Ayot Phase IV – Feasibility Study

Compiled by and Groundwork

Jan 2008 1 Ayot Greenway Phase IV – Feasibility Study

Contents 1 Possible routes 3

2 Analysis of routes 2a Routes 1 and 4 analysis 4 2a Route 1 analysis 5 2b Route 2 analysis 6 section through private ground 7 2c Route 3 analysis field 1 8 field 2 10 field 3 11 section 4 12 fields 5 and 6 13

3 Cost estimate 14

4 Conclusion 18

Jan 2008 2 1. Possible routes

Four different routes have been considered for the creation of a multi user link west from the centre of to the Lee Valley Walk path along the former railway line, and thus linking to the Ayot Greenway to the east. The four routes are shown on the map below.

Key

Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Route 4

Jan 2008 3 2a. Route 1 and 4 analysis

These would run on or adjacent to the public road, which automatically gives rise to safety implications and also results in a less pleasant route for pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists. It was agreed by all parties that the most preferable solution would be an off road route as is found on other sections of Ayot Greenway, but due to the difficulties concerned with this stretch in particular, these two routes were investigated by Hertfordshire Highways It was the recommendation of Hertfordshire Highways that neither route would be suitable. Comments from Hertfordshire Highways strategy development manager (04.03.08) are below.

“A route along Brewhouse Hill and Harpenden Road would not be recommended. This route would be along a steep gradient as it runs along the south side of the valley. This also take a significant diversion off the desire line.

A route along the Lower Road is not feasible on the road because traffic volumes are high. The road is also very narrow. The footpath in sections could be widened. However, there is one part where properties abut onto the footway, with the narrow road not allowing the space to widen the footway. A route along this section is therefore not feasible.”

Jan 2008 4 2a. Route 1 analysis

Route 1 breakdown: Route 1 feasibility: The first connecting route through starts from the B651, The major restrictions with this route concerns the lack of available space Wheathampstead High Street, and ends at Leasey Bridge Lane. where the existing route runs adjacent to the new housing estate, as illustrated by the top two images above right, although if a small strip of From the High Street, the route follows the proposed new Right of Way land in the adjacent public space could be utilized the issue could be adjacent to the new housing development on the old works site at resolved Wheathampstead, following onto footpath 64 merging onto Lower Luton Rd, with the majority of the route utilising the Lower Luton rd Because this proposed route will partly use the Lower Luton road, makes turning south into Leasey Bridge Lane towards the link to the Lee Valley this route undesirable as the users will come into contact and possibly walk. conflict with vehicular traffic.

Jan 2008 5 2b. Route 2 analysis

This proposed route begins from the village High Street through the new housing estate on the old works site, and joins up with the dismantled railway. The route will finish up at Leasey Bridge Lane emerging through the croft and gate house to link up with the existing Lea Valley Walk, as shown on the image right. The major issue with this route is that most of the route (see circled section above) is not an existing Right of Way and at its eastern extent runs very close to a property and through what is used as the front driveway. Owners of this and another property could justifiably have concerns the new route could bring security problems, reduce their privacy and effect their property value. Diverting the route through the adjacent field for the western most section would require a ramp and possibly mature tree clearance.

Jan 2008 6 2b. Route 2 analysis: section through private ground

This route is by far the most preferable due to its directness, lack of gradients and aesthetic qualities. The fact that a proportion of it runs along the former railway line also has the benefit that the landform work and some form of sub base for this section of the route are already in place.

Hertfordshire Highways strategy development manager, Hertfordshire County Council’s Rights of Way countryside access officer, and the relevant landowner walked the portion of the route through the private land and had preliminary discussions with the landowner concerning it. Unfortunately, due to land owner concerns, this option was deemed to be not worth pursuing. Below is an extract from the minutes of the onsite meeting (4/06/08):

“The preferred option to utilise the old railway line can now be totally discounted as the main land owner of the line is not interested in selling their section or permitting a route under a permissive agreement.”

Jan 2008 7 2c. Route 3 analysis

Field 6

Field 5 Section 4 Field 3 Field 2 Field 1

Narrow entrance of existing footpath. Boundaries and other features restrict potential for widening Due to the issues outlined on the previous three options (unless the situation changes in the future) this route can be considered the most feasible option. Route 3 has therefore been looked into in most detail, working through its sections from east to west. This route generally follows Right of Way number 16.

Section through Field 1 The main issues for the easternmost section of route three are: • Footpath entrance to High Meads (public road): Existing footpath entrance runs between the gardens of two adjacent properties and has several bottlenecks that would reduce its potential width; particularly with the electrical box at the path entrance which could potentially be very expensive to move. This section of the path also contains a sharp turn with very limited visibility that would be considered dangerous for shared cyclists/ pedestrian use. Suggested solution: a new entrance should be created through the existing hedge to the south (see following page). This would require shrub clearance and a small ramp

•Fence adjacent to rear of properties: fence in very poor condition resulting in potential Existing muddy route through field Existing fence in poor condition safety issues in its current condition. Fence line would also need to be extended further into the field to achieve the required 2.5m path width. Suggested solution: discussions should be had with the landowner/ tenant farmer as to whether a fence is required. The landowner/ tenant farmer will also need to be consulted about increasing the width of the path as it will require take up of a small strip of land. •Undefined muddy path directly through arable field: The section of the path running through the field is currently undefined and very muddy. The landowner/ tenant farmer may have concerns that an improved surface would effectively divide the field in two and make operations more time consuming. Suggested solution: Path surface would need to be brought above existing to prevent puddling. The landowner/ tenant farmer would need to be consulted and allowances made in the design for a place (or places) where the farmer could easily and safely cross from one side of the field to another with heavy machinery. • Boundary access between Field 1 and Field 2: At present access for the footpath between these two fields is via a narrow (at present broken) kissing gate. Suggested solution: gate would need to be widened and improved, which would require some Existing sharp bend with restricted visibility vegetation clearance (no mature trees) to hedgerow. Electrical box restricting widening

Jan 2008 8 2c. Route 3, Field 1 analysis cont.

Jan 2008 9 2c. Route 3, field 2 analysis

Although the definitive map shows the Right of Way running immediately adjacent to the field boundary (hedge). If this the actual route as shown on the definitive map was used, clearance of the entire hedge would be needed, which would destroy habitat, detract from the aesthetic qualities of the route, and eliminate the hedges function. The desire line currently in use runs approx 4-6m away from the hedge line. Discussions are needed with the landowner/ tenant farmer as to whether this can be the route used for the path. Construction of the path along this desire line would be relatively straight forward, though in places the path would require extra fill to its northern edge as the ground slopes (at places steeply) in that direction. At the boundary between fields 2 and 3 the path runs through a narrow strip of woodland where there is a level change of approx. 1.8m that rises steeply immediately adjacent to the field boundary within field 2. To achieve a 1 in 12 gradient in this section the path would need to cut through the wooded area diagonally. This would require extra fill beneath one side of the path and some vegetation clearance of shrubs and juvenile trees, though it could be done without the loss of mature trees. The Gate between fields 2 and 3 at present is very narrow and in poor condition. This would need to be replaced Boundary between field 2 and 3 with a wider, self closing gate that landowners/ tenant farmers are happy with and can be easily used by equestrians and the disabled.

Jan 2008 10 2c. Route 3, field 3 analysis Construction of the path through field 3 would be straight forward.

No vegetation clearance would be needed

For two sections where the route runs through areas of sloping ground (one for 40m and one for 10m), the path construction would require extra fill to one side.

Jan 2008 11 2c. Route 3, section 4 analysis For this section the path runs immediately adjacent to field boundaries on both sides. There is adequate room between the field boundaries to allow a 2.5m wide path with room to spare, but as the path is presently narrow, vegetation clearance on one and in places both sides will be required. The clearance required will be mostly shrubs but does include some juvenile trees (not mature trees) For the last stretch of this section the route obviously receives occasional vehicular use. At present this doesn’t appear frequent enough to cause a problem to a new path construction. The boundary from section 4 to field 5 has a narrow kissing gate. This will need to be replaced with a self closing gate that is easy to use by the disabled, cyclists and horse riders and that the landowners/ tenant farmers are happy with

Section requiring clearance to one side Section requiring clearance on both sides Section that receives occasional vehicular use

Gate between section 4 and field 5 that will need replacing

Jan 2008 12 2c. Route 3, Fields 5 and 6 analysis The route through field 5 is unproblematic and runs along the field margin. A new self closing gate, easy for the disabled, cyclists and equestrians to use will be needed at the boundary between fields 5 and 6, to replace the current narrow kissing gate. At present the Right of Way through field 6 cuts diagonally through the field and emerges in the driveway of Little Croft (bungalow) on Leasey Bridge Lane. The landform here means that any path built alongside the driveway would steeper than a 1 in 12 gradient and difficult to construct. For this reason it would be preferable to run the path along the south west margin of the field to emerge on Leasey Bridge Lane a short distance up the hill, where the difference in levels between the field and the road is not so great (a shorter ramp would be required). Herts. Highway’s Strategy Development Manager and Hertfordshire County Council’s Right of Way Countryside Access Officer agreed this solution.

route running along margin of field 5 Existing boundary between field 5 and field 6 that will need replacing Existing route running diagonally across field 6

Driveway of little croft where ROW emerges on Leasey Bridge Lane

Jan 2008 13 3. Route 3, Cost estimate

Construction options

Sub base and extra fill requirements A sub base 100mm deep (when compressed) of MOT type 1 is recommended (as has been costed here), this is adequate for pedestrian, equestrian cyclist and occasional vehicular use.

Where extra fill is required to fill dips/ sloping ground , etc. MOT type 2 is recommended and has been costed for here.

Surface finish Two options have been priced for the path’s surface finish. Both are unsealed, permeable surfaces. Some rutting and gullying in areas of heavy use can occur on this type of surface, particularly where used on slopes, but the only way of avoiding this would be to use a sealed surface (e.g. tarmac)

Crushed concrete This is the recycled material that has been used to resurface the Ayot Greenway. If done well this surface can produce a natural looking buff coloured consolidated surface. Laying this sort of surface has become more problematic in recent years now that the British Standard permits a fairly high proportion of glass to be used in the material (as part of an attempt for the UK to fulfil their glass recycling quota). Although the glass generally has rounded corners from the crushing process, it can cause a problem in public perception and generate a lot of complaints. Attempts can be made to specify that the recycled concrete has low glass content, but expecting the contractor to source a material that is not British Standard can be problematic. Groundwork Hertfordshire has recently had a problematic contract using this surface where eventually the whole surface needed to be covered with a tar and chip type surface. Selecting a contractor with a lot of experience laying this sort of surface (we could only suggest one) is key to its success, which makes the selective tendering process difficult. One other minor disadvantage of this surface is that its colour is unpredictable, depending on the source material

Breedon Gravel Wayfarer This is a form of breedon gravel specifically formulated for use of cycle paths, disabled access paths, etc. Unlike crushed concrete, it is a virgin material (not recycled) and produces a consolidated surface in a buff, yellow colour. The main advantage of this surface its colour and consistency can be guaranteed, and it will not contain any glass. Unfortunately it is considerably more expensive than crushed concrete and does not have the same green credentials (which might effect available funding) Out of the two surfacing types priced, we can only recommend this to produce a surface free of glass fragments that will not require any remedial works to correct.

Jan 2008 14 3. Route 3, Cost estimate (cont.)

Gates Specific requirements of gates will need to come from consultation with individual landowners. Generally, gates will need to be self closing, allowing a minimum 1.5m wide clearance, and be usable by equestrians. Treated softwood gates such as those used elsewhere on the Ayot Greenway would be suitable

Equestrian/ vehicular gate on used on Ayot Fencing Greenway phase IV It is hoped that fencing would not be required alongside much of the path as this would considerably increase the cost of the contract and could result in a less enjoyable experience for path users. For this reason the works have been priced for both with and without fencing. Whether or not fencing will be required will need to be gauged by consultation with individual landowners. If landowners are receptive to the idea (and willing to accept the extra maintenance requirements), a more aesthetically pleasing solution would be to plant hedges. This would have the extra benefits of providing new habitat and could act as areas to spread arising topsoil. In the Ayot Greenway phase III contract, fencing separating the route from the landowner’s field was paid for out of the Softwood timber fencing contract, though the landowner was providing a site store, an area to spread arising topsoil/ subsoil, and an additional used on Ayot Greenway phase IV 2.5m strip of his field as a horse gallop. A solution where the landowner pays for a proportion (or all) of the fence works may be preferable in other cases. A three bar timber post and rail fence made from treated softwood has been priced for here. This type of fencing would be sympathetic to the rural character of the landscape and has been used elsewhere along the Ayot Greenway.

Arising material Excavation required for construction of the path and associated earthworks would create substantial amounts of arising topsoil and subsoil, although some of this will be required to grade in the path with surrounding levels. The cost given here has assumed that the arising material could be spread locally with consent of the landowner. The cost does include grading the material into a natural landform and seeding the area. Removing all arising material from site would increase the contract cost and be a less environmentally sustainable solution. Arisings from vegetation clearance has been priced to be chipped and spread onsite

Site store It has been costed that a local site store would be available to the contractor free of charge, though the price given does include costs involved in setting up the site store and restoring it to its original condition after works are complete.

Jan 2008 15 3. Route 3, Cost estimate (cont.)

Field 1

Field 2

Jan 2008 16 3. Route 3, Cost estimate (cont.)

Field 3

Section 4

Fields 5 and 6

Jan 2008 17 3. Route 3, Cost estimate (cont.)

Total contract costs

4. Conclusion Out of the four routes considered through this study, route 2 was the most preferable due to it’s directness, lack of gradients, and the fact that some of the construction work was already in place along the former rail track. Unfortunately route 3 is the most feasible route at present. Although this is not a very direct route and has some problems with gradients (users need to travel up a hill and then back down into the valley bottom), it does form an attractive, off road route, and has no major problems with delivery and construction. The vast majority of it is also an existing right of way.

Things that need finalising before or during the design stage •Site store this needs to be a reasonably sized area, close to the site and reasonably accessible to the public road network. It is hoped that this could be provided free of charge from a local land owner. •Consultation with landowners this is needed to decipher: - fencing and gating requirements - access requirements to and from adjoining land - whether they could provide a suitable area for spreading arising topsoil or for use as a site store - permission to use land for the route where it diverts from the designated RoW •Consultation with other relevant parties e.g. the ramblers association. Initial enquiries have been positive •Determining whether or not any of the work would require planning permission the local planning authority will need to be consulted concerning this. This could specifically concern any gates/ fences/ bollards (structure over 1m high) adjacent to a public road and ramp works adjacent to the public road (if the planning department would consider these to be an engineering structure). •Funding to cover the works needs to be located. •Legal arrangements through Rights of Way to upgrade the route from a footpath to a Bridleway or Cycleway, and to cover sections of the route that divert from the designated Right of Way.

Jan 2008 18