Ayot Greenway Phase IV – Feasibility Study
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Ayot Greenway Phase IV – Feasibility Study Compiled by and Groundwork Hertfordshire 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 Wheathampstead 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 River Lea valley. This also take a significant diversion off the desire line. A route along the Lower Luton 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.