Report Title

TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

Chearsley Parish Council

Road Junction Improvement Options Study, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire

Options Study

www.bwbconsulting.com Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

Chearsley Parish Council

Road Junction Improvement Options Study, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire

Options Study

Birmingham Livery Place, 35 Livery Street, Colmore Business District, Birmingham, B3 2PB T: 0121 233 3322

Cambridge 14-16 High Street, Histon, Cambridge CB24 9JD T: 01223 235 173

Leeds Whitehall Waterfront, 2 Riverside Way, Leeds LS1 4EH T: 0113 233 8000

London 11 Borough High Street London, SE1 9SE T: 0207 407 3879

Manchester 4th Floor Carvers Warehouse, 77 Dale Street Manchester, M1 2HG T: 0161 233 4260

Market Harborough 12a Woodcock House, Compass Point Market Harborough, Leicestershire, LE16 9HW T: 01858 455020

Nottingham Waterfront House, Station Street, Nottingham NG2 3DQ T: 0115 924 1100

Page | i

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

DOCUMENT ISSUE RECORD

Revision Date of Issue Status Author: Checked: Approved:

P1 19.07.2019 S2 AJ Oakes Sara Terrey Sara Terrey

P2 18.09.2019 S2 AJ Oakes Sara Terrey Sara Terrey

Notice

This document has been prepared for the sole use of the Client in accordance with the terms of the appointment under which it was produced. BWB Consulting Limited accepts no responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this document by any third party. No part of this document shall be copied or reproduced in any form without the prior written permission of BWB.

Page | ii

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. BACKGROUND ...... 3 3. CHEARSLEY PARISH COUNCIL OPTIONS ...... 6 4. ADDITIONAL BWB OPTIONS ...... 8 5. REDUCED MEASURES ...... 15 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 21

FIGURES

Figure 1: Detailed Site Location Plan Figure 2: Problem Junction in Chearsley Figure 3: BWB Option 1 Figure 4: BWB Option 2 Figure 5: BWB Option 3 Figure 5: BWB Option 4 Figure 7: BWB Option 5 Figure 8: BWB Option 6 Figure 9: BWB Option 7 (Carriageway Narrowing) Figure 10: BWB Option 8 (Closure of access road) Figure 11: BWB Option 9 (Removal of centreline) Figure 12: BWB Option 10 (Improvement of footway around bus stop) Figure 13: BWB Option 11 (Realignment of Junction - Layout A) Figure 14: BWB Option 12 (Realignment of Junction - Layout B)

TABLES

Table 1: Options Summary Table

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Options Study Requirement Document Appendix 2 – Topographical Survey

REFERENCES

TfB Autumn/Winter Conference 'HGV Strategy' Feedback from Working Group - November 2016

Chearsley Village HGV Surveys 2016 Summary Report - December 2016

Buckinghamshire County Council - Feasibility Study Report- CHEAR.PC.TCM/FEA/DOC/01 - August 2017 - Ringway Jacobs Ltd

Page | iii

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

1. INTRODUCTION

Appointment

1.1 BWB Consulting Ltd have been commissioned by Chearsley Parish Council to provide highways advice in support of a study into options for improving a junction in the centre of the village of Chearsley.

1.2 The requirement for this study arises from concerns that the existing junction layout has inherent safety issues, encourages speeding through the village and results in damage to verges and street furniture. This study forms part of a wider project which seeks to address traffic issues through the village.

1.3 Chearsley village is located to the west of Aylesbury, between the villages of Cuddington and Long Crendon. The site location is shown on Figure 1.

Figure 1: General Site Location

1.4 The junction in question is located directly in the centre of Chearsley, where Winchendon Road, Aylesbury Road, Crendon Road and Chilton Road all meet along with access roads School Lane and The Green. This results in a confusing junction layout, which has numerous safety concerns a result.

Page | 1

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Report Purpose

1.5 The purpose of this report is to carry out a study, which reviews the improvement options identified by Chearsley Parish Council for the junction, identifies additional potential options, provides an estimation of cost and seeks to conclude which measures should be taken forward.

Report Structure

1.6 This Options Study is set out in the following sections:

 Section 2 details the background information;

 Section 3 reviews the options identified by Chearsley Parish Council;

 Section 4 outlines the options identified by BWB;

 Section 5 examines reduced measures at the junction;

 Section 6 concludes the report with recommendations.

Page | 2

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 Previous work has been undertaken to identify and mitigate the safety concerns at the junction by both Chearsley Parish Council and Transport for Buckinghamshire. A working group report, HGV surveys and summary report were undertaken in November and December 2016 respectively.

2.2 As detailed in Section 1 the study of this junction is part of a wider project which seeks to address traffic issues through the village, part of this wider study included Transport for Buckinghamshire undertaking a traffic calming feasibility study report in August 2017 examining various options for traffic calming through the village and the pros and cons of each option. The conclusion of this report was to add a gateway feature on the approach to the village, improve signage and remove the centreline from the main road.

2.3 Chearsley Parish Council provided details of what was required from this study in the document ‘Road Junction Improvement Options Study’, which identified the problems at the junction and analysed some of the improvement options proposed so far that may mitigate those problems. This document is included in Appendix 1.

2.4 An extract from the Chearsley Parish Council document showing the junction and labelling the arms and features is presented in Figure 2;

Figure 2: Problem Junction in Chearsley

Page | 3

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

2.5 The junction is set out as follows;

1 – Winchendon Road

2 – Aylesbury Road

3 – Crendon Road

4 – Chilton Road

5 – Local Access Road (one-way in only)

6 – School Lane

A, B, C – triangular island known as Horse Chestnut Tree Island (HCI) after the old tree that stands in the centre of the island.

2.6 The problems that have been identified in the previous work at the junction is split in to three categories, Safety, Speeding and Damage, as follows;

Safety

 Drivers travelling from 1 to 3 do not always stop at the give-way line, travelling straight into the path of vehicles travelling from 2 to 3 or the opposite direction. This has led to at least one serious accident.

 Drivers travelling from 1 to 3 have to look back over their shoulder when giving way to traffic approaching from 2. At the same time, they are having to look for traffic approaching from 3, often travelling too quickly from around the bend.

 When queues occur from 1 at corner C, it’s known for some to route quickly via corner B to then turn right and cut in front of the queue emerging from C. This results in vehicles racing to and from Winchendon Road to both junctions with Aylesbury Road regardless of which way they are heading.

Speeding

 Drivers travelling from 1 to 3 also fail to give-way to drivers emerging from 4.

 The main route is from 1 to 3 and vice versa. Although this is not the priority at the junction, the straight through nature of this movement encourages traffic to speed through the junction, especially movement 3 to 1, which has no traffic to give-way to.

 Traffic from 2 to 3 appears to speed up once it has entered the junction past 5 and 6.

Page | 4

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Damage

 There have been several instances of heavy traffic coming from 2 and waiting to turn right towards 1 attempting to use the junction at corner C rather than corner B. This has caused damage to the verge and road signs.

 Damage has also been caused at corner A, by traffic from B attempting to turn towards C.

2.7 In addition to the desktop study work, a site visit and meeting was held with Chearsley Parish Council on 9 May 2019 during which the following points were discussed in relation to improvements at the junction it was determined that:

 Options that failed to address concerns of speeding where not favourable

 Options should be in keeping with the village environment and should not create an urban feel to the junction.

2.8 To inform this study a topographical survey was carried out and the output is included at Appendix 2.

Page | 5

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

3. CHEARSLEY PARISH COUNCIL OPTIONS

3.1 Mitigation measures have been identified and examined by Chearsley Parish Council and are described and summarised below, as appropriate BWB have also provided comment on the effectiveness of these options;

CPC Option 1

3.2 Build up the kerb at the southwest corner of the HCI to discourage the right turn at this part of the junction. Whilst this would solve one issue with damage to the verge at HCI, it would not improve anything else at the junction.

CPC Option 2

3.3 Build up the kerb at the northern corner of the HCI to discourage the U-turn at this part of the junction. Whilst this would solve one issue with damage to the verge at HCI, it would not improve anything else at the junction.

CPC Option 3

3.4 Repaint the road markings at both Winchendon Road arms of the junction. This has already been undertaken as part of a smaller remedial scheme.

CPC Option 4

3.5 Change give-way lines and signs to STOP lines and signs at both Winchendon Road arms of the junction. It is unlikely that this will change driver behaviour unless enforced by the local police.

CPC Option 5

3.6 Realign the approach from Winchendon Road that currently aligns straight through the junction to add some deviation to the through traffic. Likely to help but moves the carriageway closer to the tree. Has been examined in more detail in BWB Option 2.

CPC Option 6

3.7 Introduce one-way on each of the arms at Winchendon Road, the western side of the HCI being northbound traffic and the eastern side of the HCI being for southbound traffic. This could be viable option but may need carriageway widening. This has been explored further in BWB Option 1.

CPC Option 7

3.8 Close the road spur on Winchendon Road that goes to the west of the HCI allowing all traffic to route along the eastern side and use the more perpendicular junction. This would be beneficial as it removes a potential conflict point and removes the straight through feel of the junction but may require widening into HCI. This is examined further in BWB Option 4.

Page | 6

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

CPC Option 8

3.9 Redesign the junction totally. This Option would probably be too expensive to be viable. However, BWB Option 6 has reviewed this in more detail.

CPC Option 9

3.10 Rumble strips. This may not actually calm traffic and may also increase traffic noise which would be unwelcomed in the village.

CPC Option 10

3.11 Redirect heavy traffic away from the junction via other routes. This would help reduce the HGV movements at the junction, but only if the signs were adhered to. Would not solve any issues with excessive speed or use of the existing junction.

Page | 7

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

4. ADDITIONAL BWB OPTIONS

4.1 As detailed in Section 2, as part of the works, BWB have also considered options to improve the junction. These range from minor kerb and marking amendments to full junction redesigns. Whilst the below options may not conform strictly to standards for new roads because of existing constraints and layout, they would improve safety and/or turning movements over the layout currently provided and should therefore be acceptable to Buckinghamshire County Council. The options have been presented in figures below and cost estimates* are also provided for each option. Full size drawings are also provided at the back of the report in a larger scale.

Figure 3: BWB Option 1

4.2 One-way either side of the HCI, northbound to the west of the HCI and southbound to the east of the HCI. Presented in Figure 3, the drawing shows that this option would include amendments to the kerb line at the southwest corner of the HCI to aid the right turn movement and realignment of Chilton Road. This would segregate the movements to and from Winchendon Road and remove the “straight through” movement through the junction.

4.3 Mainly road markings with some minor kerb tweaks, resulting in a relatively cheap solution to some of the issues at the junction. Minimal additional signage would be required, and it is unlikely that BCC would require the junction to be lit as a result of the improvements. Approximate cost of scheme £15,000*.

Page | 8

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Figure 4: BWB Option 2

4.4 Realignment of Winchendon Road to bring the carriageway in more perpendicular to the main road, creating deflection for southbound drivers at the junction. Presented in Figure 4, the drawing shows that this option is more likely to get drivers to give-way at the junction as it removes the “straight through” movement and alignment of the junction.

4.5 This option would require more kerbline amendments and realignment of the Chilton Road arm of the junction to create adequate separation. Minimal additional signage would be required, and it is unlikely that BCC would require the junction to be lit as a result of the improvements. Approximate cost of scheme £30,000*.

Page | 9

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Figure 5: BWB Option 3

4.6 Presented in Figure 5, the drawing shows that Option 3 maintains the same principle as Option 2 with the realignment of Winchendon Road to bring the carriageway in more perpendicular to the main road, creating deflection for southbound drivers at the junction. It also includes the realignment of Chilton Road to increase junction separation. This option also closes the carriageway link to the east of the HCI. In addition to the above, the access points located to the east of the junction have also been consolidated to one access with the entry point to the north closed off to reduce the number of potential conflict points. The main carriageway has also been narrowed through the priority movement to reduce speeds. The footways have been widened either side of the carriageway as a result.

4.7 This option would require more kerbline amendments over a bigger distance to narrow the carriageway and increase the footway widths. The existing link east of the HCI would be kerbed off, as well as realigning Chilton Road and re-kerbing the access points to the east of the junction to close of the existing carriageway. Minimal additional signage would be required, and it is unlikely that BCC would require the junction to be lit as a result of the improvements. Approximate cost of scheme £200,000*.

Page | 10

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Figure 6: BWB Option 4

4.8 Presented in Figure 6, the drawing shows that Option 4 maintains the same principle as Options 2 and 3 with the realignment of Winchendon Road to bring the carriageway in more perpendicular to the main road, creating deflection for southbound drivers at the junction. This option closes the carriageway link to the west of the HCI. Further increasing the spacing between junctions. In addition to the above, the main carriageway has also been narrowed through the priority movement to reduce speeds. The footways have been widened either side of the carriageway as a result.

4.9 This option would require more kerbline amendments over a bigger distance to narrow the carriageway and increase the footway widths. The existing link west of the HCI would be kerbed off and the link on the eastern side widened, as well as realigning Chilton Road and re-kerbing the access points to the east of the junction to close of the existing carriageway. Minimal additional signage would be required, and it is unlikely that BCC would require the junction to be lit as a result of the improvements. Approximate cost of scheme £200,000*.

Page | 11

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Figure 7: BWB Option 5

4.10 Presented in Figure 7, the drawing shows that the priority of the junction in this option is switched. This is because this movement is the main movement through the junction. As a result, Aylesbury Road will become a give way arm and Winchendon Road/Crendon Road would become the priority through movement. Whilst this option would remove the risk of motorists failing to give way, the proposal is likely to result in vehicle speeds increasing through the junction, as the straight-ahead movement would then have priority in both directions.

4.11 This option would require more kerbline amendments and additional signage through the whole junction. It is also likely that BCC would require the junction to be lit due to the completely new layout and change to priority. As a result of the additional signage and lighting, may create too much of an urban feel to the village centre. Approximate cost of scheme £150,000*.

Page | 12

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Figure 8: BWB Option 6

4.12 Presented in Figure 8, this option redesigns the full junction and provides a mini roundabout. This would result in the closure of the link currently provided to the east of the HCI. The mini roundabout would result in all movements slowing down and giving way. Reducing traffic speeds drastically through the junction. The likelihood is that noise would also increase with vehicles stopping and starting from all directions, especially HGVs.

This option would require a number of kerbline amendments through the whole junction. It should be noted that the overrunable strips which have been provided to accommodate swept paths my not be favoured by BCC due to potential safety concerns relating to them. The roundabout would also require additional signage, and BCC may potentially request street lighting to be provided due to the new layout of the junction. However, this would be the most expensive option, and as a result of the additional signage and lighting, may create too much of an urban feel to the village centre. Approximate cost of scheme £250,000*.

Page | 13

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

BWB Option Summary

4.13 These options were originally presented to Chearsley Parish Council for initial comments in an email dated 24 May 2019, following on from the site visit and meeting. Several emails were exchanged between BWB and Chearsley Parish Council, to discuss the initial six options (1-6) for improvements at the junction and it was concluded that:

 Option 4 appears the most effective in addressing the speeding and visibility concerns, followed closely by Option 3 then 2 and 1.

 Narrowing of the main road, both past the junctions and past The Green, combined with extra footway past the bus-stop, is very attractive. This also overlaps with options Chearsley Parish Council are already pursuing as part of current discussions with Buckinghamshire County Council and as such would likely be incorporated into any final scheme. Provision for school buses to pull off the road needs to be provided.

 In relation to the traffic re-routing options (Options 1, 3 & 4), it was concluded that despite its benefit from a junction segregation point of view, Option 4 was the least favourable. Option 3 was the preferred option, although it was requested that consideration be given to maintaining the ability to close a section of road for use on occasion (i.e. Remembrance Day).

 Closing off the minor village roadside entry onto the main road (as per Option 3) was considered attractive as a reduced measure.

 Option 5 was considered unfavourable as it fails to address the main problem of speeding and may exacerbate the issue by giving the straight-line movement the priority.

 Option 6 whilst addressing all concerns, gives an unacceptable urban feel to the junction, out of keeping with the village environment.

 In summary, Option 3 was considered to be the preferred option with regards to addressing the concerns raised by Chearsley Parish Council.

4.14 Further to the comments received from Chearsley Parish Council, of the six options examined in detail above, Option 5 would not reduce the speeds through the village and has therefore been excluded from further examination. Option 6 would reduce speeds but would result in the village centre having a more urban feel which would not be favoured by the residents of Chearsley and as a result had been excluded from further examination. This leaves Options 1 – 4 as potential options to consider in further detail.

4.15 However, as referred to in the comments from Chearsley Parish Council above, some of the options have features which are attractive to Chearsley Parish Council and may achieve improvement, both traffic calming and safety wise if provided individually. These reduced measures have also been examined as requested by Chearsley Parish Council in Section 5.

Page | 14

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

5. REDUCED MEASURES

5.1 As described above, some of the proposed options include features which may actually be beneficial if provided individually. As a result, this section breaks down some of the options to reduced measures and presents costing of each reduced measure, to allow Chearsley Parish Council to understand where the money could be best spent.

Figure 9: BWB Option 7 (Carriageway Narrowing)

5.2 The narrowing of the carriageway through the village and widening of the footway, would help reduce traffic speeds without undertaking any improvements or realignment of other junctions. A number of the options, included for this, but just narrowing the carriageway alone had not been examined in any of the options. Figure 9 presents how the carriageway could be narrowed without further junction improvements. The approximate cost of which would be £75,000*.

Page | 15

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Figure 10: BWB Option 8 (Closure of access road)

5.3 The access roads to the east of the junction, including School Lane emerge at a number of points onto the main carriageway. In Option 3 the northern most access, which is currently signed as Entry only, would be closed off and the access points consolidated to one access point. This proposal in its own right, would be beneficial as it would remove a conflict point from the junction. Figure 10 presents how the carriageway could be amended to provide a turning head and be closed off from the main carriageway. The approximate cost of which would be £15,000*.

Page | 16

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Figure 11: BWB Option 9 (Removal of centreline)

5.4 The priority route through the junction runs from southwest to northeast and vice versa from Crendon Road to Aylesbury Road. The priority is wide with a dashed centreline. In Option 9 the centreline would be removed which should result in the carriageway appearing less wide and should lead to vehicles travelling through the junction more slowly. Figure 11 presents the proposed layout. The approximate cost of which would be £3,000*.

Page | 17

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Figure 12: BWB Option 10 (Improvement of footway around bus stop)

5.5 One of the points raised by Chearsley Parish Council was concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians (especially school children) waiting for the bus because the footway was not a formal footway, more an area of carriageway marked as a parking area. In Option 3 the footway around the bus stop was formalised and widened, with the access points either side being formalised too. This mitigation on its own, would provide a large safe for pedestrians to wait for the bus. Figure 12 presents how the carriageway could be amended to provide a formal footway only. The approximate cost of which would be £15,000*.

Page | 18

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Figure 13: BWB Option 11 (Realignment of junction - Layout A)

5.6 At the point where Winchendon Road and Chilton Road join the priority carriageway, the junctions have an unorthodox layout which causes confusion between the movements due to the lack of deflection for the southbound movement and the proximity of the two junctions. In Option 3 these two junctions were realigned to increase the stagger and the deflection for the non-priority movements, this also included the closure of the section of carriageway to the east of the triangular island. This would remove a conflict point and improve safety of two others. Figure 13 presents how the carriageway could be amended to improve the layout. The approximate cost of which would be £200,000*.

Page | 19

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

Figure 14: BWB Option 12 (Realignment of junction - Layout B)

5.7 Similar to the above, Option 4 also separated out the two junctions and closed another. The carriageway that was closed in Option 3 was widened in Option 4 and the carriageway to the west of the triangular island would be closed off as an alternative, giving more separation between the two junctions. Figure 14 presents this alternative layout, the approximate cost of which would be £200,000*.

*Approximate costs have been calculated purely as construction costs. There has been no allowance for drainage amendments, utilities diversions, legal fees, etc.

Page | 20

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 BWB Consulting have reviewed the existing options and also provided additional options which could also improve safety and lower speeds at the junction. These range from small kerb adjustments to a full redesign on the junction. The options all have pros and cons which have been looked at along with the cost of each potential improvement scheme to compare costs vs improvements.

6.2 There are some improvement schemes that include features that may be beneficial if provided individually, such as narrowing the carriageway, removing centre lines and closing access points. As a result, these have also been optioned and costed to inform Chearsley how much these features would be to implement on their own as potential improvement schemes. The additional measures could also be used to implement the improvement schemes in phases if required.

6.3 Table 1 below summarises each of the options against each of the concerns raised by Chearsley Parish Council. The table also highlights total number of concerns addressed, along with the cost and any additional benefits or disadvantages of each option.

Table 1: Options Summary Table

6.4 Table 1 presents that Options 3, 4 and 6 would address all of the concerns raised by Chearsley Parish Council but would be the most expensive options to construct. Option 6 was already excluded due to the urbanisation of the village created by the proposal. Options 3 and 4 are identical with regards to costs and benefit, with the only difference being preference to which side of HCI the newly aligned carriageway would run. Option 4 would provide additional benefit by increasing the size of the green space in front of the memorial.

6.5 Option 5 was already dismissed earlier in the report due to the potential of actually increasing speeds through the junction. Option 2 would only address 5 of the 8 concerns raised and would cost twice the amount of Option 1 which is a more beneficial option.

6.6 It is considered by BWB that Option 1 could provide the most benefit for least cost. Option 1 addresses 6 of the 8 concerns raised and would cost approximately £15,000* to implement. This scheme would improve safety at the junction as well as lowering speeds through the village.

Page | 21

Road Junction Improvement Options, Chearsley, Buckinghamshire Access Study CHE-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR_0001_P1

6.7 Options 7 – 12 examine the reduced measures that could be provided individually or in stages to phase the improvements. Options 11 and 12 provide the biggest benefit (7 concerns addressed by both) but cost the most (£200,000*). Option 9 is the lowest cost but only addresses the speeding concern and may therefore not be massively beneficial without other supporting options. Option 10 also only addresses the speeding concern through the junction but would improve pedestrian safety. Option 7 addresses 4 concerns but cost is relatively high when compared with Option 1. Option 8 does not actually address any concerns raised but does provide additional safety benefit by removing a conflict point. This option could be implemented alongside any of the other options as a further measure.

Page | 22

Safety Speeding Damage Fail to give-way from Drivers looking over Racing between Fail to give-way at speed Speeding up through the Damage to road signs Damage to road signs Speeding through the Total Additional advantages or disadvantages of providing this option Cost northern 'straight shoulder to see junctions at the HCI in a in a southbound junction after side roads and verges at southern and verges at northern junction south to north through' movement oncoming traffic southbound direction direction past the green corner of HCI corner of HCI Option 1 P P P P P P 6 Much clearer junction operation and wider carriageways. 15,000 Option 2 P P P P P 5 More space around memorial for rememberance day service 30,000 Option 3 P P P P P P P P 8 Closed access points result in less confilct points 200,000 Option 4 P P P P P P P P 8 Improved bus stop facility and larger green areas 200,000 Option 5 P P P P P 5 Prioritising the straight through movement may increase speeds 150,000 Option 6 P P P P P P P P 8 Major works required, urbanisation of village centre 250,000 Option 7 P P P P 4 Slows traffic through the junction 75,000 Option 8 0 Removes a point of conflict at the junction 15,000 Option 9 P 1 Slows traffic through the junction 3,000 Option 10 P 1 Improved bus stop facility 15,000 Option 11 P P P P P P P 7 Larger green area 200,000 Option 12 P P P P P P P 7 Larger green area 200,000

Table 1 - Options Summary Table Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings MKR and specifications.

3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres unless noted otherwise.

4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to SY the engineer immediately. APPROX TP

Key Plan

One-way system provided 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay Legend around island to allow more TP space and create less conflicts SY between vehicle movements SY

MKR 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay Hatching provided to separate (taken to tangent) junction arms

SP SY TP

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

SP P1 20.07.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev Issues & Revisions

SP Birmingham | 0121 233 3322 SP EP SP Leeds | 0113 233 8000 London | 020 7234 9122

SP SP SP Manchester | 0161 233 4260

SP CONSULTANCY | ENVIRONMENT Nottingham | 0115 924 1100 INFRASTRUCTURE | BUILDINGS

SP Kerb radii amended to give more www.bwbconsulting.com

SP SP space for vehicles to manoeuvre Client

96.77 CHEARSLEY PARISH COUNCIL

EP RB

SY SP

LB Project Title SY JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay

Drawing Title

RB PROPOSED JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay (OPTION 1)

Mkr Mkr Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 20.05.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PRELIMINARY PT

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-101 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-101_Option 1.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all MKR relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres unless noted otherwise.

TP 4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer immediately. APPROX

Key Plan

TP Legend

EP 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay

MKR 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay

Junction realigned to be more perpendicular

SP SY TP

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

P1 20.07.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev Issues & Revisions

SP EP SP Birmingham | 0121 233 3322 Leeds | 0113 233 8000

SP SP SP London | 020 7234 9122

SP Manchester | 0161 233 4260 CONSULTANCY | ENVIRONMENT SP Nottingham | 0115 924 1100 INFRASTRUCTURE | BUILDINGS SP www.bwbconsulting.com SP

96.77 Client CHEARSLEY PARISH

EP RB COUNCIL

SY SP

SY Project Title JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

Drawing Title

RB 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay PROPOSED JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay (OPTION 2)

Mkr Mkr

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 20.05.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PT PRELIMINARY

SP Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-102 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-102_Option 2.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

Section of carriageway 3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All closed off to remove levels in metres unless noted otherwise. 4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to conflict point the engineer immediately. APPROX

SY Key Plan

2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay

MKR 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay Legend

Winchendon Road Section of carriageway

Realigned to join Aylesbury SP SY TP closed off to remove Road more perpendicular conflict point SP

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

SP EP SP

SP SP SP

96.77

EP RB

SY SP P1 20.07.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST Footway widened around Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev LB bus stop area Issues & Revisions SY

Birmingham | 0121 233 3322 Chilton Road realigned to Leeds | 0113 233 8000 provide junction segregation London | 020 7234 9122 Manchester | 0161 233 4260 CONSULTANCY | ENVIRONMENT Nottingham | 0115 924 1100 INFRASTRUCTURE | BUILDINGS www.bwbconsulting.com 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay Client CHEARSLEY PARISH Narrowed carriageway and RB COUNCIL improved footway provision

Project Title

Mkr Mkr 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE PT

TP Centreline removed to Drawing Title reduce vehicular speeds PROPOSED JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

(OPTION 3)

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

SP BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 20.05.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PRELIMINARY

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-103 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-103_Option 3.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay levels in metres unless noted otherwise. Carriageway realigned to join 4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer immediately. APPROX Winchendon Road at a more perpendicular angle

TP Key Plan

EP Section of carriageway closed

Legend

MKR 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay

SP SY TP

SP Existing access points retained

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

SP EP SP

SP SP SP

96.77

P1 20.07.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST EP RB Chilton Road pushed out to 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev SY gain better visibility SP Issues & Revisions

Client CHEARSLEY PARISH Footway widened around bus stop COUNCIL 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay RB

Project Title JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT Mkr Mkr SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, Carriageway narrowed and BUCKINGHAMSHIRE centreline removed to PT

discourage high speeds Drawing Title

SP TP PROPOSED JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

(OPTION 4)

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 20.05.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status SP PRELIMINARY

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-104 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-104_Option 4.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay levels in metres unless noted otherwise. 4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer immediately. APPROX

Key Plan Diverted footway

EP 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay

SY TP Legend

MKR

SP SY TP Aylesbury Road becomes the SP minor arm and becomes a priority SP SP T-junction

SP MKR Mkr

SP EP SP

SP SP SP

96.77 P1 20.07.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev Issues & Revisions

Client Winchendon Road becomes the CHEARSLEY PARISH Narrowed carriageway and priority route through the T-junction COUNCIL improved footway provision

RB Project Title JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, 2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

Mkr Mkr

2.4 x 43 metres visibility splay Drawing Title PROPOSED JUNCTION PT IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

TP (OPTION 5)

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 20.05.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PRELIMINARY

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-105 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-105_Option 5.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings Carriageway closed and specifications. 3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres unless noted otherwise.

4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer immediately. APPROX

Key Plan

SY TP Legend

Mini-roundabout to slow traffic from all directions MKR Carriageway closed

SP SY TP

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

SP EP SP

SP SP SP

96.77 P1 20.07.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev Issues & Revisions

Client CHEARSLEY PARISH COUNCIL

RB Narrowed carriageway and Project Title improved footway provision JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

Mkr Mkr

Drawing Title PROPOSED JUNCTION PT IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

TP (OPTION 6)

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 20.05.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PRELIMINARY

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-106 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-106_Option 6.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres unless noted otherwise.

4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer immediately. APPROX

SY Key Plan

Junctions realigned with white lining MKR Legend to join narrowed carriageway

SP SY TP

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

SP EP SP

SP SP SP

96.77

EP RB Carriageway narrowed with

SY SP white lining to allow buses P1 20.07.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev

LB to still pull into the bus stop Issues & Revisions SY

Client CHEARSLEY PARISH Narrowed carriageway and RB COUNCIL improved footway provision

Project Title

Mkr Mkr JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE PT

TP Drawing Title PROPOSED JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

(OPTION 7)

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

SP BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 20.05.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PRELIMINARY

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-107 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-107_Option 7.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres unless noted otherwise.

4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer immediately. APPROX

SY Key Plan

MKR Legend

Section of carriageway closed off to remove

SP conflict point SY TP

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

SP EP SP

SP SP SP

96.77

EP RB

SY SP P1 20.07.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev

LB Issues & Revisions SY

Client CHEARSLEY PARISH RB COUNCIL

Project Title

Mkr Mkr JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE PT

TP Drawing Title PROPOSED JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

(OPTION 8)

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

SP BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 20.05.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PRELIMINARY

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-108 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-108_Option 8.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres unless noted otherwise.

4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer immediately. APPROX

Key Plan

TP Legend

MKR

SP SY TP

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

SP EP SP

SP SP SP

96.77 P1 05.09.19 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev Centreline removed to Issues & Revisions EP RB reduce vehicular speeds Birmingham | 0121 233 3322 SY SP Leeds | 0113 233 8000 London | 020 7234 9122

LB Manchester | 0161 233 4260 SY CONSULTANCY | ENVIRONMENT Nottingham | 0115 924 1100 INFRASTRUCTURE | BUILDINGS www.bwbconsulting.com

Client CHEARSLEY PARISH COUNCIL

Project Title JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE Mkr Mkr

Drawing Title

PT PROPOSED JUNCTION

SP IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

TP (OPTION 9)

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 05.09.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PRELIMINARY

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-109 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-109_Option 9.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all

SY relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings

TP and specifications.

3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres unless noted otherwise.

4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer immediately. APPROX

MKR

Key Plan

SP SY TP

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

SY EP Legend SP

SP EP SP

SP SP SP

96.77

EP RB

SY SP Footway widened around LB bus stop area SY

P1 20.07.16 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev Issues & Revisions Mkr Mkr

TP Client CHEARSLEY PARISH COUNCIL

Project Title

SP JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

TP Drawing Title PROPOSED JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

(OPTION 10)

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 20.05.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PRELIMINARY

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-110 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-110_Option 10.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres unless noted otherwise.

4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer immediately. APPROX Section of carriageway closed off to remove conflict point Key Plan

TP Legend

MKR

Winchendon Road

Realigned to join Aylesbury SP SY TP Road more perpendicular

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

SP EP SP

SP SP SP

LB Manchester | 0161 233 4260 SY CONSULTANCY | ENVIRONMENT Nottingham | 0115 924 1100 INFRASTRUCTURE | BUILDINGS Chilton Road realigned to www.bwbconsulting.com provide junction segregation Client CHEARSLEY PARISH COUNCIL

Project Title JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE Mkr Mkr

Drawing Title

PT PROPOSED JUNCTION

SP IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

TP (OPTION 11)

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 05.09.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PRELIMINARY

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-111 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-111_Option 11.dwg Notes 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

MKR 3. All dimensions in millimetres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres unless noted otherwise.

4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer immediately. APPROX SY

Key Plan

Carriageway realigned to join Winchendon Road at a more perpendicular angle Legend

EP Section of carriageway closed

MKR

SP SY TP

SP SP

SP MKR Mkr

EP P1 05.09.19 PRELIMINARY ISSUE AJ ST SP Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev Issues & Revisions

Birmingham | 0121 233 3322 SP Leeds | 0113 233 8000 SP EP SP London | 020 7234 9122 Manchester | 0161 233 4260

SP SP SP CONSULTANCY | ENVIRONMENT Nottingham | 0115 924 1100 INFRASTRUCTURE | BUILDINGS SP www.bwbconsulting.com

SP Client

96.77 CHEARSLEY PARISH COUNCIL Centreline removed to EP RB Chilton Road pushed out to reduce vehicular speeds SY gain better visibility SP Project Title

LB SY JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCHEME, CHEARSLEY, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

Drawing Title PROPOSED JUNCTION RB IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

(OPTION 12)

Drawn: AJ Oakes Reviewed: Sara Terrey

Mkr Mkr BWB Ref: LNT 2105 Date: 05.09.19 Scale@A3: 1:500

Drawing Status PRELIMINARY

PT Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-112 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd L:\LNT\LNT2105_Chearsley Parish Council - Road Improvement Study\02. Project Delivery\01. WIP\Drawings\CHE-BWB-GEN-01-DR-TR-112_Option 12.dwg

PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT, MAPLE CROSS, RICKMANSWORTH, HERTFORDSHIRE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT MLC-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR-002-TA

APPENDICES

PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT, MAPLE CROSS, RICKMANSWORTH, HERTFORDSHIRE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT MLC-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR-002-TA

Appendix 1: Options Study Requirement Document

Road Junction Improvement Options Study

Requirement

25 January 2019

Parish Clerk: Helen Spurgeon 41 Giffard Way, Long Crendon, Buckinghamshire, HP18 9DN [email protected] 01844 202107 Road Junction Improvement Options Study

Background

Chearsley is a small village in the Aylesbury Vale District of Buckinghamshire. Chearsley Parish Council (CPC) has a Requirement for a study to be carried out into options for improving a road junction in the centre of the village, including a topographical survey.

This Requirement arises from concerns that the existing junction layout has inherent safety issues, encourages speeding through the village and results in damage to road verges.

A study of this junction is part of a wider project to address traffic issues through the village. In 2016 CPC carried out three surveys of traffic movements through the village. This resulted in a Feasibility Study being commissioned with Bucks County Council (Transport for Bucks – TfB) in 2017, the result of which was a decision to enhance the entrances to the village, improve internal signage and change white line and stud arrangements. That work is still underway.

Location

The location is in the centre of the village at 51° 47' 25.45'' N, 0° 57' 41.56'' W, as illustrated in the diagram.

It comprises the intersection of: • A main through route marked 1 to 3, Winchendon Road and Crendon Road • A main through route marked 2 to 3, Aylesbury Road and Crendon Road • A grass island marked A, B, C known as Horse Chestnut Tree Island (HCI) after the old tree that stands on the island • A further village entry marked 4, Chilton Road • Two minor village roads, marked 5 and 6 that do not carry any through traffic

Version 1.0 25 Jan 2019 Page 1 of 7

Work to date

CPC has carried out initial work to identify the problems at the junction and analyse some of the improvement options that might mitigate those problems. This work has focussed specifically however on the issues around HCI and has not looked at the associated issues with junctions 5 and 6.

Problems

The problems caused at HCI are broadly of three types.

1. Safety

a. Drivers travelling from 1 to 3 do not always stop at the junction at corner C. There have been many experiences of such traffic pulling out into the path of traffic travelling from 3 to 2, and at least one serious accident. b. Drivers travelling from 1 to 3, when stopping at C, have to look at a sharp angle over their left shoulder to check it is clear from direction 2, whilst at the same time being aware of traffic from direction 3 suddenly appearing (often too fast) from around the bend. c. When queues of traffic from 1 occur at corner C, it’s been known for some to route quickly via corner B to turn right and try and get in front of traffic emerging from corner C towards 3. A ‘racing’ situation arises. d. Drivers travelling from 1 to 3 also consistently fail to give way to drivers emerging from route 4

2. Speeding

a. The main route is from 1 to 3 and vice versa. The straight road nature of the junction at corner C encourages traffic to speed through the village and across that junction with little pause. b. Traffic from 2 to 3 also tends to accelerate around the bend past junction 5 and 6

3. Damage

a. There have been several instances of heavy traffic coming from 2 and wanting to turn right towards 1, attempting to make the turn at corner C rather than corner B. Possibly because of an impression that this junction is a roundabout. This has caused serious damage to the verge at corner C on several occasions and knocked down the road sign there at least once. b. Less frequent and serious but not unknown is damage to the verge at corner A caused by traffic from B attempting to turn towards C

Improvement Options

Options have been identified that address various of these problems.

Version 1.0 25 Jan 2019 Page 2 of 7

Option Addresses Problem Disadvantages Notes

1 Build up kerbing at 3a Only deals with that one Corner C problem

2 Build up kerbing at 3b Only deals with that one Corner A problem

3 Re-paint road 1a, 1d As markings fade over Impact could be marginal markings at C & B time the mitigation will 2a (plus possibly reduce and they will need Chilton Rd re-doing junction)

4 Change Give Way 1a, 1d Likely to require police signs at C & B to prosecutions to achieve 2a Stop Signs significant impact. Unlikely to happen. 5 Re-align the road at 1a partially Road width may be corner C to insufficient to enable it to 1b partially, by interrupt the work and/or meet current turning vehicles a straight-line traffic road standards. Could little to their left at flow across that result in loss of either the junction corner (as some of HCI or the verge indicated 1d partially, by on the other side of the approximately) in slowing vehicles road the picture) down and putting them further away Moves left hand corner of from junction 4 junction nearer to the tree

2a partially, by A supporting guy line for turning a straight- the power pole may line junction into a interfere or need moving, slight right or left at extra cost turn 3a partially – turn will still be tight 6 Introduce one way 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d Would require from A to B and completely appropriate one-way & no from C to A entry signs on HCI corners 2a significantly These would probably Would have to be have to be illuminated – executed in 3a partly hence power supply and conjunction with cost Options 1 and 3 Street lights may be required at the junction The turn from 2 to 1 may be considered too tight even then and/or hazardous.

Version 1.0 25 Jan 2019 Page 3 of 7

Option Addresses Problem Disadvantages Notes

7 Close roadway 1a, 1b & 1c Roadway between A and B between A & C completely may be too narrow, This is just a small traffic re-routing so completely and requiring sacrifice of some may not require street lights, but route all traffic 1d significantly of HCI on that side to probably will need more signs. between A and B, widen it. in both directions 2a significantly However, that would be May impact on Junction 5 across the mitigated by re-claiming road which may have to be closed 3a & 3b completely the highway between A and C as green land.

Reduced size puts the tree closer to the road and hence at more risk from (and perhaps to) high traffic.

Pushes all traffic closer to The Forge

8 Completely re- All Could result in a lot of Tree removal would be unacceptable shape the junction road signs and lights locally depending on design – highly undesirable.

Expensive.

Would almost certainly require the tree to be removed

9 Add rumble strips 2a, 2b Only deals with Speeding to some/all road issues. approaches into Noise? the village

10 Place a sign at the 3a Only deals with that one junction of Cannon problem Hill and Aylesbury Rd (51° 47' 44.82'' Would require complex N, 0° 56' 50.55'' W) wording – may not be advising heavy allowed traffic destined for Winchendon to turn right at that point rather than in Chearsley

Version 1.0 25 Jan 2019 Page 4 of 7

Study Requirement

CPC now wishes to commission a study that will:

1. Carry out a topographical survey of the junction and immediate surrounding area. Produce appropriate mappings. 2. Review each of the HCI options identified above. 3. Identify any other potential options, both for HCI and local junctions 5 and 6 4. For each of the options identified, investigate: a. Viability in terms of national and local road layout requirements b. Likely success in addressing the issues identified c. Potential side benefits or disadvantages beyond achieving the desired outcomes d. An estimate of the implementation cost 5. Liaise with CPC during the course of the Study 6. Produce an output report containing all analysis, mapping from the topographical study, conclusions against each option and recommendations

Local Considerations

In conducting the study it is important to bear in mind that Chearsley is a small village in a rural setting and within an area of Attractive Natural Landscape. The junction is contained within the Chearsley Conservation Area that covers much of the centre of the village. Whilst we would like all potential options investigated in the study, it is worth noting that any solution that involves excessive ‘urbanisation’, i.e. significant new road signage, road lighting etc., is less likely ultimately to prove acceptable.

To assist with the study, CPC is providing: a. The 2016 CPC HGV surveys report b. A presentation made by CPC in 2016 to a Bucks CC Freight Strategy conference c. The 2017 TfB Feasibility Study Report

Procurement Process

CPC is a public body with responsibility for public funds and therefore intends to meet this Requirement by means of a competitive procurement. The process involves:

a. Issuing this Requirement to a number of companies that have indicated they have the capability and interest to carry out such a study; b. Inviting formal priced Proposals in response to the Requirement from those companies in terms of how the Study would be conducted, its timescales and cost; c. From the Proposals, selecting one company (‘the Consultant’) to carry out the study. This selection will be on a value for money rather than least cost basis, taking account of both price and the expected quality of the study based on information provided in the Response; d. Liaising with the Consultant during the course of the study to answer questions, provide further direction as required and generally to ensure that the study produces the desired results.

Version 1.0 25 Jan 2019 Page 5 of 7

The factors that will be considered as part of the value for money (vfm) assessment, and which you are requested to include in your Proposal, are as follows:

Method. Indicate the general approach you will use to carrying out the work, including but not limited to: • Site surveys and other on-site work • Reference to and learning from previous similar studies • Expected number and duration of meeting with members of CPC • Approximate breakdown of overall time into on-site and in-office.

Resource. Indicate: • Name, contact details and summary CV for the Lead Consultant • How many people will be involved with carrying out the work, providing if possible names, qualifications and experience.

Duration. Anticipated overall elapsed time from kick-off meeting to delivery of the Draft Final report. Additionally, an indication of the number of man-days likely to be required to carry out the work.

Deliverables. To include: • Site meetings as appropriate to your Method. • Topographical Survey output. At sufficient detail to show features and demarcate the boundary that would affect any development works proposed at the junction. Contoured mapping at a scale of 1:20 in original (5 prints) and digital format. • Interim reports if appropriate to your Method, to be delivered by email. • Draft Final Report describing the Method, Options studied, Conclusions and Recommendations. To be delivered by email. • Final report taking into account CPC observations on the Draft. To be delivered in PDF format by email, plus one signed hard copy.

Price. A VAT exclusive fixed price for carrying out the work and providing the Deliverables. Also a per person per day price for carrying out any work not included in the Proposal but related to it and agreed between the Consultant and CPC during the course of the study.

References. Include summary information on up to five examples of similar studies carried out in the last 5 years. Two of which to include details of someone we could contact to discuss your work.

Terms and Conditions. A copy of your preferred T&C. CPC reserves the right to suggest amendments.

CPC is not looking for expansive Proposals for this relatively modest study. Whilst no absolute limit is being imposed, it is anticipated that the information above, plus any other essential detail, could be contained within 6 pages (excluding T&C). Please provide any background corporate information as Annexes.

Version 1.0 25 Jan 2019 Page 6 of 7

Follow on Work

Subject to the outcome of the study and the affordability of any recommended solution, CPC may let a further contract for the design of the agreed solution. This further contract may be awarded as an extension to the study contract, or may be subjected to further competition, at the discretion of CPC.

It is expected that any design and implementation work will require liaison with Bucks County Council (or its successor Unitary Authority after March 2020)

Timetable

a. Clarification questions on this Requirement – to be received in writing (email) no later than 2 weeks from the date of issue. b. CPC responses to clarification questions – will be provided in writing (email) no later than 1 week from the date they are received (note that clarification questions, and the answers provided, will be sent to all companies invited to respond, but without the requesting company being identified). c. Firm Price Proposals to be received – no later than 4 weeks from the date of issue of this Requirement. d. Selected Consultant advised – no later than 3 weeks from receipt of Proposals e. Selected Consultant to accept contract – within 2 working days from being advised f. Kick-off meeting to be held – within 2 weeks from contract award g. Draft Final Report to CPC – within time period specified in the Proposal h. Final report issued to CPC – within 2 weeks of receipt of CPC comments on the Draft Final report (or longer if admitted by CPC as part of its comments) i. Payment – to be made on successful completion and acceptance by the CPC of the Final Report

CPC reserves the right: • To reject any Proposal not meeting the above timetable • To deem a contract offer as being refused if not accepted within the 2 working day period • To not award a contract to any bidder if it considers that none of the Proposals offers reasonable vfm

Version 1.0 25 Jan 2019 Page 7 of 7

PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT, MAPLE CROSS, RICKMANSWORTH, HERTFORDSHIRE TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT MLC-BWB-GEN-XX-RP-TR-002-TA

Appendix 2: Topographical Survey

Notes

1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified on site. If in doubt ask.

2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

3. All dimensions in metres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres unless noted otherwise.

4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer 98.92 APPROX

98.93 98.75 immediately.

98.97 MKR 5. No scale factor has been applied to this survey, therefore the os coordinates are to be treated as arbitrary. Please refer to survey ST Tarmac Wall Ht 1.6 station information below for on site control establishment. 98.93 Grass 6. All coordinates and height data relate to OSGB36(15). Control stations 98.74 are coordinated by means of GPS receiving real time corrections via 98.68 98.95 98.60 98.79 OS smart net. ST

98.46

99.51 98.52 98.53 7. All manhole data is collected from ground level therefore discrepancies SY 98.95 99.65 may occur. More accurate data is only achievable via confined space TP entry.

Tarmac 98.41 8. OS license number: 100022432

Hedge Ht 1.0 98.36 98.85 98.36 Grass Grass

99.29

99.26 98.28 98.30

98.47 98.94 Legend

Tarmac 98.13 98.58

99.12 120 98.15 OS Buildings Contour Lines 98.74 98.15 99.35 98.02 Inspection Chamber Sign 99.15 98.24 Surveyed Buildings

Tarmac 97.93 0.25 Flow direction and Building pipe diameter 98.73 1 98.21 99.06 Wall 98.15 Station and Name

99.18 Kerb Channel Line 98.81 97.89 BH 1 97.81

99.06 Wall Ht 1.6 Top of Kerb Monitoring Borehole Edge of Surface 98.36 Bushes Tree / Bush / Sapling Top of Bank 99.09 Bottom of Bank Area of Vegetation/

97.95 99.00 Canopy / Overhang Extent of Tree Canopy

99.01 97.91 Line Marking Hedge

97.62 97.51 97.82 Centre Line Body of Water 98.52

97.45 98.14

98.87 Watercourse Centre Line Body of Water from OS 97.51

Hedge Ht 2.0

97.81 Tarmac Barrier 98.19 50.00 Spot Level Fence

97.52 SV Grass Gate Assumed Surface 97.21 98.69 Overhead Powerline Water Drainage Line Overhead Utilities 97.56 Surface Water Drainage

95.46 Line

97.39

98.06 TP AP Anchor Point FBW Fence Barbed Wire LB Litter Bin

94.60 BG Back Gully FCB Fence Closed Board LP Lamp Post 97.13 98.41 BO Bollard FCL Fence Chain Link MH Manhole 97.26 96.91 94.59 95.77 SY BS Bus Stop FEL Fence Electric Mkr Service Marker 97.72 Grass ST BT British Telecom FMP Fence Metal Panel PB Post Box

98.51 94.75

97.11 C Crest FMR Fence Metal Railing PT Post

97.20 96.13 95.00 94.61 CL Cover Level FOB Fence Open Board RE Rodding Eye 97.21 CMP Cable Marker FPW Fence Post & Wire SP Sign Post 96.69 FPR HT 1.0 96.06 SY 98.23 96.84 Post FSP Fence Steel Palisade ST Stop Tap

96.99 97.03 95.00 Grass EP Tarmac 94.43 CCTVSecurity Camera FWM Fence Wire Mesh SV Stop Valve 96.61

98.19 97.08 94.89 CTV Cable TV FFL Finished Floor Level TCB Telephone 96.25 FP Flagpole Call Box 98.02 DC Drainage

96.61 96.34 Tarmac 95.15 Gas Gas THL 96.99 95.36 Channel Threshold Level 96.20 97.40 DK Drop Kerb GV Gas Valve TL Traffic Light

97.05 Wall Ht 1.0 DP Down Pipe GY Gully TP Telegraph Post 96.08 96.32 94.86 96.88 95.29 Elec Electric Ht Height TS Traffic Signal 96.82 Grass Electricity Post IC Inspection Chamber UTS 96.34 BT SY 95.30 EP Unable to Survey

97.36 95.27 96.13 IFL Internal Floor Level 95.51 95.01 ER Earth Rod WL Water Level 97.43 95.39 TP FH Fire Hydrant IL Invert Level WM Water Meter 96.76 95.37 96.66 96.38 97.08 96.68 95.06 96.74 Tarmac (as a reduced level) Ø0.2 FL Floodlight WO Wash Out 96.13 97.24 96.70 Ht 5.0

97.05 Wall Ht 0.8 96.72 95.36 FCB Ht 1.8 95.82 Station Coordinates 96.59

Grass

96.57 96.44 95.44 Tarmac

95.37 97.10 96.83 MH 95.30 95.74 Station Name Eastings (m) Northings (m) Height (m) 96.44 BWB03 CL 95.45

96.63 Tarmac 95.67

Bench 95.39 95.55 MH BWB01 471725.386 210680.242 95.005 CL 95.37 97.02 95.76 95.44 96.22 96.03 AV 95.50 BWB02 471714.679 210625.852 95.324 97.78 MKR 96.41 95.69

96.43 95.58 BWB03 471734.932 210710.122 95.640

Grass 95.73 95.42 97.10 Grass 95.61

96.76 96.44

95.54 95.63 95.44 96.85

95.44

Wall Ht 0.6 95.64 95.40

96.61

95.61 95.42 97.08 95.59 ST Hedge Ht 2.0 BT Gy 95.57 95.43 96.80 96.45 95.48 99.65 Tarmac Ø1.0 P1 04.04.19 First Issue DS SS Grass Ht 12 95.25

97.31 96.13 98.02 Ø0.6 95.69 Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev

96.09 Ht 8.0 96.06

96.88 95.17 Hedge Ht 2.0 95.57 95.27 97.25 99.87 97.25 Issues & Revisions 95.19 95.10 Memorial 96.41 96.42

95.69 95.14 97.34

99.12 95.02 97.13 95.58 SP TP Birmingham | 0121 233 3322 Ø0.4 SY Tarmac Ht 6.0 97.24 Leeds | 0113 233 8000

98.68 96.40 Sign 95.18 95.16 94.91 95.46 96.30 London | 020 7407 3879 95.68 Gy 95.90 95.78 SP 95.59 Grass Manchester | 0161 233 4260 96.88 96.18 Grass 94.97 99.26 97.43 94.79 CONSULTANCY | ENVIRONMENT

96.73 Tarmac Nottingham | 0115 924 1100 95.68 95.28 SP INFRASTRUCTURE | BUILDINGS SP 95.62 www.bwbconsulting.com Gy 94.83 97.46 95.80 95.63

99.26 97.17 95.81 94.56 98.67 95.21 Grass Client 98.96 BT 94.66 94.79 98.65 94.78 96.19 94.91 94.43 96.18 94.71

95.30

95.79 SP 95.45 Chearsley Parish Council MKR Mkr FCB Ht 1.8 95.41 96.47 96.05 94.76 95.47 95.04 SY Wall Ht 0.6 94.87 96.35 Gy 94.76 94.66 94.20 94.05 Tac- EP 97.67 96.37 95.76 98.31 96.89 Tiles 93.91 92.81 96.47 93.77 93.03 93.63 97.86 95.19 95.01 93.27 98.27 Tarmac SP 96.03 95.80 93.48 97.48 Sign 97.23 94.62 94.32 98.14 Tac- 97.82 96.53 96.13 95.86 Tiles 96.35 94.59 MH Tarmac 97.28 92.83 CL 98.09 97.02 94.67 95.95 95.07 98.20 96.56 96.25 96.14 96.04 BWB01 97.75 93.23 94.77 93.45 Project Title 98.58 MH 95.03 94.97 Gy 97.17 CL 95.71 94.87 93.69 93.77 93.58 95.59 96.77 93.66 98.13 96.15 93.94 93.90 93.77 Road Improvement Scheme 94.30 94.42 FH SP 97.50 SV SV 93.93 97.33 94.49 SP EP 97.06 SV 96.80 SP 96.34 94.49 96.01 94.42 95.80 94.36 Grass 97.26 95.60 94.34

95.33

97.05 97.05 Ø0.2 SP SP 97.25 SP 94.34 Ht 5.0 Tarmac 95.51 SP Tac- Gy Gy 95.76 94.34 Tiles 95.44 94.28 96.81 94.37 96.54 94.35 95.46 SP 94.55 94.33 96.65 Drawing Title 96.95 Salt 95.57 Bin 94.31 SP 95.40 Grass SP 94.71 94.97 Existing Site Plan 94.80 Ø0.2

94.80 Ht 5.0 96.77 95.36 Grass 96.34 95.54 Sheet 1 of 2 96.13

FPR Ht 1.0

Tarmac

94.74

94.89 96.04

EP BT Paved 95.96 RB 94.92 CBX 95.31 94.35 96.07 96.06 95.48 Drawn: D.Smith Reviewed: S.Shreeves SY SP Bus 96.06 Stop BWB Ref: LNT2105 Date: 04.04.19 Scale@A1: 1:200

95.96 94.97 Drawing Status

LB 95.05 Imformation SY 95.32

95.15 95.75 OR1.0 OR1.0HT2.2 Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CPC-BWB-00-01-DR-G-0001 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd

C:\Users\Daniel.smith\Desktop\Ongoing Work Dan\LNT2105 - Chearsley\CPC-BWB-00-ZZ-M2-G-0001-Existing Site 2D Model.dwg Notes

96.43 1. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions must be checked/ verified

Grass 95.73 95.42 97.10 Grass 95.61 on site. If in doubt ask.

96.76 96.44

95.54 95.63 95.44 96.85 2. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant architects, 95.44

Wall Ht 0.6 95.64 95.40 engineers and specialists drawings and specifications.

96.61

95.61 95.42 97.08 95.59 ST 3. All dimensions in metres unless noted otherwise. All levels in metres Hedge Ht 2.0 BT Gy 95.57 95.43 96.80 96.45 95.48 unless noted otherwise. 99.65 Tarmac Ø1.0 Grass Ht 12 95.25 4. Any discrepancies noted on site are to be reported to the engineer

96.13 APPROX 97.31 98.02 Ø0.6 95.69 immediately. 96.09 Ht 8.0 96.06

96.88 95.17 Hedge Ht 2.0 95.57 95.27 97.25 99.87 97.25 5. No scale factor has been applied to this survey, therefore the os 95.19 95.10 Memorial 96.41 96.42

95.69 95.14 coordinates are to be treated as arbitrary. Please refer to survey 97.34

99.12 95.02 station information below for on site control establishment. 97.13 95.58 SP TP Ø0.4 SY Tarmac Ht 6.0 97.24 6. All coordinates and height data relate to OSGB36(15). Control stations

98.68 96.40 Sign 95.18 95.16 94.91 are coordinated by means of GPS receiving real time corrections via 95.46 96.30 95.68 Gy OS smart net. 95.90 95.78 SP 95.59 Grass 96.88 96.18 Grass 94.97 99.26 97.43 94.79 7. All manhole data is collected from ground level therefore discrepancies 96.73 Tarmac 95.68 95.28 SP may occur. More accurate data is only achievable via confined space SP 95.62 entry. Gy 94.83 97.46 95.80 95.63 99.26 97.17 95.81 8. OS license number: 100022432 94.56 98.67 95.21 Grass 98.96 BT 94.66 94.79 98.65 94.78 96.19 94.91 94.43 96.18 94.71

95.30

95.79 SP 95.45 MKR Mkr FCB Ht 1.8 95.41 96.47 96.05 94.76 95.47 95.04 SY Wall Ht 0.6 94.87 Legend 96.35 Gy 94.76 94.66 94.20 94.05 Tac- EP 97.67 96.37 95.76 98.31 96.89 Tiles 93.91 92.81 96.47 93.77 93.03 120 93.63 OS Buildings Contour Lines 97.86 95.19 95.01 93.27 98.27 Tarmac SP 96.03 95.80 93.48 97.48 Sign 97.23 94.62 94.32 98.14 Inspection Chamber Tac- 97.82 96.53 96.13 95.86 Surveyed Buildings Tiles 96.35 94.59 MH Tarmac Flow direction and 97.28 92.83 0.25 CL 98.09 97.02 94.67 95.95 95.07 Building pipe diameter 98.20 96.56 1 96.25 96.14 96.04 BWB01 97.75 93.23 Wall 94.77 93.45 Station and Name 98.58 MH 95.03 94.97 Gy 97.17 CL 95.71 94.87 93.69 93.77 93.58 95.59 Kerb Channel Line 96.77 93.66 BH 1 98.13 96.15 93.94 93.90 93.77 Top of Kerb Monitoring Borehole 94.30 94.42 FH SP Edge of Surface 97.50 SV SV 93.93 Tree / Bush / Sapling 97.33 94.49 SP Top of Bank EP 97.06 SV 96.80 SP 96.34 94.49 Bottom of Bank Area of Vegetation/ 96.01 94.42 95.80 94.36 Grass Extent of Tree Canopy 97.26 Canopy / Overhang 95.60 94.34 95.33 Line Marking Hedge 97.05 97.05 Ø0.2 SP SP 97.25 SP 94.34 Ht 5.0 Tarmac Centre Line Body of Water 95.51 SP Tac- Gy Gy 95.76 94.34 Tiles 95.44 94.28 Watercourse 96.81 94.37 Centre Line Body of Water from OS 96.54 94.35 95.46 SP 94.55 94.33 Barrier 96.65 96.95 Spot Level Salt 50.00 95.57 Bin 94.31 Fence SP 95.40 Grass SP 94.71 Gate 94.97 Assumed Surface 94.80 Ø0.2 Overhead Powerline 94.80 Ht 5.0 Water Drainage Line 96.77 95.36 Grass 96.34 95.54 Overhead Utilities Surface Water Drainage 96.13 FPR Ht 1.0 Line Tarmac 94.74 AP Anchor Point FBW Fence Barbed Wire LB Litter Bin BG Back Gully FCB Fence Closed Board LP Lamp Post

94.89 96.04 BO Bollard FCL Fence Chain Link MH Manhole BS Bus Stop FEL Fence Electric Mkr Service Marker EP BT Paved 95.96 RB 94.92 BT British Telecom FMP Fence Metal Panel PB Post Box CBX 95.31 94.35 96.07 96.06 95.48 C Crest FMR Fence Metal Railing PT Post FOB Fence Open Board SY CL Cover Level RE Rodding Eye SP Bus 96.06 Stop CMP Cable Marker FPW Fence Post & Wire SP Sign Post Post FSP Fence Steel Palisade ST Stop Tap 95.96

94.97 CCTVSecurity Camera FWM Fence Wire Mesh SV Stop Valve CTV Cable TV FFL Finished Floor Level TCB Telephone LB 95.05 DC Drainage FP Flagpole Call Box

SY 95.32

95.15 Channel Gas Gas THL Threshold Level 95.75 OR1.0HT2.2OR1.0 DK Drop Kerb GV Gas Valve TL Traffic Light DP Down Pipe GY Gully TP Telegraph Post Tarmac 95.22 Elec Electric Ht Height TS Traffic Signal

95.15 95.39 EP Electricity Post IC Inspection Chamber UTS Unable to Survey ER Earth Rod IFL Internal Floor Level WL Water Level FH Fire Hydrant 96.53 IL Invert Level WM Water Meter 95.36 ST FL Floodlight (as a reduced level) WO Wash Out 95.71 Station Coordinates

95.34

95.89

95.78 Station Name Eastings (m) Northings (m) Height (m)

95.64

95.32 95.08 Bus 95.18 BWB01 471725.386 210680.242 95.005 Stop 95.29 95.73

95.10 BWB02 471714.679 210625.852 95.324

95.78

RB 95.65 BWB03 471734.932 210710.122 95.640 95.01 95.16

95.77

Hedge Ht 2.2

95.13

95.10 MH CL 95.25 95.17

95.62 94.84 P1 04.04.19 First Issue DS SS

95.19

96.54 94.98 95.68 94.76 Rev Date Details of issue / revision Drw Rev Issues & Revisions

Mkr Mkr Birmingham | 0121 233 3322

95.21 94.93 94.63

95.19 SV 95.04 Leeds | 0113 233 8000

94.67

94.95 www.bwbconsulting.com PT 94.68

95.22

95.18 95.23

95.06 95.89 Client 94.49

Wall Ht 1.8 SP 94.45

95.27

95.33 Chearsley Parish Council TP

95.55

95.03 BWB02 95.35 95.03

95.17 94.74

94.26 95.40

94.48

95.58

95.42

95.36 95.23 Grass Hedge Ht 2.2

Project Title 95.31

95.37

95.46

95.86 95.56 93.99 93.99 95.63 94.01 95.06 93.94 Road Improvement Scheme

94.99

Tarmac 94.39 MH 95.84 CL 93.96

95.71

96.07 Grass 95.48 Ø0.1 Ht 3.0

Tarmac

96.12 WM Drawing Title 95.49 95.55 Existing Site Plan

95.58 FCB Ht 1.8 Grass

95.75 Sheet 2 of 2 95.01 95.50 95.09

96.10 95.68

96.11 TP

95.79 95.74

95.72 Drawn: D.Smith Reviewed: S.Shreeves

BWB Ref: LNT2105 Date: 04.04.19 Scale@A1: 1:200

95.72 Drawing Status Imformation

Project - Originator - Zone - Level - Type - Role - Number Status Rev CPC-BWB-00-02-DR-G-0001 S2 P1 © Copyright BWB Consulting Ltd

C:\Users\Daniel.smith\Desktop\Ongoing Work Dan\LNT2105 - Chearsley\CPC-BWB-00-ZZ-M2-G-0001-Existing Site 2D Model.dwg