Public Engagement Exercise

Ketch Roundabout Improvement Scheme Public Engagement Report March 2014

Find out more online: www.worcestershire.gov.uk/ketch

Contents:

1. Background ...... 1

2. Introduction to the Engagement Process ...... 2

3. Summary ...... 3

4. Recommendations ...... 5

5. Methodology ...... 6

6. Results ...... 8

List of Appendices:

Appendix A Consultation Plan

Appendix B Leaflet

Appendix C Pull up

Appendix D Press Release

Appendix E MP Response

Appendix F City Councillor Response

Appendix G Notes of Actions from Follow up Meetings (City Council and Parish)

Appendix H Parish Council and Friends of Power Park Response

Appendix I Resident Meeting Notes

Appendix J Other Stakeholder Responses

1. Background

1.1 The City of Worcester is Worcestershire's principal economic hub and retail centre. It is also a growing university city that is seeking to achieve sustainable economic growth and improve the quality of life for residents, workers, businesses and visitors alike. It is important that the city fulfils its role as a catalyst for economic recovery and growth across Worcester, Worcestershire and the West Midlands. Local stakeholders, including the business community agree that key to achieving this goal is the provision of a transport network capable of supporting and accommodating sustainable economic recovery and growth.

1.2 Without investment in transport infrastructure and services (across all modes of transport), Worcester’s ability to grow and remain a key centre for economic growth will be significantly constrained. The Worcester Transport Strategy (WTS) Phase 1 focuses on maximising the efficiency of the current multi-modal transport network, increasing transport choice and making better use of existing assets. The WTS Phase 1 will deliver an integrated and balanced network of transport infrastructure and services that supports the economy (by reducing congestion and travel costs), reduces the impact of transport on sensitive environments (particularly in the City Centre) and improves quality of life. The WTS MSBC represents a comprehensive, strategic approach towards the development of Worcester and its hinterland's transport network across all modes of transport.

1.3 The Ketch Junction is located on the A4440 Southern Link Road and proposals include a major upgrade to existing facilities. The A4440 provides a critical link between South Worcestershire and the M5 (Junction 7), bypassing Worcester City Centre. This road suffers from significant congestion problems, resulting in delays to businesses and users and encouraging routing via Worcester City Centre of traffic that would otherwise by-pass the city, with consequent adverse impacts on transport costs, the city economy and the environment. The proposed measures have been designed to reduce congestion, increase reliability and support improvements to walk, cycle and public transport in the city centre.

1

2. Introduction to the Engagement Process

2.1 The requirement to improve the Southern Link Road (SLR) was consulted upon widely during extensive public and stakeholder consultation on the Worcester Transport Strategy (2010) and the Local Transport Plan 3 (December 2010/January 2011). The Local Transport Plan 3 was subsequently adopted by Worcestershire County Council on 17th February 2011.

2.2 The County Council's commitment to improve the Southern Link Road has been reconfirmed on a number of occasions since then and a bid to apply for funding from the Department for Transport to improve the Ketch Roundabout was submitted following approval by Cabinet in November 2012. The funding application was supported by numerous key stakeholders.

2.3 Having received confirmation of funding from the Department for Transport on 13th February 2013, the decision to implement the scheme was taken by Cabinet on 7th March 2013.

2.4 This public engagement exercise was approved by Cabinet on 12th December 2013. The main objectives of the exercise were:

 To inform locally on the strategic context of the project (e.g. Worcester Transport Strategy, works to date to improve the A440 and any future works;  To inform prior to delivery in terms of scheme design and road layout;  To inform on the high level delivery programme and impact/mitigation on highway during construction;  To consult local residents and stakeholders' in relation to any mitigation measures required.

2.5 The engagement exercise commenced in December 2013 and over a 12 week period sought to engage with local stakeholders and residents to inform on the scheme and obtain feedback on the mitigation measures. This included local Worcestershire County Council Members, City Members and Parish Council liaison in the early stages, followed by a public awareness exercise until 28th February, 2014.

2.6 The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of feedback to participants and to the Project Team to facilitate any recommendations to the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for a delegated decision.

2

3. Summary

Leaflet/Website

3.1 104 formal responses were received from either the leaflet or via the website.

3.2 69% of respondents were male. The age group with the highest number of responses was 51- 65 year olds.

3.3 The comments and issues from the leaflet/website can be summarised as follows:

 Why was the Ketch Scheme selected (for example why not dual the Carrington Bridge or build a North Link Road);  Why was the alignment not further south;  Lack of co-ordination between land use and transport planning;  Increases in noise and light levels;  Impact on public open space and ecological issues;  Traffic priorities;  Impact on residents during construction;  Consultation process;  Impact on cyclists and pedestrians.

Public Written Responses

3.4 21 pieces of written correspondence were received. Comments were broadly aligned with the bullets listed in 3.4.

Exhibitions

3.5 Approximately 200 people attended the three exhibitions. The comments received at the exhibitions were broadly aligned with the bullets listed in 3.4.

Worcester City Council

3.6 An extensive response was received from one of the District Councillors for St Peters, Cllr Roger Knight. Most of the points raised were in relation to mitigation measures and these have been passed on to the Project Team to consider. Briefly these can be summarised as follows:

 Concerns over location/height of bund, acoustic and other fencing  Returning the fence at Orchid Close to form an enclosure  Flooding issues  Vegetation and planting

3

Town/Parish Councils

3.7 Two responses were received from Parish Councils (St Peters and Norton Juxta Kempsey). Norton Juxta Kempsey, whilst in support of the scheme, made a number of strategic observations, whilst St Peters Parish Council response was focused strongly on the mitigation measures.

Resident Meetings:

3.8 Residents were keen to input into the development of a mitigation scheme specifically tailored to meet their needs. Their highest priorities included:

 Extent, position and effectiveness of bund and fencing, including the possibility of returns;  Protection against headlights, general lighting, noise and pollution;  Retention of vegetation where possible and considered re-planting;  Flooding issues to be resolved;  Protection during the works.

Other Stakeholders

3.9 7 responses were received from other key stakeholders. These were:

 MP: Fully supportive  Worcestershire Local Economic Partnership: Fully supportive  South Worcestershire Councils (Malvern Hills District Council, Worcester City District Council and Wychavon District Council): Fully Supportive  Highways Agency: Asked to be consulted on traffic management during construction  West Mercia Police: Supportive  English Heritage: Supportive  Worcestershire Regulatory Services: General comments mostly focused on air quality issued  South Worcestershire Cycling Group: Comments regarding provision for cyclists and pedestrians

Media

3.10 A total of 14 articles were carried across Worcester and Malvern newspaper titles specifically relating to the Ketch Junction during the period of the consultation (December 2014 to February 2014).

3.11 During the engagement exercise the dedicated webpage: www.worcestershire.gov.uk/ketch; has attracted a total of 840 total visitors since the page went live. Six messages sent via social media (Twitter and Facebook). Twitter – 8,935 followers, Facebook – 720 likes. In addition, a WCC homepage feature was displayed for several weeks from early 2014.

4

4. Recommendations

4.1 It is recommended that:

 The report is used to inform the Project Team (Worcestershire County Council) with regards to next steps on mitigation assisting any recommendations to the Cabinet Member;  All the information contained in this report is shared with the participants of the exercise by publishing a report on Worcestershire County Council website www.worcestershire.gov.uk/ketch;  That the report is signed off by the Project Team as an accurate summary of the process;  That all participants are informed of any subsequent decisions taken and updated accordingly throughout the process via the project pages on the Worcestershire County Council website (see above for link). Hard copies of the report may be available on request;  That a dialogue continues with the most affected residents, Local Members, the City Council and St Peter's Parish;  That responses are issued to Norton Juxta Kempsey Parish Council and the South Worcestershire Cycling Group as per their requests.

5

5. Methodology

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Various consultation methods were adopted to ensure that the engagement process was as inclusive as possible whilst retaining significance to local residents.

5.1.2 The Engagement Plan is provided in Appendix A.

5.1.3 The geographical area targeted for the engagement process was focused locally within the area of St Peters, Worcestershire. This was intentional as the consultation element of the exercise was centred on developing mitigation measures for the most affected residents. It was therefore appropriate to target the exercise in this manner to ensure that the views of these residents and their representatives could be heard. However, any media and website activity covered a much wider area.

5.1.4 The materials developed to support the implementation of the exercise reflected Worcestershire County Councils Corporate Brand Book and the documents were 'signed off' by the Corporate Communications as being fit for purpose. Copies of the public engagement material are provided in the appendices as follows:

 Appendix B – Copy of the leaflet (print run 3k)  Appendix C – Copy of the promotional pull ups

5.2 The leaflet was distributed to the St Peter's Estate.

5.3 County Councillors

5.3.1 Having received confirmation of funding from the Department for Transport on 13th February 2013, the decision to implement the scheme was taken by Worcestershire County Council Cabinet on 7th March 2013.

5.3.2 The public engagement exercise was approved by Worcestershire County Council Cabinet on 12th December 2013.

5.3.3 The County Council Local Members whose electoral division abut the A4440 were briefed on 26th and 27th November, 2013.

5.3.4 A number of other communications took place with the Cabinet Member and the County Council Local Member for St Peters during the engagement process. Two formal meetings were arranged for 6th March, 2014 and 12th March, 2014 to provide updates and to seek a consensus on mitigation measures.

5.4 City Councillors

5.4.1 The Worcester City Local Members were briefed on 2nd December, 2014, in advance of the Cabinet decision to engage.

6

5.4.2 A number of other communications took place with the City Council member during the engagement process culminating in two formal meeting on 6th March, 2014 and 12th March, 2014 to provide updates and to seek a consensus on mitigation measures.

5.5 Parish Council

5.5.1 Parish Council representatives were initially briefed on 3rd December, 2014 in advance of the Cabinet decision to engage.

5.5.2 A number of other communications took place with Parish Council representative during the engagement process culminating in two formal meeting on 6th March, 2014 and 12th March, 2014 to provide updates and to seek a consensus on mitigation measures.

5.6 Resident Meetings

5.6.1 Local residents were invited to a meeting at County Hall on 4th December, 2014. These residents (7 households) were identified as being those most affected by the proposed scheme. The purpose of the meeting was to brief residents on what the scheme entailed and to outline what was available in terms of mitigation measures.

5.6.2 The key residents were supplied with information to help inform them on what they may like to see in terms of the mitigation measures introduced. This included artist's impressions, types of fencing, vegetation and lighting information.

5.6.3 A subsequent residents meeting was held at St Peter's Community Hall on 12th February. The purpose of this meeting was to gain a consensus on what mitigation measures the residents would like to see implemented. The key group of residents had expanded to 10 households.

5.6.4 Further communication, emails, phone calls and informal meetings were also held with residents during and after the engagement exercise.

5.7 Website

5.7.1 The engagement process had its own bespoke pages on Worcestershire County Council's website, containing a self-completion on-line form, giving a further opportunity to respond. The exercise was promoted on the front page of the public site to heighten awareness.

5.8 Media

5.8.1 A press release was issued in December to promote the exercise in Worcester (see Appendix D).

5.8.2 Twitter and Facebook accounts were also set up.

5.9 Exhibitions

5.9.1 The exhibitions were promoted via the website, local press, leaflets and by variable message signs (large electronic display boards in the City).

5.9.2 Members of the Project Team were available to talk residents and provide them with details about the proposals and how to respond.

7

6. Results

6.1 Leaflet and On-line responses

6.1.1 A key method for members of the public to participate was via the response slips on the leaflet and via the County Council website.

6.1.2 104 responses were received via this method. Where post codes were supplied, these have been geographically plotted in Figures 6.1 and 6.2.

FIGURE 6.1 - RESIDENT RESPONSES (WIDER AREA)

FIGURE 6.2 - RESIDENT RESPONSES (ST PETER'S AREA)

8

6.1.3 As expected, the responses were mostly submitted by those who live close to the Ketch Junction.

6.1.4 The majority of respondents were male (69%), with 25% being female and 6% preferring not to say. See Figure 6.3.

FIGURE 6.3 - SPLIT OF RESPONDENTS BY GENDER

25, 27%

69, 73%

Female Male

6.2 The age profile of respondents can be seen in Figure 6.4 below. The largest response at nearly 40% came from those aged between 51 and 65.

FIGURE 6.4 - AGE PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS CHART 6.2: AGE PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

9, 10%

19, 21%

17-34

35-50 26, 28% 51-65

Over 65

38, 41%

9

6.3 The key issues from the comments received have been categorised in Table 6.1 below. A brief response has also been issued to each of the key issues.

TABLE 6.1 - KEY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Issue Response

Scheme selected/scheme The County Council has a strategy to deliver improvements location to the A4440. The improvement of this strategically important road is influenced by the need to deal with both  Doubling the existing traffic congestion and the planned development Carrington Road growth set out in the emerging South Worcestershire Bridge is a higher priority Development Plan (SWDP). The phasing of the improvements  Constructing a to the A4440 is also influenced by funding availability from Northern Link Road is both the public and private sectors and guidelines set out by a higher priority central government.  A third river crossing is a higher priority The Ketch junction is the most cost-effective first step  Road alignment aligned with the amount of funding available. Government should have been also require that an existing network is enhanced first to its further south full potential before any new roads are funded.  Scheme won't deliver claimed benefits The Business Case for the Junction is robust and it has been scrutinised by the DfT and subsequently approved. If the benefits were not clearly demonstrated then the funding bid would have failed.

Following completion of the Ketch Junction scheme and associated capacity improvements to Broomhall Way, the next phase of the improvements to the A4440 will be the completion of the dualling of Broomhall Way as far as Norton Junction, improvements to the capacity of Norton Junction and the dualling of Crookbarrow Way as far as Whittington Junction. Taking account of the SWDP planned development growth, this needs to be in place before 2020. Following this phase, there will then be a need to increase the capacity of the A4440 between Ketch and Powick Junctions.

As set out in the Worcestershire LTP3, the Northern Link Road is a scheme listed in the plan for consideration in the long term but improvements to the A4440 are the first most deliverable priority and align with the growth proposed in the SWDP.

The road could not have been dualled to the south as WCC already has unused Highway land to the north which it was required to use before compulsory purchasing the land of others. There were also major alignment constraints

10

Lack of co-ordination Considerable work has been undertaken to identify the between land use and improvements to Worcester City's and the wider South transport planning Worcestershire's transport network needed to deal with the growth in travel demand associated with the planned growth  No residential or set out in the South Worcestershire Development Plan other development (SWDP). The improvements cover all modes of transport and should be allowed until the highway include the capacity enhancements to the A4440 Southern infrastructure has Link Road. The phasing of the proposed improvements to been improved transport infrastructure and services reflects the advice given  The scheme has by the Local Planning Authorities regarding the build-out of been approved to the SWDP planned development. This is set out in the SWDP facilitate growth Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

As set out in the SWDP, the promoters of development will

be expected to proportionately contribute toward the costs of delivering the transport infrastructure needed to mitigate the adverse impact on transport network performance of the cumulative growth in the generated travel demand.

Noise levels following Modelling shows that there will be no perceptible increase in construction noise levels for residents once the scheme has been completed. Current noise levels have been recorded and will  Need to ensure no be taken again once the scheme has been completed. impact on residents  Need to ensure acoustic fencing etc is properly maintained

Light levels following Modelling shows that there will be no perceptible increase in construction light levels for residents once the scheme has been completed.  Need to ensure there is no negative impact on residents from roundabout lighting  Need to ensure there is no negative impact on residents from headlamps Impact on public open The loss of public open space is minimal. space/ecological impact An Ecological Appraisal Report was prepared on behalf of  Concern over loss of Worcestershire County Council by CH2M Hill in August 2012. trees The appraisal concluded that the habitats present within the  Concern over loss of site are of importance at no greater than the local level. Great grassland crested newts were found to be present at one pond  Concern over wildlife immediately north of the site and although the proposed road casualties scheme will not directly affect the pond, recommendations  Need to replace any trees that are have been made for reasonable precautions to be taken to removed

11

 Need to level bund avoid affecting the species during the proposed works.  Need to fence Power Park boundary Only the trees necessary to construct the scheme have been removed. It is proposed that there will be a replanting scheme implemented to replace these on adjoining land.

It is proposed that the existing bund along the A4440 will be landscaped to ensure that it is a minimum of 2m above the level of the carriageway.

It is proposed that a boundary fence to a wooden post and mesh wire construction will be erected on the Highway boundary between the Highway and Power Park.

Concerns that there may be wildlife road casualties once the scheme has been completed are noted.

Traffic priorities Suggestions that traffic signals should be introduced will be kept under review.  Consider introducing traffic Yellow hatching will be introduced on the Kempsy A38 signals entrance to the Ketch Roundabout.  Consider using yellow hatching to keep traffic flowing Impact on residents during The work will be subject to agreement by the Worcestershire construction Regulatory Authority to minimise any environmental impact on residents. The work will be completed as quickly as  Need to minimise possible compatible with this. noise  Need to keep It is not proposed that the A4440 will be completely closed construction other than maybe for a few overnight closures during traffic away from construction. The use of temporary traffic signals will be kept residential areas to a minimum.  Need to minimise the impact of Concerns regarding 'rat running' are noted. temporary traffic lights/closures on Construction traffic and the contractor's compound will not the local network be allowed in residential areas.  Need to minimise "rat-running" by motorists trying to avoid roadworks  Contractor's compound should not be in residential area Consultation process The need to improve the A4440 was recognised in Local Transport Plan and the Worcester Transport Strategy, both of  Outcome has which have been extensively consulted upon. already decided  Should have been The decision to implement the scheme has therefore already

12

more options been taken, however, it was agreed by Cabinet on 12th  Not well December that a public engagement exercise should be publicised conducted to inform and engage on mitigation measures to  Leaflets delivered be taken after exhibition dates It should be noted that it was made clear on information  Work started material that work to remove vegetation would commence before the before the public engagement exercise had concluded. consultation had concluded Comments received during the process will inform what mitigation measures are implemented.

The engagement process was publicised via leaflet, on-road signs, website and local press.

Some leaflets were requested by local organisations after the public exhibitions had already taken place. The distribution of the leaflets after the exhibition was not considered inappropriate as all of the other information within them was still valid and they provided a handy reply slip for respondents

Impact on cyclists and It is acknowledged that some cyclists prefer not to negotiate pedestrians roundabouts on the carriageway and that overall, the speed of traffic will increase.  It will be difficult to cross the A4440 Pedestrians and cyclists not wishing to negotiate the  The pedway will roundabout will still be able to cross the A4440 at the be adversely threshold of the Carrington Road Bridge and the A38 at the affected controlled crossing just north of the Ketch Roundabout.  Roundabouts are difficult for A pedestrian/cyclists bridge over the A4440 near Norton cyclists to Roundabout has been proposed by the developers of the negotiate South Worcester Urban Extension. This is a critical piece of  Speed of traffic will increase the infrastructure needed to make that development  Concern if A38 compliant with the sustainable development policies of controlled Worcestershire County Council, the Local Planning crossing were to Authorities and the South Worcestershire Development Plan. be removed It is however, a separate project to the Ketch Roundabout Scheme

Miscellaneous Although outside the scope of the scheme, flooding issues in Power Park will be investigated and if possible, addressed.  This is a good opportunity to The signage at Whittington and Norton Roundabouts has deal with flooding been reviewed and there are currently no plans to change it. issues in Power Park There are currently no plans to reduce speed limits on St  Signage at Peter's Drive or restrict the use of Taylors lane. Whittington and Norton

13

Roundabouts The Ketch Viewpoint will be unaffected by the work. should be reviewed  Need to review speed limits on one or two local roads including St Peter's Drive  Need to reduce "rat running" in locations such as Taylors Lane  Need to protect Ketch Viewpoint

Public Written Responses

6.4 21 pieces of written correspondence were also received from members of the public. The comments from the correspondence broadly reflected the issues outlined in Table 6.1 above.

Members of Parliament

6.5 There was one response from Harriet Baldwin MP. This is shown in Appendix E with an extract below:

'I support measures that will lead to the enhancement of the A4440 and the Ketch roundabout. Improved infrastructure is essential as we encourage business growth in Malvern and its surrounding areas as we prepare for the delivery of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.'

City Councillors

6.6 One of the City Councillors for St Peters submitted a full response and this can be seen in Appendix F. The comments can be broadly categorised as follows:

 Comments relating to vegetation planting  That bund creation and fence screening measures should be in place to protect residents prior to the construction works  That noise fencing should be fit for purpose and returned  Established trees should be re-planted  The earth bund along Broomhall Way to be continuous and raised in height to provide an adequate barrier  Flooding issue in Begonia Close to be dealt with in a permanent solution  No works traffic to enter the estate or use residential streets  Overlap earth bund to ensure adequate screening of both Orchid Close and Heather Close  Works to ensure Foxglove Road is included  Strict observance of the boundaries of the "Field in Trust", designated under the QEII Jubilee  Scheme, to ensure this site is not compromised

14

 Restriction of working hours to minimise impact on residents  Works required to alleviate flooding of the pedways  Create roundabout feature as a gateway to the City  Improve culvert flow from North to South under the road  Whittington roundabout signage and slip lane  New road surface  Issues relating to St Peters Drive and Taylors Lane during construction  Cycle provision and pedway maintenance

6.7 The County Council has already been working with the City Councillor to address these issues as stated in the Methodology. Actions from the follow up meetings on 6th and 12th March respectively, can be viewed in Appendix G.

Parish Councils and Friends of Power Park

6.8 The St Peter's Parish Council and the Friends of Power Park (FoPP) made the following points (full version in Appendix H):

 The bund height needs to be at a level that maintains the equivalent view of motorway bound traffic, as that which exists at present. This may/ could also be achieved including a solid fence to also provide noise protection and child/dog security. In addition the Bund needs to be at a consistent height;  We would like plans of boundaries and information on lighting;  The Acoustic fence at the Ketch Roundabout needs to be returned at both ends to make the gardens/roadways secure. The extent of the fence needs to run from the walkway at Foxglove to the walkway onto Orchid Close  The height of the carriageways in relation to the existing carriageway needs to be demonstrated;  Mature trees need to be planted Park side of A4440;  If the trees at Area 51 running to the Norton Island cannot be retained we would wish to see SIMILAR height trees planted within the park as soon as possible;  The Need to close the Bund heights to form a discrete and secure entrance to the Park was confirmed as necessary;  Safety of the Play area 51.  The Millennium Tree together with the other 2 oak trees at risk at the Ketch island end should be transferred to an open are within the Park;  The mix of trees should include both deciduous and evergreen varieties and some fruit and nut species;  Norton end of St Peters Drive should be closed when the main carriageway of Broomhall has to be closed;  30mph speed limit being moved to the Ketch side of the Timberdine Roundabout;  The Parish Council is concerned to understand the detailed programme and to have regular input as the project progresses.

15

6.9 The County Council has already been working with St Peters Parish and FOPP representatives to address these issues as stated in the Methodology. Actions from the follow up meetings on 6th and 12th March respectively, can be viewed in Appendix G.

6.10 Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Council supports the proposal to dual the A4440 from Whittington to Powick. They make the following points, which can also be viewed in full in Appendix H:

 It is disappointing that the first phase is so limited;  We believe there should be a firm plan, and committed timescale, for the second and third phases that align with the timescales proposed in the SWDP;  There is a small section at the Ketch roundabout where there is no bund.  Provision for Pedestrian and Cyclists;  Would it be possible to include provision for yellow cross hatching at the Norton roundabout?  We are concerned about the use of Norton Road, Church Lane and Woodbury Lane as a ‘rat run’ to the M5;  We are surprised that an access to the Car Boot Sale Land is shown on the A4440. In the interests of safety, and traffic flow, it would seem preferable to close this, and make all access from the A38.

Resident Meetings

6.11 The meetings and discussions with the local residents were very constructive and resulted in an understanding of the key issues and priorities for mitigation. Specifically:

 Highest priority for residents was the installation of the most effective acoustic fencing in the most effective position, dark and unobtrusive with minimal maintenance;  Protection against headlights should be considered carefully;  Fencing to be extended as far east (towards Heather Close) as possible;  Bund to be extended as far east as possible, seeking to overlap the bund coming from the eastern direction (where the cycle path cuts through at Orchid;  Bund height to be levelled at its highest point;  Some residents would like one or two of the trees that are going to be retained to have their crowns reduced (to reduce shading);  Scrub patch in Begonia Close to be removed;  New planting to be predominantly native/naturalised broadleaves with some evergreens (NOT Leylandii or similar) eg Blue spruce was suggested;  New planting to be species that will not grow to a great height;  New planting to be as mature as possible compatible with a reasonable expectation that they will survive;  Include low level shrubs (some evergreen) to provide additional screening;  Lighting: Residents keen on least intrusive option available;  Flooding issue in Begonia Close to be resolved;

16

 If acoustic fencing cannot be installed ahead of commencement of construction works, residents would like temporary hoarding to be erected;  Bund/fencing to be "returned" to residential fencing if possible;  Residents to be provided with a programme of bund/fencing/landscaping works.

6.12 Notes of the meeting can be viewed in Appendix I.

6.13 Worcestershire County Council continues to engage with key residents as appropriate.

Stakeholders

6.14 Seven other stakeholders commented on the proposals. Their full responses are held in Appendix J; however a summary table outlining the responses can be seen in Table 6.2.

TABLE 6.2 - RESPONSES FROM STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder Themes The three South Worcestershire Councils of Malvern Hills, Wychavon and Worcester strongly support the need for an overall improvement of the Southern Link Road, including this enhancement scheme. This is well documented in the South Worcestershire Development Plan proposed Submission Document (SWDP). The three South Worcestershire Councils are therefore pleased to see these proposals coming forward to improve the Southern Link Road and welcome the

Councils opportunity for continuing dialogue with the County Council over the implementation of the enhancements and the implementation of the SWDP and associated development management work to ensure the successful bringing

South Worcestershire forward of the Local Transport Plan and development plan objectives.

As you will be aware, the Southern Link Road proposed is absolutely fundamental to the WLEP's overall strategy for growth and the creation of jobs in Worcestershire. In conjunction with business and the local authority family across the county, we have identified a number of key transport improvements. The Southern Link Road is arguably the most important as it gives up a number of investment sites for employment and housing. The Ketch Island Plans for such highways works are, we understand, awaiting final approval and a physical construction could be made on site within a few weeks. WLEP sees this transportation development as a cornerstone in the Worcestershire growth agenda and further development are within the Strategic Economic Plan. It Partnership (WLEP) is not only vital to the creation of jobs in Worcester but also across the county and beyond. It will make a statement to business at home and abroad that

Worcestershire Local Enterprise Worcestershire is not only open for business but that it is the place in which to invest and to work.

17

Concerns relating to the impact these works could potentially have on increasing queuing on A4440 and on M5 junction 7, particularly during peak times. Agency Highways

English Heritage supports the approach to the scheme. The viewing platform – the setting of this nationally important heritage asset must be considered. English Heritage

I have studied the online proposals and in principle we are very supportive of the general aims of the scheme in improving traffic flows through the area. West Police Police Mercia

We note that the air quality assessment of the Worcester Transport Strategy packages as a whole has identified a “slight benefit” to air quality across a wide geographic area due to reduction of car traffic and congestion in the city centre, a modal shift from private car and enhanced efficiency of the existing transport network. With regard to the proposed A4440 and Ketch Junction Enhancements, the predicted improvements in flow are likely to result in an improvement in air quality. We have some concerns that the dualled section of the A4440 is not continuous and that traffic will be merged into a single carriageway before reaching the Norton roundabout We recommend that this is considered further to determine what, if any, detrimental impact on air quality would occur. We are aware that more extensive dualling of the Southern Link Road is planned for the future; however given the likely extensive timescales for completion of such works, any detrimental impact on air quality in the meantime should be considered. We are aware that the South Worcester Urban Extension (SWUE) scheme is proposed adjacent to the A4440 between the Ketch roundabout and the Norton roundabout. Such extensive developments will generate a significant number of additional trips,

Worcestershire Regulatory Services place additional pressure on the highway network and is likely, therefore, to have an impact on air quality in the area. These particular developments will represent a significant change for the area and as such their cumulative impact should be considered in relation to the proposed A4440 and Ketch Junction enhancements and air quality.

Concern that the scheme has been developed without regard for the planned and significant development proposals immediately to the south of the A4440. That serious consideration appears to have been taken to remove the existing Toucan crossing on Bath Road and more worryingly the Pedway over Carrington Bridge. On a more positive note SWCG are pleased that the existing cycle infrastructure will be maintained, but we would welcome an opportunity to comment on the final design of the relocated pedways on the north of the north side of the new roundabout. Whilst welcoming an additional crossing point on the west side of the roundabout we do have concerns about safety and particularly from experience of trying to use crossing points at the Powick roundabout. . It is unclear as to how cyclists or pedestrians heading south on the A38 will be able to safely cross onto the other side of the road where the new pedway finishes. We recommend that the priority should be for the inclusion of an at-grade signalised crossing of the A4440 on the eastern side of the roundabout. It is unclear from the plans presented as to whether the design of

South Worcestershire Cycling Group the new roundabout makes provision for such a link. Does the design allow for this link to the new residential development?

18

6.15 Media

6.15.1 Four media releases sent during consultation period to all Worcestershire press and broadcast

6.15.2 A total of 14 articles were carried across Worcester and Malvern newspaper titles specifically relating to the Ketch Junction during the period of the consultation (December 2014 to February 2014).

6.15.3 During the engagement exercise the dedicated webpage: www.worcestershire.gov.uk/ketch; attracted a total of 840 total visitors since the page went live. Six messages sent via social media (Twitter and Facebook). Twitter – 8,935 followers, Facebook – 720 likes. In addition, a WCC homepage feature was displayed for several weeks from early 2014.

19

Appendix A Consultation Plan

CONSULTATION PROJECT PLAN

TITLE OF THIS EXERCISE: Ketch Junction 2014 PROJECT PLAN PREPARED BY: ACTION / EVIDENCE MC Jones OUTCOME STAGE 1 – WHY ARE YOU CONSULTING?

What specifically is the policy / decision / issue To undertake a public engagement exercise on the planned construction of the that you are seeking views on? Ketch Junction.

Please set out your budget estimates for this 5k consultation exercise

Date entered on the Consultation Portal December 2013 Is this a strategic / contentious consultation Yes – Being submitted to WCC Cabinet December, 2013 exercise?

Have you entered this into the Cabinet Yes Forward Plan?

When does this exercise need to be March 2014 completed?

STAGE 2 – WHAT ARE YOU ENGAGING ABOUT

Background The Ketch Junction forms a fundamental part of the Worcester Transport Strategy (WTS) Phase 1. The WTS is a multi-modal package of measures that Worcestershire County Council is seeking to implement with funding support from the Department for Transport (DfT). The WTS incorporates appraisal based on DfT Transport Analysis PROJECT PLAN PREPARED BY: ACTION / EVIDENCE MC Jones OUTCOME Guidance (WebTAG).

The City of Worcester is Worcestershire's principal economic hub and retail centre. It is also a growing university city that is seeking to achieve sustainable economic growth and improve the quality of life for residents, workers, businesses and visitors alike. It is important that the city fulfils its role as a catalyst for economic recovery and growth across Worcester, Worcestershire and the West Midlands. Local stakeholders, including the business community agree that key to achieving this goal is the provision of a transport network capable of supporting and accommodating sustainable economic recovery and growth.

Without investment in transport infrastructure and services (across all modes of transport), Worcester’s ability to grow and remain a key centre for economic growth will be significantly constrained. The WTS Phase 1 focuses on maximising the efficiency of the current multi-modal transport network, increasing transport choice and making better use of existing assets. The WTS Phase 1 will deliver an integrated and balanced network of transport infrastructure and services that supports the economy (by reducing congestion and travel costs), reduces the impact of transport on sensitive environments (particularly in the City Centre) and improves quality of life. The WTS MSBC represents a comprehensive, strategic approach towards the development of Worcester and its hinterland's transport network across all modes of transport.

The Ketch Junction is located on the A4440 Southern Link Road and proposals include a major upgrade to existing facilities. The A4440 provides a critical link between South Worcestershire and the M5 (Junction 7), bypassing Worcester City Centre. This road suffers from significant congestion problems, resulting in delays to businesses and users and encouraging routing via Worcester City Centre of traffic that would otherwise by-pass the city, with consequent adverse impacts on transport costs, the city economy PROJECT PLAN PREPARED BY: ACTION / EVIDENCE MC Jones OUTCOME and the environment. The proposed measures have been designed to reduce congestion, increase reliability and support improvements to walk, cycle and public transport in the city centre.

Do we need to consult? The need to improve the Southern Link Road (SLR) was consulted upon widely during extensive public and stakeholder consultation on the Worcester Transport Strategy and the Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3), which was subsequently adopted by Worcestershire County Council on 17th February 2011. As consultation has already been carried out, the purpose of this exercise is not to consult on whether or not the scheme should go ahead, rather to inform generally on the scheme and to consider local resident and stakeholders' views on mitigation measures. The information leaflet should make it clear that that this is the case.

What specifically are we consulting upon? There will be elements open for consultation specifically relating to mitigation. These include:

Tree planting: options Noise fence: options

We also need to inform on the strategic context of the project (e.g. WTS, works to date that have improved the A440 and future works including the planned dualling).

To inform widely prior to delivery in terms of:  Scheme design and road layout  Details of bund, power park and cycle ways  Delivery Programme and impact/mitigation on highway during construction. E.g.: o High level programme o Plant location PROJECT PLAN PREPARED BY: ACTION / EVIDENCE MC Jones OUTCOME o Traffic diversions (where and for how long)

What specific outcomes are we ultimately To achieve an outcome on mitigation measures driven by the results of the exercise. trying to achieve?

What are the constraints? Residents cannot agree on mitigation measures Not being able to meet residents wishes on mitigation measures

How have you explained your objectives to all Yes staff involved?

Do staff have the necessary skills to carry out Yes this consultation?

STAGE 3 – DECIDING WHO TO ENGAGE WITH Who are the stakeholders? PH Local Members Internal Consultees Local stakeholders: City Members/Parish Councils Key Stakeholders (LEP etc) Worcestershire Residents, in particular those living closest to the junction How will you inform the local councillor/s of Local Councillors will be invited to a briefing session early December 2013 this consultation?

PROJECT PLAN PREPARED BY: ACTION / EVIDENCE MC Jones OUTCOME Can you use existing groups and forums for The district area Highway & Transportation Forums if appropriate your consultation?

STAGE 4 – WHEN TO Engage NOTE CHECKLIST 4.A – Preparing your timetable will help you with this section Was this exercise identified in your Directorate Yes Performance Plan? Programme Overview Consultation Planning: Oct/Nov 2013 Consultation Delivery: December 2013 - February 2014 Reporting: March 2014 Outcomes available to influence designs – 2014 April 28th Resources Yes Financial - refer back to your budget, are the financial resources in place to successfully implement the chosen method?

Human. Are the people available to deliver Yes this consultation? Technical Resource Yes

Do you need to build in time to “pilot” your No – although a number of sessions have been/will be held with County Councillors consultation? and advisory staff. How long before your exercise starts do you 1 week plan to publicise your consultation? How long will you give consultees to respond to your consultation? – 12 December 2013 – 28 February 2014

Does the consultation period coincide with any No PROJECT PLAN PREPARED BY: ACTION / EVIDENCE MC Jones OUTCOME events that are likely to influence the outcome? Outline Programme  Cabinet Decision – December 2013  Pre-consultation with Councillors – December 2013  Pre-consultation with District Members, Parish and Residents – December 2013  Publicise consultation. Press release  Consultation period – Dec 12, 2013-28 Feb, 2014  Analyse results and prepare the necessary reports – March 14  Allow your results to be considered by others – March 14  Submit to Cabinet Member for decision – March 2014  Provide feedback – and prepare any material necessary – March 2014  Post consultation evaluation (lessons learned) – June2014

STAGE FIVE – HOW TO CARRY OUT YOUR CONSULTATION Are you using external consultants to carry out No this consultation? Methods The aim of the Members presentation is to convey information on the proposed Local Members Briefing Session scheme, the engagement process, its context and methodology in advance of the consultation process going live.

WCC members 27th November, 2013

District Members 2nd December, 2013

Parish Council 3rd December, 2014

Directly affected residents It is proposed to invite a small group of residents (those living closest to the works) to a PROJECT PLAN PREPARED BY: ACTION / EVIDENCE MC Jones OUTCOME meeting to explain the scheme and to encourage them to think about the mitigation measures most suitable for them. A follow up meeting may be required to agree the measures with the residents.

The Hub Hub briefing will be required so that customer enquiries can be effectively handled.

Hub staff should refer customers to the consultation documents and information on the website (www.worcestershire.gov.uk/ketch). Customers can fill the electronic survey out on-line or print out a version and send it in Freepost

Press Releases Press Release post Cabinet: December 2013. Liaise with Central Comms.

Press releases should be distributed in advance of the start of the consultation and then at appropriate intervals as the process continues. The public and media will have access to the Cabinet Papers once they are released therefore the purpose of the press release would be to pre-empt this to generate a positive news story on the consultation exercise. Exhibitions  St Peter's Community Hall, Tuesday, January 14 (4pm until 7pm);  St Peter's Garden Centre, Wednesday January 15 (4pm until 7pm);  St Peter's Baptist Church, Thursday, January 16, (4pm until 7pm). Digital displays To promote exhibitions

Website and Survey PROJECT PLAN PREPARED BY: ACTION / EVIDENCE MC Jones OUTCOME All information (content see section2) and the opportunity to respond will be available on the County's website

Ensure that the exercise is listed on the Corporate Consultation Portal and that front page flags are reserved

Stakeholder letter and Pro-former Survey When: To go 'live' at the start of consultation period

Letters will be posted directly to key stakeholders or emailed. It will be particularly important to solicit letters from the strategic stakeholders.

When: Distribute at the start of consultation period

Leaflet

To be distributed at the start of the Consultation period and available at the exhibitions.

This will be one of the main methods to enable members of the public to respond. .

As well as containing information on the consultation (including the methodology and proposals) it will also include a reply slip (pre-paid)

Distribution: St Peters and exhibitions PROJECT PLAN PREPARED BY: ACTION / EVIDENCE MC Jones OUTCOME

Data Entry & Analysing results

Approx 3k

Data Protection

It is proposed to use existing resource for data entry. Coding and consistency checks to be agreed within the first week of responses being received. Analysing results and reporting will be undertaken by the BEC Consultation Team. SEND THIS PLAN TO YOUR MANAGER / CONSULTATION COMMISSIONER FOR APPROVAL – ONCE APPROVED SEND THE DETAILS OF THIS CONSULTATION TO THE PUBLIC SITE OF THE ASK ME CONSULTATION PLANNER AND FINDER Prepared by: Michele C Jones Date: November 2013

Appendix B Leaflet

Appendix C Pull Ups

Appendix D Press Release

NEWS PR 4464 For immediate release January 7, 2014

Find out more about multi-million pound Southern Link road improvement at public exhibitions

Worcestershire County Council is encouraging anyone interested in finding out more about improvement plans on one of the busiest key roads in Worcester – the A4440 Southern Link Road - at three public exhibition events next week.

The £8million project, the first phase of a plan to dual the entire route to the Whittington roundabout, will involve work to upgrade the Ketch roundabout and dual-track the carriageway towards the Norton roundabout cutting congestion and improving journey times.

Originally built in the 80s, the Southern Link Road, is one of the most heavily used in Worcestershire and the predicted growth in travel (particularly by car) is expected to result in a 30 to 40 per cent increase in journey times through the Powick to Whittington section of the route by 2026, which currently takes around 13-and-a-half minutes during the morning rush hour periods.

Three public exhibition events, which will include all the details on the 12-month scheme expected to begin in March, are taking place at:

St Peter's Community Hall, Tuesday, January 14 (4pm until 7pm); St Peter's Garden Centre, Wednesday January 15 (4pm until 7pm); St Peter's Baptist Church, Thursday, January 16, (4pm until 7pm).

County Council officers will be on hand at all of the events to answer any questions people may have and residents are being encouraged to share their views.

Anyone not able to make the exhibition events can find out more at www.worcestershire.gov.uk/ketch, which contains a host of details on the project. Those wishing to share their feedback can do so until February 28 via email [email protected] or by post (with title Southern Link Road engagement exercise) Worcestershire County Council, County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcester, WR5 2NP.

Modelling predicts that in just 12 years time doing nothing would result in 200 per cent increase in over-capacity queues, 30 per cent increase in journey times and 12 per cent increase in travel distances for those travelling around the Faithful City

In addition to the Southern Link Road improvements a number of things are being done to improve the city's transport network through the £20million Worcester Transport Strategy (Phase One). These include:

 Work to improve traffic flow and journey times along key routes of Tolladine Road and Ombersley Road;  The upgrading of Lowesmoor;  Major refurbishments/improvements to Worcester Foregate Street and Malvern Link train stations and;  Intelligent Transport Systems, real time information and parking management systems to aid those making journeys.

Cllr Adrian Hardman, Leader of Worcestershire County Council, said: "More than 30,000 vehicles use the A4440 Southern Link Road each weekday. Sitting back and doing nothing on this important key route isn’t an option because delays will get worse and congestion will increase impacting on our economy, costing residents and businesses time and money stuck in queues. We have a clear vision and this is the first phase of plans we have that will see the dualling of the entire length of the key route up to Whittington roundabout.

"I'd encourage anyone interested in finding out more about this work to come along to view the plans and speak with officers who will be on hand to answer any questions."

A total of £6million has been successfully secured for the project by the County Council from Central Government through a competitive bidding process that attracted interest from around the country. The remaining £2million is funded by the County Council.

The County Council is already in discussions with those living nearby the Ketch roundabout regarding measures to mitigate any potential inconvenience caused by the changes to the road layout such as noise and lighting. These could include a bund, landscaping works and/or specialist noise reduction fencing.

Notes to Editors

Please find attached a PDF copy of the engagement exercise document, which includes background information and artist impression 'before and after' images of the Ketch roundabout improvements. JPEG files of these images are also attached.

For further information please contact Worcestershire County Council's Communications Team on 01905 766646/766642/822058.

-ends-

Kirsty Crawley Communications Officer Research and Marketing Worcestershire County Council 01905 76 6646 [email protected]

Appendix E MP Response

Appendix F City Councillor Response

Hi Michelle,

Listening to the comments from residents at the road shows, I have listed below some of the issues causing concern. The list is not exhaustive, but picks up quite a few. Regards, Roger.

1. Concern over the species of tree planting, i.e. evergreen rather than deciduous. 2. Age and size of trees to be planted, i.e. semi mature and of a reasonable height throughout the entire site. 3. Work to increase the height and breadth of the earth bund separating those properties in Begonia Close from the Ketch Roundabout, be completed prior to the commencement of the actual road works. 4. The acoustic fence to be located on top of the Begonia Close Bund to be of a design that is capable of dealing with all potential noise pollution across all frequencies. 5. The ground around the proposed acoustic fence on the Begonia Close bund to be planted out in such a way as to break up the starkness of the fence and to help blend it into the environment. 6. Significant established trees, (to include the Millennium tree and Walnut tree as examples), to be repositioned rather than disposed of. 7. The earth bund along Broomhall Way to be continuous and raised in height to provide an adequate barrier to deflect noise pollution and be planted out to improve the skyline and blend profile into the environment. 8. Flooding issue in Begonia Close to be dealt with in a permanent way to prevent this problem recurring. 9. No works traffic to enter the estate or use residential streets. 10. Overlap earth bund to ensure adequate screening of both Orchid Close and Heather Close. 11. Works to ensure 55 Foxglove Road, WR5 3HG is included, assessed and adequately screened. 12. Strict observance of the boundaries of the "Field in Trust", designated under the QEII Jubilee Scheme, to ensure this site is not compromised. Please see attached document. 13. Restriction of working hours to minimise impact on residents. 14. Works required to alleviate flooding of the pedways adjacent to the electricity sub‐station, photos attached. 15. Create roundabout feature as a gateway to the City and reflecting distant view to the Malvern Hills. 16. Improve culvert flow from North to South under the road. 17. St the top of Crookbarrow Way heading East toward Whittington the two lanes marked M5 should reflect direction, i.e. M5N‐M5S; to avoid conflict as traffic leaves the Whittington Roundabout heading towards the M5. 18. The new slip lane at the Whittington Roundabout has safety compromised by traffic approaching the roundabout in the "ahead" lane turning left onto Crookbarrow Way cutting across slip road users. Lane marking and signage should read " ahead only" for this lane. 19. New offside lane going down Crookbarrow way should be signed as "right turn only" to avoid current conflict when vehicles leave the roundabout to go straight on towards Malvern. 20. New road surface to be of the type to minimise tyre noise. 21. St Peter's Drive needs to be designated as "Access Only" and a method found to enable enforcement. 22. Taylor's Lane should perhaps be designated as a one way road. 23. Cycle provision must be maintained to ensure the current network is not compromised both in terms of routing and safety, i.e. proximity to the highway. 24. Pedways running parallel to Broomhall Way and the A38 need repair and resurfacing. 25. Earth bund and planting work needs to be completed prior to the road works commencing to minimise local disruption and disturbance. 26. Flowering shrubbery and nut/fruit trees would be an enhancement.

Appendix G Notes of Actions from Follow up Meetings (City Council and Parish)

Action Bullets from Meeting Parish/City 6th March, 2013

Organise a final site visit with interested representatives aiming to reach consensus/agree process for: mitigation measures. Specifically: position of fencing along boundaries & return of fencing and bund at Orchid Close; Brief Ch2M Hill to explore sound/light benefits and differences of 2 options around the Begonia corner: 1. To erect acoustic fence on a small additional bund between main bund and pedway 2. To erect 6ft fence next to pedway (AM); Millennium Tree: When will it be relocated? Provide junction lighting plan and boundary plan to Mike/Roger (AM); Check with Contractor re works by area 51 – is it safe to plant? (WT) Can fencing be erected between Norton and area 51 as this is non contentious? (WT) Consider funding award to Parish for planting as part of recommendation (AM) Issue of blocked culvert needs addressing (WT)

Key Actions from Site Meeting (City Council/Parish) 12th March 1. Mike Johnson (Parish) to provide Andy Maginnis (WCC) with a cost estimate for the provision of trees to be planted in the vicinity of the preferred new site for the Millennium Oak (birch, walnut, oak). 2. Mike Johnson to provide Andy Maginnis with a location plan, species list and cost estimate for the provision of a number of trees in the area to the north of Area 51 bounded by the highway and pedway. 3. On receipt of the above, Andy Maginnis to confirm if the County Council is prepared to fund the Parish Council to make the purchases highlighted in 1 and 2 above and for the Parish Council to carry out the planting. 4. Andy Maginnis to check that CH2M designers are content that infilling the culvert south of Area 51 will not cause flooding or other drainage problems. 5. Worcester City Council to consider Cllr Roger Knight and Mike's proposal to allow the fencing to be returned at either end of the Begonia Close fence-run. 6. Worcester City Council to consider Cllr Roger Knight and Mike's proposals regarding enhanced fencing to partially enclose Area 51. 7. Worcester City Council to consider Roger and Mike's suggestion to allow the highway boundary fence to be located marginally north of the boundary in places to facilitate easier maintenance of the bund/verge (may entail a land transfer, too). 8. Worcester City to provide the rationale for the County Council to pay for the installation of a removable barrier to facilitate lawnmower access.

Appendix H Parish Council and Friends of Power Park Response

A4440 and Ketch Junction Proposed Enhancement Scheme Consultation response from Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Council

1. Introduction Norton-juxta-Kempsey Parish Council supports the proposal to dual the A4440 from Whittington to Powick. Furthermore, we believe the full solution to alleviating congestion on of the A4440 is completion of the Worcester ring road, to the north of the city, to link with junction 6 of the M5. This would mean traffic from and to the west, wishing to go north on the M5, would no longer need to use the A4440 to the south.

2. Priorities Whilst we recognise that there may be a need to carry out dualling of the A4440 in phases, it is disappointing that the first phase is so limited. Furthermore, it seems that main bottleneck on the A4440 is the Carrington Bridge therefore, if the work needs to be phased, logic would suggest that it would be most effective to tackle the worst part first, whereas in the proposals outlined this appears to be last.

3. Firm Plan for complete Project Whilst there is a firm plan, for the first phase there is only an intent expressed to complete the remainder. Given the new development proposed in the SWDP in the area, we believe there should be a firm plan, and committed timescale, for the second and third phases that align with the timescales proposed in the SWDP. In our view, the whole scheme needs to be completed before there is any significant development within the South Worcester Urban Extension, which would suggest a maximum timescale in the order of 5 years.

4. Bund There is a small section at the Ketch roundabout where there is no bund. This seems strange as the new road appears to be closest to the houses at this point It would be better, in our view, to complete the bund, whilst of course retaining the cycle path, by some redesign in that area.

5. Provision for Pedestrian and Cyclists Currently, it is difficult and dangerous to cross Temeside Way at the roundabout, primarily due to the slip road to the city and the continuous stream of traffic across the bridge. The sketch plan appears to indicate there is new provision for cyclists and pedestrians to cross the road, but this is not shown clearly on the artist’s impression. We think it is essential that such provision is made, without unduly restricting the traffic flow. The crossings at the Powick roundabout seem to work quite well. Even better, would be for the cycle and pedestrian route to go under the Carrington Bridge on the river bank.

6. Norton Roundabout Whilst not directly part of this development, would it be possible to include provision for yellow cross hatching at the Norton roundabout? Quite often when leaving the Norton road for St Peters or the M5 access to the roundabout is blocked by traffic backing up from The Ketch whereas the other side of the roundabout and the desired exits are clear. If the roundabout junctions were kept free then traffic flow from Norton Road would be improved. We also believe that traffic flow at the Norton roundabout could be improved by more formal lane segregation approaching from Whittington, with arrows in the lanes: left hand lane marked as straight ahead and left turn (to Malvern and Norton), and the right hand lane marked as a right turn only (into St Peters). Part of the issue of congestion caused by people using both lanes when travelling straight on, and the consequent merging of the two lanes of traffic exiting the roundabout.

7. Traffic rerouting We are concerned that there is already traffic re-routing through minor village roads due to congestion on the A4440 and the construction period and the increasing traffic volumes is only going to make this worse unless measures are put in place to discourage such use. In particular, the Parish Council is concerned about the use of Norton Road, Church Lane and Woodbury Lane as a ‘rat run’ to the M5 and we seek the introduction of both short-term and long term measures to help reduce the incidence of this, so that this road is primarily used for local access as intended, not as a though route.

8. Access to car Boot Sale Land on A4440 We are surprised that an access to the Car Boot Sale Land is shown on the A4440. In the interests of safety, and traffic flow, it would seem preferable to close this, and make all access from the A38.

February 2014

Action Points County Highways - FoPP Meeting 20/1/14

Plus Bring Forward of other issues previously identified. By others . 1 Generally the view was expressed that the bund height( putting aside the Residents Bund/fencing) needs to be at a level that maintains the equivalent view of motorway bound traffic, as that which exists at present.( i.e reflects the closer proximity of traffic by increasing the height. This may/ could also be achieved including a solid fence to also provide noise protection and child/dog security. In addition the Bund needs to be at a consistent height. In any event the bund during construction and once complete needs some form of fencing from end to end.

2 We await the setting out of the new carriageway line, and understand that the existing markers are the maximum intrusion of the works NOT the final boundary of the Park.

3 We also still await a definitive drawing showing the Boundary of the Park relative to the Works area defined, and City and County land ownership. (I understand that Fields in Trust have already been in touch with the City regarding the St Modwen Planning Permission, and hold a certified drawing of the Park’s Boundaries.

4 We need an understanding of the lighting of the island and carriageways.

5 The Acoustic fence at the Ketch island needs to be returned at both ends to make the gardens/ roadways secure. The extent of the fence needs to run from the walkway at Foxglove to the walkway onto Orchid ( see attached drawing.).

6 The height of the carriageways in relation to the existing carriageway needs to be demonstrated. ! By the pegging out of the carriageway showing finishing heights and by a section drawing (and explanation) possibly at the location indicated on the Drg. ( See response from Glen already distributed)

7 We do not understand why the Kempsey side of the carriageway receives the Tree planting with very little mature tree planting on the Park side. Whatever the explanation mature trees need to be planted Park side.

8 If the trees at Area 51 running to the Norton Island cannot be retained we would wish to see SIMILAR height trees planted within the park as soon as possible. position

9 The Need to close the Bund heights to form a discrete and secure entrance to the Park was confirmed as necessary.

10 Particular concern was expressed regarding the short and long term safety of the Play area 51. It was considered necessary for this are to be kept available during construction by the installation of temporary fencing of significant height and extent. To be replaced asap after clearance works with substanial fencing of at least 2 m height enclosing area 51 in a open u shape off which the boundary fencing to the two entrances would run.

11 The Millennium Tree together with the other 2 oak trees at risk at the Ketch island end should be transferred to an open are within the Park, away from the Pylons to form another natural focal point. (Parish Warden to identify- ? possible location for an additional Bench)

12 The mix of trees should included both deciduous and evergreen varieties and some fruit and nut species.

13 Those present suggested that the Norton end of St Peters Drive should be closed when the main carriageway of Broomhall has to be closed.

14 Given the speeding problems on St Peters Drive, we would wish to see the 30mph speed limit being moved to the Ketch side of the Timberdine Roundabout. We understand this issue has been raised before.

15 Programme and Ongoing Input. The parish Council is concerned to understand the detailed Programme and to have regular input as the project progresses.

Councillor Roger Knights list

 Concern over the species of tree planting, i.e. evergreen rather than deciduous. (12)  Age and size of trees to be planted, i.e. semi mature and of a reasonable height throughout the entire site.(12)  Work to increase the height and breadth of the earth bund separating those properties in Begonia Close from the Ketch Roundabout, be completed prior to the commencement of the actual road works. (1)  The acoustic fence to be located on top of the Begonia Close Bund to be of a design that is capable of dealing with all potential noise pollution across all frequencies. (5)  The ground around the proposed acoustic fence on the Begonia Close bund to be planted out in such a way as to break up the starkness of the fence and to help blend it into the environment.(5)  Significant established trees, (to include the Millennium tree and Walnut tree as examples), to be repositioned rather than disposed of.(12)  The earth bund along Broomhall Way to be continuous and raised in height to provide an adequate barrier to deflect noise pollution and be planted out to improve the skyline and blend profile into the environment.(1)  Flooding issue in Begonia Close to be dealt with in a permanent way to prevent this problem recurring.  No works traffic to enter the estate or use residential streets.  Overlap earth bund to ensure adequate screening of both Orchid Close and Heather Close.(9)  Works to ensure 55 Foxglove Road, WR5 3HG is included, assessed and adequately screened.  Strict observance of the boundaries of the "Field in Trust", designated under the QEII Jubilee Scheme, to ensure this site is not compromised. Please see attached document.(3)  Restriction of working hours to minimise impact on residents.  Works required to alleviate flooding of the pedways adjacent to the electricity sub-station, photos attached.  Create roundabout feature as a gateway to the City and reflecting distant view to the Malvern Hills.  Improve culvert flow from North to South under the road.  St the top of Crookbarrow Way heading East toward Whittington the two lanes marked M5 should reflect direction, i.e. M5N-M5S; to avoid conflict as traffic leaves the Whittington Roundabout heading towards the M5.  The new slip lane at the Whittington Roundabout has safety compromised by traffic approaching the roundabout in the "ahead" lane turning left onto Crookbarrow Way cutting across slip road users. Lane marking and signage should read " ahead only" for this lane.  New offside lane going down Crookbarrow way should be signed as "right turn only" to avoid current conflict when vehicles leave the roundabout to go straight on towards Malvern.  New road surface to be of the type to minimise tyre noise.  St Peter's Drive needs to be designated as "Access Only" and a method found to enable enforcement.  Taylor's Lane should perhaps be designated as a one way road.  Cycle provision must be maintained to ensure the current network is not compromised both in terms of routing and safety, i.e. proximity to the highway.  Pedways running parallel to Broomhall Way and the A38 need repair and resurfacing.  Earth bund and planting work needs to be completed prior to the road works commencing to minimise local disruption and disturbance.

Flowering shrubbery and nut/fruit trees would be an enhancement.

Adams List REF Begonia Close:

Specification for the Acoustic fencing A section showing through A4440 in line with Orchid close so we can agree the how far the acoustic fence should extend The trees that need to be removed (or moved) clearly marked (i.e. with red tape or similar). There are a few trees we would like to keep directly opposite our house so this would be important to us to know if they can be retained. I'm sure each household will have similar specific concerns.

Scheme showing new planting in relation to the acoustic fence Appendix I Resident Meeting Notes

Meeting with residents on Wednesday 12th February 2014

The purpose of the meeting was to attempt to achieve a consensus view from residents regarding mitigation measures relating to the Ketch Roundabout scheme with particular focus on noise, landscaping and lighting.

Noise Fencing  Highest priority for residents is the installation of the most effective acoustic fencing in the most effective position  Next priority is to select fencing that is dark and unobtrusive  Finally, the fencing should have minimal maintenance requirements and be as vandal-proof as possible  Fencing to be extended as far east (towards Heather Close) as possible NB subject to Worcester City Council approval and being able to meet requirements regarding overhead power lines

The positioning of the acoustic fence was considered and has been placed in the most effective position possible. The fence has also been placed on its own 'bund' to make it higher, offering greater protection from noise and potential headlight screening.

The darker fence option has been selected with minimal maintenance requirements.

The extent of the fence was considered. The fence can be extended on the A38 to fall in line with the front aspect of 8 Begonia Close. In the other direction, the fence panels can also being extended along the A4440 to the Orchid Close path. After careful consideration, a further fence extension towards Heather Close is not warranted as the bund running adjacent to it is higher and offers the same, if not greater protection.

Bund  Bund to be extended as far east as possible, seeking to overlap the bund coming from the eastern direction (where the cycle path cuts through at Orchid Close) NB subject to Worcester City Council approval and being able to meet requirements regarding overhead power lines

The bund can be extended as far east as possible, it is also possible to slightly extend the west bund to create an overlap.

 Bund height to be levelled at its highest point

The bund height will be a minimum of 2m above the carriageway.

Landscaping  Some residents would like one or two of the trees that are going to be retained to have their crowns reduced (to reduce shading)

Yes, this can be done

 "Scrub" patch in Begonia Close to be removed

Yes, this can be done.

 New planting to be predominantly native/naturalised broadleaves with some evergreens (NOT Leylandii or similar) eg Blue spruce was suggested  New planting to be species that will not grow to a great height  New planting to be as mature as possible compatible with a reasonable expectation that they will survive  Include low level shrubs (some evergreen) to provide additional screening

Yes, this can be done.

Lighting  Residents keen on least intrusive option available

The Roundabout lighting proposed will be less intrusive than at present and is the least intrusive option;

Note: after the meeting there were concerns raised about traffic headlight intrusion. To help mitigate this, the acoustic fence will be positioned its own bund to make it higher. The situation will be assessed after construction to see if any further mitigation is necessary.

Miscellaneous  Flooding issue in Begonia Close to be resolved:

Yes, this can be resolved

 If acoustic fencing cannot be installed ahead of commencement of construction works, residents would like temporary hoarding to be erected

Yes this can be installed. There is currently a temporary mesh fence which will shortly be replaced by a further timber and ply temporary fence which will remain in place until the permanent fencing can be erected. The temporary fencing will be the same length as the permanent fencing (i.e. to Orchid Close).

 Bund/fencing to be "returned" to residential fencing if possible NB subject to Worcester City Council approval

This is currently being considered by Worcester City Council. If agreed, we can return the fencing subject to statutory approvals.

 Residents to be provided with a programme of bund/fencing/landscaping works NB Removal of vegetation to commence this month

We will provide a high level programme shortly. This could be subject to change as the project progresses.

Appendix J Other Stakeholder Responses

The Transport Programme & Commissioning Team Worcestershire County Council. County Hall. Pavilion H1, Spetchley Road, Worcester. WR5 2NP

20 February 2014

Dear Nicky & Michele,

A4440: KETCH IMPROVEMENTS

I am writing further to your consultation on the Proposed Enhancement Scheme for the A4440 and Ketch Junction on behalf of three South Worcestershire Councils.

I am aware that the consultation focuses on the proposed enhancement scheme and that the overall improvement of the Southern Link Road has been the subject of earlier extensive consultation by the County Council as part of the Worcester Transport Strategy and the Local Transport Plan.

The three South Worcestershire Councils of Malvern Hills, Wychavon and Worcester strongly support the need for an overall improvement of the Southern Link Road, including this enhancement scheme. This is well documented in the South Worcestershire Development Plan Proposed Submission Document (SWDP). Specifically, in Policy SWDP 4: Moving around South Worcestershire in paragraphs G & I, there are direct references to the Worcester Transport Strategy and the Southern Link Road. The importance of infrastructure to the SWDP is set out in Policy SWDP 7: Infrastructure. These are reinforced by references in the underpinning evidence in the South Worcestershire Infrastructure Delivery Plan. (SWIDP). The Southern Link Road improvement is specifically referred to at para. 4.52 on page 20 of the SWIDP (May 2013 version).

The three South Worcestershire Councils are therefore pleased to see these proposals coming forward to improve the Southern Link Road and welcome the opportunity for continuing dialogue with the County Council over the implementation of the enhancements and the implementation of the SWDP and associated development management work to ensure the successful bringing forward of the Local Transport Plan and development plan objectives. This is an officer response submitted by the three Heads of Planning for South Worcestershire.

We understand from you at the County Council that you do not expect a formal Member response to this consultation. Should that be necessary, these comments can be presented to the three local authorities for formal consideration. In the interim, I have copied this letter to the Leaders and lead Members of the three South Worcestershire Councils for their information.

Yours sincerely P Bayliss Paul Bayliss SWDP Project Manager

11th March 2014

Michele Jones Transport Strategy and Policy Officer Business, Economy and Community Worcestershire County Council Spetchley Road Worcester WR5 2NP

Dear Michelle

Ketch Island Southern Link Road Support

On behalf of the Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (WLEP), I am pleased to confirm our wholehearted support for the essential expansion of the Ketch Island on the Southern Link Road.

As you will be aware, the Southern Link Road proposed is absolutely fundamental to the WLEP's overall strategy for growth and the creation of jobs in Worcestershire. In conjunction with business and the local authority family across the county, we have identified a number of key transport improvements. The Southern Link Road is arguably the most important as it gives up a number of investment sites for employment and housing.

The Ketch Island Plans for such highways works are, we understand, awaiting final approval and a physical construction could be made on site within a few weeks.

WLEP sees this transportation development as a cornerstone in the Worcestershire growth agenda and further development are within the Strategic Economic Plan. It is not only vital to the creation of jobs in Worcester but also across the county and beyond. It will make a statement to business at home and abroad that Worcestershire is not only open for business but that it is the place in which to invest and to work.

We fully endorse the County Council's proposals.

Yours sincerely

Peter Pawsey Executive Chair

Michele/Nicky

Apologies for the delay in my response.

As set out in my previous response, our biggest concern will be regarding the Traffic Management (TM) and the knock on impact these works could potentially have on increasing queuing on A4440 and having a negative impact with M5 junction 7, particularly during peak times, due to the close interaction of these junctions.

We’ve looked through the consultation literature and spoken with colleagues about the proposed works. The leaflet’s reference to TM is limited as expected, but there is some reference in the FAOs regarding measures the contractor will implement to minimise disruption wherever possible. These include off line works, night closures and off peak signals. However, without more information it is difficult to comment further at this time.

As such, I would be grateful if you would ensure that the WCC construction team liaise with the HA/Amey on their TM proposals. Amey personnel that should be involved/aware include:

 Mark Turner - TCSO  Nick Lazenby - Operations Manager (South)  Katy Stephens - Network Occupancy Manager

Mark and Nick would be the main points of contact to discuss TM proposals and Katy’s team would be involved to manage any road space clashes.

As a starting point it would be useful if WCC could provide their TM plans for our consideration. Once we’ve had the opportunity to review them, further discussions can be arranged as necessary. I hope you find the above useful

Kind Regards

Serena

Serena Howell, Asset Manager Highways Agency | The Cube | 199 Wharfside Street | Birmingham | B1 1RN Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers Highways Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Transport.

Dear Nicky

A4440 Ketch Junction Enhancements, Worcester – AIR QUALITY (Our ref: 14/00893/PLAN)

Further to your consultation invitation dated 24th January 2014 we have reviewed the documents available at http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/cms/transport-and-highways/transport- schemes/worcester-transport-strategy/a4440-and-ketch-junction.aspx plus the relevant sections of the Worcester Transport Strategy BAFFB.

To date we have been advised that no specific air quality impact assessment has been undertaken for the proposed A4440 and Ketch Junction enhancements. It is therefore difficult for us to provide specific comments. We note that the air quality assessment of the Worcester Transport Strategy packages as a whole has identified a “slight benefit” to air quality across a wide geographic area due to reduction of car traffic and congestion in the city centre, a modal shift from private car and enhanced efficiency of the existing transport network.

With regard to the proposed A4440 and Ketch Junction Enhancements, the predicted improvements in flow are likely to result in an improvement in air quality. The degree of improvement has not been quantified so it is difficult to comment further. Baseline studies of air quality in the area would provide a useful point of comparison for any future monitoring. We are aware that some air quality monitoring (nitrogen dioxide NO2) has been undertaken recently by consultants in relation to the South Worcester Urban Extension. This monitoring identifies significant exceedances of the national air quality objective for NO2, at kerbside and roadside, at a number of locations at and between the Ketch roundabout and north east of the Norton roundabout.

We have some concerns that the dualled section of the A4440 is not continuous and that traffic will be merged into a single carriageway before reaching the Norton roundabout. Does this have the potential to create a bottleneck and result in increased congestion before the Norton roundabout? If that is the case such congestion may have a detrimental impact on air quality. We recommend that this is considered further to determine what, if any, detrimental impact on air quality would occur. We are aware that more extensive dualling of the Southern Link Road is planned for the future; however given the likely extensive timescales for completion of such works, any detrimental impact on air quality in the meantime should be considered.

We are aware that the South Worcester Urban Extension (SWUE) scheme is proposed adjacent to the A4440 between the Ketch roundabout and the Norton roundabout. . In addition to the SWUE, there are further developments planned in the local vicinity including a supermarket adjacent to the SWUE site at the Ketch roundabout and further residential developments of 1150 houses at the western extent of the A4440. Such extensive developments will generate a significant number of additional trips, place additional pressure on the highway network and is likely, therefore, to have an impact on air quality in the area. These particular developments will represent a significant change for the area and as such their cumulative impact should be considered in relation to the proposed A4440 and Ketch Junction enhancements and air quality. At this time, the findings of the air quality assessment provided by the developer in support of the SWUE development have not yet been approved by the LA.

I trust that the above comments are useful. If you would like to discuss anything further please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Regards

Christopher Poole MSci, FGS Senior Technical Officer - Land, Air & Water Quality Team Worcestershire Regulatory Services Po Box 866, Worcester WR1 9DP

Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing

Ms Nicky Fletcher Transport Consultation Co-Ordinator Worcestershire County Council County Hall Spetchley Road Worcester WR5 2NP

07 February 2014

Dear Ms Fletcher,

THE A4440 AND KETCH JUNCTION – PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT SCHEME

I refer to your email letter dated 24th January 2014 seeking the Chief Constables views in respect of a proposed enhancement scheme for the A4440 and Ketch junction.

I have studied the online proposals and in principle we are very supportive of the general aims of the scheme in improving traffic flows through the area. However at this stage I find that I am unable to offer further comment without the benefit of scale drawings and more specific detailed information relating to the proposals.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Digger Traffic Management Advisor to the Chief Constable (Worcester City, Wychavon, North Worcestershire & South Warwickshire) cc Registry file HQ

Sent: 23 January 2014 16:43 Subject: A4440 and Ketch Junction: Proposed Enhancement Scheme

I write in my capacity as Chair of the South Worcestershire Cycle Group, the cycle user group initially set up by Worcestershire as a consultative body on cycling matters. I am also the recognised local voluntary campaign officer for CTC (national cycling charity) , an organisation that has consultation rights set down in various Highway, Planning and other Acts. Collectively the SWCG represents local cycling organisations with over 1200 cycling households.

Firstly I would like to express my concerns that, despite repeated requests to be involved and consulted on this and other proposals that can seriously affect 'permeability' and safety for cyclists the County Council no longer appears to want consult with organisations that represent the views of a vulnerable, but growing group of highway users. This is even more concerning after the Government's endorsement of the All Party "Get Britain Cycling' recommendations and DfT guidance that all new highway infrastructure should be 'cycle-proofed'.

Secondly I was concerned to learn at the Public Exhibition that this particular scheme has been developed without regard for the planned and significant development proposals immediately to the south of the A4440 and serious consideration appears to have been taken to remove the existing Toucan crossing on Bath Road and more worryingly the Pedway over Carrington Bridge. Also that planned cycle infrastructure improvements associated with other developments along the M5 corridor (including the new Technology Park) were removed on cost grounds. This is particularly concerning given the new Government guidance and the County Council's own stated policies for reducing car use, air and noise pollution and increasing active travel to meet its own economic, environmental and health priorities. Something no doubt the SWCG planning group will want to raise as TROs and applications for development are submitted.

On a more positive note SWCG are pleased that the existing cycle infrastructure will be maintained, but we would welcome an opportunity to comment on the final design of the relocated pedways on the north of the north side of the new roundabout.

Whilst welcoming an additional crossing point on the west side of the roundabout we do have concerns about safety and particularly from experience of trying to use crossing points at the Powick roundabout. This will only get worse should the County's aspirations of dualling the Carrington Bridge crossing be realised. The same problems will apply for pedestrians trying to cross the busy carriageway. Additionally it is unclear as to how cyclists or pedestrians heading south on the A38 will be able to safely cross onto the other side of the road where the new pedway finishes.

SWCG would recommend that if this crossing is included in the scheme it is signalised. However our strong recommendation is that the priority should be for the inclusion of an at grade signalised or bridge/subway crossing of the A4440 on the eastern side of the roundabout. This better links with proposals included in the Welbeck Land proposals to provide a two way cycle path along the east side of the A34 and as indicated on their planning application. The verge along this section of the existing A34 is certainly wide enough to accommodate such a facility. It is unclear from the plans presented as to whether the design of the new roundabout makes provision for such a link. Clarifiaction is therefore sought as to whether the design has allowed for this link to the new residential development and where pedway provision will be provided along the south side of the A4440 to any crossing point to the existing Pedway on the north side of the A4440.

SWCG and CTC look forward to receiving your considered responses to our recommendations on the current proposed enhancement scheme. We would also welcome a meeting with the appropriate County Council representatives to ensure earlier involvement in discussions of longer term plans for dulling the rest of the A4440 to the Whittington roundabout, but also for the proposed new residential and employment developments to the south of the A4440. In this respect we feel it is important to ensure the existing cycle and pedestrian crossing at the Norton roundabout is improved cycle and pedestrian access is provided to and through the proposed employment developments to the south and fronting the A4440 a new crossing point is established over the A4440 further east and close to the railway bridge so that a safe link can be made with the pedway that runs along the east side of the St Peter's estate and the bridleway heading south towards the former Norton Barracks. good links between cycle and pedestrian infrastructure planned for the new developments to the south of the A4440 and the existing infrastructure north through St Peters and to the city Centre.

A major concern is to ensure mistakes made on Warndon Villages (and particularly in terms of design and connectivity from the estate to other parts of the city) and also the A46 on the eastern side of Evesham aren't replicated. Kind Regards

Lyndon Bracewell

Hi Michele.

I think the important thing is to consider how best we can be involved at an early stage with future plans for the A4440 dulling, but also other projects. I appreciate budget pressures, but there are often low cost or no cost ways of improving things and as all too evident from previous provision for cyclists its all too easy to get it wrong and particularly if the 'designer' isn't a cyclist themselves. I assume that's why WCC set SWCG up in the first place. Its a shame not to make good use of the knowledge, skills and experience that comes at no cost.

Lyndon Bracewell