areas, especially around West Street and Opening year (2024) PM10 assessment score: 11 Change in Income quintile 3: Large Beneficial Income the residential areas to the south and east of the Ringwood Junction. NOx emissions over a 60 year period: 3 quintile 4: Slight Beneficial Income quintile 5: PM10: -£7,681 Large Adverse Air Quality Not applicable NOx: -£2,126 PM10 Total: -£9,806 Income quintile 1: Neutral Income quintile 2: Large Adverse Income quintile 3: Large Beneficial Income quintile 4: Large Adverse Income quintile 5: Moderate Adverse The difference between the upper and lower bounds estimate is +/- £164,419 variation of NPV. No CO2 emissions data is available in best practice guidance (IAN185- 15 HE Speed Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) -6631 Present value of Banding) for assessment years after 2030, therefore emission factors for the forecast traffic data (2039) are assumed to be the same as for 2030. CO2e of proposal However, improvements in vehicular technologies by 2039 should see a reduction in vehicular CO2 contributions and thus reduced CO2 emissions from the Proposed Scheme. Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) N/A £299,835 Greenhouse gases Not applicable Landscape The Proposed Scheme would be perceived within the context of the existing corridor and associated highway infrastructure and established roadside planting. With Not applicable Slight Adverse Not Applicable mitigations such as appropriate design of the replacement bridge over the River Avon, the design of the noise barrier on the boundary of the churchyard of the Parish Church of St Peter and St Paul and preparation of an Arboricultural Method Statement with the objective of retaining good quality existing trees on the edge of the churchyard, the overall assessment score of the Proposed Scheme would be Slight adverse.

The A31 widening proposals would be in keeping with the scale and character of the existing road and the closure to vehicular traffic of the West Street slip road onto the A31 would potentially reduce the amount of traffic using the narrow road and medieval stone bridge, with a beneficial townscape effect. However, the overall impacts to townscape would be Townscape neutral. As a consequential effect of the Proposed Scheme, the closure of West Street could also open up future opportunities to enhance this part of the Ringwood Conservation Area. Not applicable Neutral Not Applicable

Historic Environment The Proposed Scheme is within the existing highway boundary, and any buried archaeological remains will already have been disturbed. The setting of any designated assets Not applicable Neutral Not Applicable (including listed buildings and the conservation area) and any historic buildings and landscapes are currently affected by the scale and character of the existing road. Therefore the overall effects to cultural heritage would be neutral.

New bridge abutments would be constructed behind the existing substructure, largely eliminating the need for any in-channel works. Any habitat loss during installation of construction Slight adverse compounds would be temporary. The timing of main bridge construction works have also been chosen to avoid key fish migration periods and to avoid potential disturbance impacts to overwintering birds. With mitigation, these effects would represent negligible magnitude of change, with the exception of the River Avon SAC, for which the overall assessment score would be slight adverse. Biodiversity During operation phase, small amount of aquatic habitat loss would occur due to an increased area of the River Avon and Bickerley Millstream becoming shaded by the new section of Not applicable Not Applicable bridge above. Due to the small size of the area affected which is already sited between bridges, any increase in shading to aquatic habitats would be of negligible magnitude. Modification of habitats would also be possible due to possible localised changes in hydrology affecting factors such as sediment loading. However, with appropriate primary mitigation embedded into the design (and other tertiary mitigation), these effects would be avoided or minimised resulting in neutral overall assessment score.

The widening of the A31 has the potential to impact the conveyance and storage of flood waters within the existing floodplain as well as restricting the passage of flow of the River Not applicable Neutral Avon. This could result in an increase in fluvial flood risk to areas located upstream and downstream of the Proposed Scheme. However, maintenance of the existing bridge cross- section dimensions would mean an insignificant effect on flooding upstream and downstream. There would be a potential minor impact of surface water from the release of pollutants from vehicles using the road, but this would also be insignificant. Water Environment Not Applicable

Reliability impact on The increased capacity would lead to more predictable journey times, reduce driver stress, and create a more reliable route for commuting and other users. The MyRIAD analysis Total Journey Reliability and Incident Delay Benefits: Not Applicable PVB= £0.9m Commuting and Other suggests moderate monetary benefit from the scheme. Commuting users=£0.4m Other users=£0.5m Social users There could be a loss or reduction of amenity for PRoW users as a result of temporary closure and diversion of existing PRoWs during construction. Community amenity would also be Short term impact during construction VS long term impacted during construction. Due to the strategic nature of the widening improvements it is not expected that these would produce a change in walking and cycling levels during improvement to the route. Physical activity operation. Reduced traffic levels along West St due to the closure of the access to the A31 could increase local cycling and walking levels by providing a more pleasant environment for Slight Beneficial Not Applicable these road users during operation.

Views from the road would not be expected to be significantly different from existing views. Once in operation the scheme would be expected to reduce journey times for motorised- traffic on the A31. With closure of West Street, traffic data are also showing that journey times for motorised-traffic from the town centre accessing A31 via the B3347 would remain the Journey quality same during morning peak time and reduce during evening peak time even with the longer distance coverage. Improvements to PRoW with the closure of West Street (cycle ways and Not Applicable Slight Beneficial Not Applicable footpaths) could result in journey times for Non-Motorised Users (NMU) being improved.

COBALT analysis indicates that there would be a reduction in accidents due to the scheme. This would appear to be largely due to the closure of the West St access and reduced Casualties saved: Fatal = 2 Children: Neutral Older People: Neutral congestion. Serious = 16 Young Male Drivers: Neutral Pedestrians: Slight = 143 Neutral Cyclists: Neutral Motorcyclists: Accidents Not Applicable PVB = £5.1m Reduction in number of accidents = 104 Neutral

Security There is no expected change in perceptions of security with the scheme. Not Applicable Neutral Not Applicable

Access to services There is no expected change in access to services as a result of the scheme. Drivers would still be able to access the Petrol Station on the A31, but not via West Street or the Fish Inn. Not Applicable Neutral Not Applicable Access to the Fish Inn would be from West Street. Affordability The scheme does not propose any changes to any form of Public Transport and its associated fare structures. However, the scheme is expected to result in a small decrease in Not Applicable Neutral Not Applicable Vehicle Operating Costs. Overall the impact is not considered significant.

Severance The level of severance would not change as a result of the scheme. Existing footpaths would be retained and where crossed by the route, provided with adequate means of access to Not Applicable Neutral Not Applicable prevent severance between the two areas of Ringwood bisected by the A31. Existing roads would be incorporated into the scheme, allowing for crossing points within the design to facilitate travel between the two areas of Ringwood. Option values The scheme would not involve the loss or introduction of a new mode of transport, therefore option values are unaffected. The alternative modes of transport available to households Not Applicable Neutral Not Applicable would be in the main based around bus services. Cost to Broad Transport For the purposes of the Economic Assessment and the generation of the BCR, costs and contributions are discounted to 2010 prices and exclude the costs already incurred. The Central Government costs are £8.9m (Note: This cost does not Neutral PVC = £8.9m Budget scheme is funded through central government funds. include the cost of bridge replacement). Public Public

Accounts Indirect Tax Revenues There would be an increase in tax being paid to the Exchequer. Central Government Wider Finances: £0.6m Not Applicable PVB = £0.6m