Minutes of the Meeting of the Planning, Town & Environment Committee

OPEN SESSION: There were several members of the public present, regarding planning application number 13/10364.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING, TOWN & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

Held on Friday 6th September 2013 at 10.00am

Cllr Sophie Burgess-Kennar (Chairman) Cllr Neville Chard Cllr Christine Ford Cllr Angela Wiseman

IN ATTENDANCE: Jo Stannard, Deputy Town Clerk Emily Pollitt, Student Advisor

The Deputy Town Clerk reported that apologies for absence had been received from Cllr Rippon-Swaine and Cllr Stokes.

P/5069 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cllr Ford declared a non-pecuniary interest and Cllr Burgess-Kennar declared a pecuniary interest in planning applications – see P/5071 below.

P/5070 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 2nd August 2013, having been circulated, be approved and signed as a correct record.

P/5071 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Members considered the planning applications as detailed in Annex A attached.

Cllr Ford declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 13/10776 as the applicant is a friend.

The Chairman, Cllr Burgess-Kennar, declared a pecuniary interest in application 13/10984 due to a business connection. Cllr Ford chaired the meeting whilst this application was considered.

As there were members of the public wishing to comment, application number 13/10364 was brought forward and discussed first.

13/10364 - 54 & 56 NFDC PUBLIC OFFICES, 65 CHRISTCHURCH ROAD

1 three-storey block comprised, ground floor (Use Class A1, A2 & D1) first and second floors 8 flats; 1 terrace of 3 houses; bin & cycle stores; parking; landscaping; demolition of existing.

Page 1 of 1

The Deputy Town Clerk advised that the application was due to be considered by the District Council’s Planning Development Control Committee on 11th September and summarised the Planning Officer’s report, which recommended approval.

Residents of Woodstock Lane were concerned that the proposed terrace of three dwellings at the rear of the site was too close to the Lane and would have an overbearing impact, causing loss of light and privacy. The design of these houses was also felt to be contrary to the Ringwood Local Distinctiveness Supplementary Planning Document. They stated that the Lane was in private ownership and objected to the possible increase in traffic and parking which could be generated by the development.

Another resident objected to the proposed convenience store in an area where other retail units had all but failed. This would also take trade away from the town centre. The design of the three-storey building would be out of character in the Conservation Area and would have an overbearing impact on the adjacent property at 63 Christchurch Road.

Residents were also concerned about the inadequate number of parking spaces (both for residential and retail use), loss of trees and poor access to the development causing problems for emergency vehicles.

After a full and detailed discussion, Members agreed the observation shown in Annex A.

Members also considered a list of observations that had been agreed under delegated powers, as the deadline for comments had expired prior to the meeting date.

RESOLVED: 1) That the observations summarised in Annex A be submitted. 2) That the list of observations in Annex B be approved.

ACTION Claire Perrens

P/5072 PLANNING APPEAL – 9 SOUTHAMTPON ROAD

Members considered an appeal regarding application 13/10553 for a front extension and shop front, taking note of the Conservation Officer’s report, which had not been available when the original application was considered.

This Council submitted an observation of Refusal (4) – Members considered the proposed front extension of the shop would be out of keeping with the street scene and detrimental to the adjacent retail outlets, particularly the neighbouring estate agency, whose objection is supported. Another concern is the narrow pavement which is to some extent alleviated by the availability of the existing open porch area of No 9.

RESOLVED: That the original objection be sustained and additional comments be made to the Inspector, supporting the Conservation Officer’s views.

ACTION Jo Stannard

Page 2 of 2

P/5073 SAFETY MEASURES ON THE A31 – RINGWOOD SECTION

The Committee considered the response from the Transport Minister, Stephen Hammond MP, following the meeting with him in London in May. This was accompanied by two reports setting out the Highways Agency’s position on speed limit and signing and a statement by Hampshire Police regarding the proposed 50mph speed limit – Annex C.

Members were disappointed that Hampshire Police had not supported the 50mph speed limit and that, for this reason, together with an estimated cost of over £1 million, the Transport Minister had taken the decision not to proceed with the proposed trial. However, it was agreed that no further action should be taken on this issue at the present time.

It was noted with interest that the Signing Strategy Position Statement referred to the “existing substandard road geometry”, therefore acknowledging that the road is not fit for purpose. Members agreed that this issue should be taken up with the Highways Agency at the earliest opportunity. This may be an opportunity for discussions about the relief road to be re-commenced, which would take traffic off the A31 prior to the main Ringwood junctions. As the report recommended further liaison be carried out on the Signing Strategy proposals, it was agreed to appoint a small group of Member to liaise with the Highways Agency; it was considered that the three Members who met with the Minister in London would be best placed to do this.

Members also discussed the proposed Signing Strategy and agreed that Option C, being the most comprehensive option covering Picket Post to Ashley Heath, should be recommended.

RECOMMENDED: 1) That no further action be taken on the speed limit at this time. 2) That the Council recommend that Option C in the Signing Strategy be implemented. 3) That Cllrs Heron, Rippon-Swaine and Thierry be appointed to liaise with the Highways Agency and report back to the Planning, Town & Environment Committee. 4) That this group of Members take up the issue of the substandard road geometry with the Highways Agency at the earliest opportunity, and re- commence discussions about the relief road.

ACTION Claire Perrens / Jo Stannard

P/5074 FLOODING ISSUES

Members were pleased to note a report on action being taken by the Environment Agency to clear culverts under the Castleman Trailway – Annex D.

Cllr Wiseman, one of the Council’s Flood Wardens, reported on some work that had been carried out by Hampshire County Council in the Sandford and Kingston areas.

Page 3 of 3

She stated that there was a need for a further meeting with the local highways engineer as there was still work outstanding.

RESOLVED: 1) That the reports be noted. 2) That a meeting be arranged with the Council’s Flood Wardens and the local highways engineer to discuss flooding issues in the Sandford and Kingston areas.

ACTION Jo Stannard

P/5075 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Members received notes of the Informal Local Members Liaison Meeting held on 7th August.

RESOLVED: That the notes of the Informal Local Members Liaison Meeting be received and the actions therein be approved.

There being no further business, the Chairman closed the meeting at 11.50am.

RECEIVED APPROVED 25th September 2013 4th October 2013

TOWN MAYOR COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

Note: The text in the Action Boxes above does not form part of these minutes.

Page 4 of 4

Annex A to Planning, Town Environment Committee Minutes - 2 August 2013 Ringwood Town Council - Planning Observations - NFDC

Number Site Address Proposal Observation Comments

13/10494 7 RIVERSIDE, Single-storey side Refusal (4) The design of the proposed extension would RINGWOOD BH24 1EJ extension be out of keeping with the existing building and detrimental to the local distinctiveness of the conservation area. 13/10532 54 & 56 SOUTHAMPTON Development comprised Permission (3) Members were pleased to note that previous ROAD, RINGWOOD BH24 2 commercial units (Use concerns had been addressed and 1JD Class B1); 17 flats, considered the proposals to be in keeping including associated with the distinctiveness of this particular infrastructure; car and area. Permission should be subject to cycle parking; amenity approval by the Highways Authority. space (Demolition of 54 & 56 Southampton Road) 13/10609 48-50 HIGH STREET, Use of store as Permission (3) RINGWOOD BH24 1BQ restaurant; glazed link walkway; fenestration alterations 13/10661 ELECTRICITY SUB Repair of river wall Officer Decision (5) STATION, MILL LANE, RINGWOOD 13/10679 8 MEADOW CLOSE, Single-storey rear Refusal (4) Members considered that the proposals due RINGWOOD BH24 1RX extension; roof to their scale, bulk and design would have a alterations in association negative impact on the street scene. with new first floor; rooflights. 1 - Recommend Permission, but would accept officer's decision 2 - Recommend Refusal but would accept officer's decision 3 - Recommend Permission 4 - Recommend Refusal 5 - Will accept officer's decision 02 August 2013 Page 1 of 3 Number Site Address Proposal Observation Comments

13/10787 8 SWAN MEAD, Single-storey rear Refusal (4) The proposed flat roof extension would be RINGWOOD BH24 3RD extension out of keeping with the style of other property in the area. It is recommended that a site visit is made to the neighbouring property at the rear (9 Linnet Close) as there may be erroneous measurements of the distances from the boundary fences. 13/10803 9 & 11 STAR LANE, Single-storey extension; Permission (1) RINGWOOD BH24 1AL new shopfronts; external alterations 13/10825 13-15 CHRISTCHURCH Replacement workshop Permission (1) ROAD, RINGWOOD BH24 (Extension to time limit 1DG of planning permission 10/96016) 13/10826 34 FAIRLIE, RINGWOOD Two-storey rear Permission (1) BH24 1TS extension; conservatory (Extension to time limit of Planning Permission 10/95738) 13/10828 WHITE COTTAGE, Detached garage/store Permission (1) LUMBY DRIVE, and office RINGWOOD BH24 1JJ 13/10843 BICKERLEY GREEN Provision of a vehicular Permission (3) RESIDENTIAL AND access for emergency NURSING HOME, use only KINGSBURYS LANE, RINGWOOD BH24 1EL

1 - Recommend Permission, but would accept officer's decision 2 - Recommend Refusal but would accept officer's decision 3 - Recommend Permission 4 - Recommend Refusal 5 - Will accept officer's decision 02 August 2013 Page 2 of 3 Number Site Address Proposal Observation Comments

13/10848 24B MEETING HOUSE Use as hairdressing Permission (1) Subject to Highways Authority approval. LANE, RINGWOOD BH24 salon; alterations to door 1EY

1 - Recommend Permission, but would accept officer's decision 2 - Recommend Refusal but would accept officer's decision 3 - Recommend Permission 4 - Recommend Refusal 5 - Will accept officer's decision 02 August 2013 Page 3 of 3 Annex A to Planning, Town Environment Committee Minutes - 2 August 2013 Ringwood Town Council - Planning Observations - NFNPA

Number Site Address Proposal Observation Comments

13/98620 Little Paddocks, Woodend Extension to garage Permission (1) Road, Crow, Ringwood, BH24 3DG 13/98647 Aldermoor Vineyard, Application for a Certificate No Comment. Poulner Hill, Poulner, of Lawful Development for Ringwood, BH24 3HR Existing use of dwelling in breach of condition 2 (agricultural occupancy) of planning permission reference 88/38972 13/98675 In Excess Garden Centre, Warehouse Permission (1) Hangersley Hill, Forest Corner, Hangersley, Ringwood, BH24 3HW

1 - Recommend Permission, but would accept officer's decision 2 - Recommend Refusal but would accept officer's decision 3 - Recommend Permission 4 - Recommend Refusal 5 - Will accept officer's decision 02 August 2013 Page 1 of 1 Annex A to Planning, Town Environment Committee Minutes - 6 September 2013 Ringwood Town Council - Planning Observations - NFDC

Number Site Address Proposal Observation Comments

13/10364 New Forest District Council 1 three-storey block Refusal (4) See attached Public Offices, 65 comprised, ground floor Christchurch Road, (Use Class A1, A2 & D1) Ringwood BH24 1DH first and second floors 8 flats; 1 terrace of 3 houses; bin & cycle stores; parking; landscaping; demolition of existing 13/10386 UNITY HALL, 2 Two-storey rear Permission (1) Members had some concern about the SOUTHAMPTON ROAD, extension possible overlooking of the private garden RINGWOOD BH24 1HY area of Soverign Place, which is the only recreational space available to residents. However, it was difficult to establish from the plans supplied whether or not this would be detrimental. 13/10776 FOUR WINDS, Single-storey front & Permission (3) The proposed extension would improve the BICKERLEY ROAD, side extension; appearance of the property. RINGWOOD BH24 1EG demolition of existing outbuilding 13/10787 8 SWAN MEAD, Single-storey rear Permission (1) The proposed extension is more in keeping RINGWOOD BH24 3RD extension (re- with the property than that proposed on the consultation) original application.

1 - Recommend Permission, but would accept officer's decision 2 - Recommend Refusal but would accept officer's decision 3 - Recommend Permission 4 - Recommend Refusal 5 - Will accept officer's decision 06 September 2013 Page 1 of 2 Number Site Address Proposal Observation Comments

13/10858 ELLIOTT BROTHERS Use existing parking Permission (1) Recommend permission, provided the loss of LTD, PULLMAN WAY, area to builders parking from 32 New Street does not result RINGWOOD BH24 1EX merchants as storage in increased parking in the surrounding area. (Use Classs B8) 13/10915 16-18 SOUTHAMPTON Continued use as multi Permission (3) The existing business is an asset to the town ROAD, RINGWOOD BH24 purpose clinic (sui and adds to the vitality of the Primary 1HY generis use) Shopping Area. 13/10929 145 HIGHTOWN ROAD, Single-storey rear Permission (1) RINGWOOD BH24 1NL extension; conservatory roof alterations 13/10944 23 ORCHARD CLOSE, Two-storey rear Refusal (4) The proposed dormer is a bulky and RINGWOOD BH24 1LP extension, rooflights and awkward design and is out of keeping with side dormer in the character of the property and the street association with new scene. It would have a detrimental impact on first floor; replacement the neighbouring property (number 25) due garage to its scale causing loss of light and overlooking. 13/10955 64 NORTHFIELD ROAD, Two-storey side Permission (1) RINGWOOD BH24 1LX extension; roof alterations including rooflights 13/10984 55 - 57 CHRISTCHURCH Variation of Condition 6 Permission (1) The justification given appears to be ROAD, RINGWOOD BH24 of Planning Permission reasonable. 1DH 12/98969 to allow the development to achieve level 3 of the code for sustainable homes

1 - Recommend Permission, but would accept officer's decision 2 - Recommend Refusal but would accept officer's decision 3 - Recommend Permission 4 - Recommend Refusal 5 - Will accept officer's decision 06 September 2013 Page 2 of 2 A1 use in this location would cause an unacceptable hazard to all road users and should not be permitted.

Impact on 63 Christchurch Road

The proposed three-storey block at the front of the site would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property. It would be 5 metres closer to the boundary than the existing building and would cause overshadowing. Contrary to the Planning Officer’s report, there are two living room windows proposed in the boundary elevation (at first and second floor level), which would cause overlooking.

Aspect to Woodstock Lane

The Town Council suggested in its comments on the original proposals that the three houses to the rear of the site would sit better in the street scene if they were to front directly on to Woodstock Lane. This has now been proposed in the amended plans, although they have been moved much closer to the Lane, and could have a detrimental impact on the houses opposite in terms of loss of light. It is suggested that the three dwellings are moved back from the Lane to the location on site as originally proposed.

Design of Building fronting Christchurch Road

The Town Council agrees with the Conservation Officer’s comments that the design of the building is not of sufficient quality to suit the character of its Conservation Area setting.

Loss of Trees

The Town Council agrees with the Tree Officer’s objection to the loss of trees and the work proposed to the Sycamore, which would have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the area that would not be possible to replicate for many years with replacement specimens.

PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER 13/10364 PUBLIC OFFICES, 65 CHRISTCHURCH ROAD, RINGWOOD, BH24 1DH 1 three storey block comprised ground floor (Use Class A1, A2 & D1) first and second floors 8 flats; 1 terrace of 3 houses; bin & cycle stores; parking; landscaping; demolition of existing

Ringwood Town Council recommends REFUSAL (4) for the following reasons:

Proposed Uses

The Council has no objection to the proposed use for residential units on the site. However, it objects to the proposed A1 use. Whilst acknowledging that policy requires the retention of employment use on the site, it is considered that an exception to policy should be made on this occasion. The loss of employment use has been mitigated by the council offices moving to the purpose built Ringwood Gateway. Policy BU-TC3 allows for new shopping development where no suitable alternative site is available and if it would contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre. This site is outside the Primary Shopping Area, where there are already several vacant units. It is the Town Council’s opinion that if the A1 use is approved, this would have a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. It should also be noted that other retail units have failed previously in the area surrounding the site.

Parking and Traffic

The number of car parking spaces provided is wholly inadequate and contrary to the recommendations in the Parking Standards SPD. 11 spaces are provided for the 8 flats and 3 houses. With a total of 23 bedrooms between them, the allocation should be 17 (1.5 per 2- bed dwelling and 1.9 per 3-bed in a shared/communal area). It cannot be assumed that the occupants will not require more than one car, despite the site’s town centre location. The provision of 11 car parking spaces for the retail unit is less than half that recommended in the SPD. According to the SPD, there should be 23 spaces (1 space per 14sqm – total retail area is 325sqm). As a result, this development will lead to vehicles parking in surrounding roads, causing congestion and putting pedestrians at risk.

Christchurch Road is very busy and any obstruction causes severe congestion. If the A1 use is approved and is let as one large unit, as is suggested, the Town Council has concerns about the servicing of this unit. It is expected that HGVs will reverse into the loading bay, although the easier option would be to park on the road, thereby causing congestion and danger to pedestrians.

There is potential for the proposed exit onto Christchurch Road to be used as a second entrance (particularly by residents of the flats and houses at the rear), causing confusion and risk to drivers and pedestrians.

There is a bend at this point in Christchurch Road, which will impact the visibility of vehicles entering and exiting the site, again a danger to drivers and pedestrians.

There is no pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of the proposed development, despite it having been in the Traffic Management Programme for many years.

There is concern about the impact of the development on the operation of the adjacent Fire Station, particularly with the effects of the A1 use. This is a vital service for the town and should not be compromised. Comments from Hampshire Fire and Rescue need to be addressed.

Annex A to Planning, Town Environment Committee Minutes - 6 September 2013 Ringwood Town Council - Planning Observations - NFNPA

Number Site Address Proposal Observation Comments

13/0557 QUAKER COURT, EYNON CONS T1 - Cherry - Fell. Permission (1) MEWS, RINGWOOD, T2 - Hornbeam - Crown lift BH24 1EW over car park area to give a clearance of 4 metres from ground level. 13/0571 BROOK COTTAGE, 6 CONS - Ash - Reduce Permission (1) COXSTONE LANE, crown by approximately 20 RINGWOOD, BH24 1DS ft, cut back side branches from street light, telephone line and two neighbouring thatched roofs. 13/0588 HUNTERS MOON, TPO 1 Oak (T1) - Lift over Permission (1) HIGHWOOD LANE, garage roof. 2 x Oak - HIGHWOOD, Crown lift to 4 metres and RINGWOOD, BH24 3LE remove deadwood. 13/0608 THE SPINNEY, ST CONS 1 x Leylandii - Fell. Officer Decision (5) AUBYNS LANE, 3 x Oak - Re-pollard HANGERSLEY, branches that are near to RINGWOOD, BH24 3JU thatched car port. 13/0617 OLD FARM, COWPITTS CONS T1 - Ash - Section Permission (1) LANE, POULNER, Fell. RINGWOOD, BH24 3JX

1 - Recommend Permission, but would accept officer's decision 2 - Recommend Refusal but would accept officer's decision 3 - Recommend Permission 4 - Recommend Refusal 5 - Will accept officer's decision 06 September 2013 Page 1 of 2 Number Site Address Proposal Observation Comments

13/98718 West View, Hangersley Two storey rear extension, Permission (1) Members did not agree with the Planning Hill, Hangersley, Ringwood single storey side Officer's view and felt that the proposal BH24 3JP extension, replacement would improve the appearance of the garage (demolition of property and that, in this instance, an existing outbuildings) exception to policy DP11 should be made.

1 - Recommend Permission, but would accept officer's decision 2 - Recommend Refusal but would accept officer's decision 3 - Recommend Permission 4 - Recommend Refusal 5 - Will accept officer's decision 06 September 2013 Page 2 of 2 Annex B B Applications to be decided under Delegated Powers Ringwood Town Council - Planning Observations

Number Site Address Proposal Observation Comments

13/0533 Rose Croft House, St Nos 12-14 Oak - Fell. Nos Officer Decision (5) Aubyns Lane, Hangersley, 16-21 Birch - Fell. Nos 22- Ringwood BH24 3JU 24 - Sycamore - Fell. No 25 - Beech - Fell. CONS/13/0533. 13/0546 Bisterne Estate CONS/13/0548 - Felling Permission (1) licence in line with agreed management plan. 13/0548 17 Clarks Close, Ringwood CONS/13/0548 Sycamore, Officer Decision (5) BH24 1LQ prune north western crown to achieve a 2m clearance from structures. Laburnum, Fell. Replant 1 standard Gingko bilbao 13/0553 Holly Tree House, Forest TPO/13/0553 - T1 Oak, T2 Permission (1) Lane, Hightown Hill, Oak and T3 Oak - Reduce Ringwood BH24 3HF lowest primary back by 2m from tips inwards ensuring no pruning wounds exceed 50mm in diameter. 13/10937 Suite A, Monmouth Court, Use of first floor as Permission (1) Decided prior to the meeting under Southampton Road, residential accommodation delegated powers. Ringwood BH24 1HE

Area 3 A31 Ringwood (Picket Post to Ashley Heath) Signing Strategy

Position Statement

July 2013

EM Rosalind House Jays Close Viable Business Park Basingstoke, RG22 4BS

T +44 (0) 1256 481000 F +44 (0) 01256 481001

Area 3 A31 Ringwood (Picket Post to Ashley Heath) Signing Strategy Position Statement

Executive Summary

This Position Statement suggests improvements to traffic signing that could be implemented along the westbound section of the A31 Trunk Road between Picket Post and Ashley Heath to address a number of safety concerns. These safety concerns have been raised by Ringwood Town Council and are summarised in their report titled “The A31 Ringwood Section Ringwood Town Council Document”.

The Ringwood Town Council report was reviewed prior to developing the proposals outlined in this report to ensure the solutions identified meet the aspirations of Ringwood Town Council. The extent of the A31 covered by this report is the section between the Picket Post and Ashley Heath junctions, however within this length of carriageway the main area of concern is the section between the Ringwood and Ashley Heath junctions.

1.1 Approach

The approach taken when developing the proposals contained in this report has been to understand the drivers behind the solutions identified in the Ringwood Town Council report and produce options that address the main safety concerns whilst complying with regulations and good practice. Construction and future maintenance considerations as well as taking care not to introduce features that could have an adverse effect on road user safety has meant that some of the Ringwood Town Council proposals have not been taken forward, whilst others have been taken forward in a different way. The main aims of the proposals seek to:

• improve driver awareness of the Picket Post, Poulner Hill and Ringwood junctions by enhancing the advanced signing of these junctions;

• improve driver awareness of the services (located west of West Street) by providing signing prior to the Ringwood on slip and after the Ringwood off slip;

• improve driver awareness of the Verwood off slip and the need to be travelling in the nearside lane by providing signing prior to the Ringwood off slip and on the Ringwood on slip;

• improve driver awareness of the West Street merge and Fish Inn access (although not by name) by providing signing after the Ringwood on slip;

• improve driver information regarding required lane designations for the approaching Ashley Heath junction; and

• place greater emphasis on drivers exiting West Street regarding merging movements by installing a Give Way priority at West Street.

Further details on the Ringwood Town Council report are contained in Section 3 of this report.

Area 3 A31 Ringwood (Picket Post to Ashley Heath) Signing Strategy Position Statement

1.2 Options

Four options have been developed. All options seek to bring signing along this section of the A31 in line current standards and good practice. The differences between the four options are determined by a combination of two variables these being:

• the length of carriageway over which signing improvements are proposed; and

• the destination strategy adopted, this will either be the existing strategy, or a strategy currently in development which is based on the Primary Route Destinations list published by the UK Government. Although the ‘new’ strategy has been agreed in principal with local highway authorities further liaison will need to be carried out before sign face designs are finalised.

The options are summarised in the table below.

Signs in accordance with the Signs that follow the

‘new’ Destination Strategy Existing Destination Strategy

Signs between Ringwood and Option A Option B Ashley Heath

All signs between Picket Post Option C Option D and Ashley Heath

Option A is the recommended option as this would address the main concerns raised by Ringwood Town Council. However, whilst design teams and contractors are mobilised the opportunity exists to bring the signing for the Picket Post and Poulner Hill junctions up to standard should funding be available, in which case Option C should be progressed.

Further details on Option Descriptions are contained in Section 4 of this report.

1.3 Costs

The anticipated cost range for the four options is summarised in the table below.

Lower End Upper End

Option A £280,000 £390,000

Option B £285,000 £390,000

Option C £420,000 £600,000

Option D £470,000 £620,000

Further details on Option Costs are contained in Section 5 of this report.

Area 3 A31 Ringwood (Picket Post to Ashley Heath) Signing Strategy Position Statement

1.4 Programme

The timeframe from the point where funding is provided through to commencement of construction is anticipated to be between 12 and 18 months depending on the option being progressed and the associated activities required to follow due process and mitigate project risks.

Further details on Programme are contained in Section 5 of this report.

Area 3 A31 Ringwood Speed Limit – Position Statement

Ref: TBC

June 2013

Matthew Chapman & Lyn Salmon EM Design Centre 1123 Mollison Avenue Brimsdown Enfield EN3 7NJ

T +44 (0) 2083446948

E [email protected]

A31 Ringwood Speed Limit – Position Statement July 2013

Executive Summary

There is growing concern amongst the public for improvements to safety along the A31. Based on the collision record and in response to general concerns by members of the public, the Minister for Transport has directed the Highways Agency to undertake a signing study and consider a trial speed limit of 50mph along the A31 at Ringwood, between Picket Post and Ashley Heath.

The purpose of this report is to provide a strategy and position statement in relation to the 50mph trial speed limit, in accordance with current guidance and standards, to enable the Highways Agency to make recommendations to the Minister of Transport.

It is evident from the most recent 3 year (2010 to 2012) personal injury collision analysis that speed is not a high contributory factor in the number of personal injury collisions being recorded on the A31 between Ashley Heath Roundabout and Picket Post Interchanges. Only 3% of collisions recorded during the most recent 3 years have a STATS 19 contributory factor of either exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for the conditions. Those collisions with a causation factor where drivers were traveling too fast for the conditions may not necessarily have been exceeding the speed limit.

There are a growing number of collisions which have occurred in heavy/ stationary or slowing traffic, accounting for 37% during the same 3 year period. 58% of collisions were recorded as being ‘rear end shunt’ type collisions, with 46% occurring during the morning or evening peak period

Based on the recorded high proportion of shunt type collisions, high proportion of collisions occurring during the peak periods and the high proportion which are specifically highlighted as having occurred in heavy/stationary or slowing traffic, it is our opinion that the collisions are occurring at speeds considerably lower than 50mph, during periods when the A31 is congested.

Unfortunately, calibrated speed data over this section of the A31 is not available and as such it is not possible to accurately determine existing vehicle speed profiles throughout the day. A speed survey would need to be undertaken in order to make an informed statement in relation to the existing vehicular speeds on the A31 at Ringwood, and whether the recorded collisions occurred during periods when traffic was moving in excess of the proposed 50mph speed limit. This survey would need to be carried out during a ‘neutral’ month, to exclude seasonal variations in traffic. The earliest month considered as a neutral would be towards the end of September 2013. The estimated third party cost to provide this survey would be £20,000.

Following examination of the data currently available, it is our considered opinion that ‘speed’ as a causation factor, is likely to be more of a perceived problem by Ringwood Town Council, as in reality the collision statistics do not support this.

Therefore it is considered that reducing the speed limit on the A31 at this location would have a minimal impact on reducing collisions numbers.

1 | P a g e

A31 Ringwood Speed Limit – Position Statement July 2013

Notwithstanding the above, if the decision is taken to proceed with implementation of a trial 50mph speed limit at Ringwood, it is recommended that the 50mph speed limit is provided in both directions over a 7.1km section of the A31, between the existing 50mph speed limit west of Ashley Heath Roundabout Interchange and Picket Post Interchange to the east.

It is likely that during periods when traffic is free flowing, imposing a 50mph speed limit over this section of the A31 will increase journey times. It is not possible to determine the extent of the impact on journey times as existing speed data is unavailable.

Two of the total 59 personal injury collisions recorded on this section of the A31, between 2010 and 2012, had STATS 19 causation factors of either exceeding the speed limit or traveling too fast for the road conditions. Both of these collisions resulted in slight injury. Assuming that the proposed scheme would mitigate both of these collisions, a pessimistic saving of 0.66 collisions per annum could be expected as a result of an enforced 50mph speed limit.

Hampshire Police have stated that, whilst well intentioned, the introduction of a 50mph speed limit in isolation would not result in a reduction in road casualties. They have also stated that the scheme would require Police enforcement at a level beyond their capacity to provide in order to achieve an acceptable level of compliance. .

It is therefore recommended that in order to encourage compliance to the proposed 50mph speed limit, a system of SPECS cameras and infra-red lighting should be introduced to enforce the speed limit.

In order to determine the successfulness of the trial it will be necessary to undertake monitoring of the scheme. This will require an initial ‘before scheme’ speed survey to be carried out at an estimated cost of £20,000 as discussed above. It will be necessary to undertake a further 2 speed surveys during the period of the trial at a further cost of £40,000. Although if SPECS cameras are provided this data could be provided at no additional cost. Analysis of collision and speed data and overall evaluation of the 50mph speed limit trial is expected to cost in the region of £25,000.

It is expected that the timescale, from the point of funding being in place through to completion of works would be approximately 18 months depending on the scope of the project and additional works identified during detailed design.

The costs associated with the trial scheme are summarised below:

2 | P a g e

A31 Ringwood Speed Limit – Position Statement July 2013

Task Ball Park Cost Estimate

Detailed Design £164,000

Supervision (including SPECS cameras) £104,000

Works (including SPECS cameras) £1,301,000

Traffic Management £76,000

Monitoring Speed Surveys £20,000

Evaluation of the Scheme £25,000

TOTAL COST £1,690,000.00

3 | P a g e

G31 Hampshire Constabulary

Station : Totton Area : Western

Department : Western Date : 03 July 2013

Subject : A31 Picket Post to Ringwood 50 MPH Speed Limit Proposal

EnterpriseMouchel are seeking Hampshire Police view on proposals to introduce a 50mph speed limit on the A31 at Ringwood. The proposal is partly in response to local community concerns regarding the level of fatal, serious and slight injury collisions occurring on this road and the view that a reduction in speed limit from national to a 50mph speed limit will achieve a reduction in those collisions. The 50mph speed limit extends through Dorset and Hampshire counties. This report refers only to the A31 within Hampshire.

EnterpriseMouchel request consideration is given to one of the following options:-

1. A31 westbound between Poulner Hill (Hampshire) and Woolsbridge (Dorset) 2. A31 east & westbound between Poulner Hill and Woolsbridge. 3. A31 westbound between Picket Post (Hampshire) and Woolsbridge. 4. A31 east & westbound between Picket Post and Woolsbridge.

I have researched the Hampshire Constabulary injury collision database between 1/01/2003 and 31/12/2012 for the A31 between Picket Post and Dorset County boundary. There are currently six recorded incidents which were investigated as fatal road traffic collisions. They are:-

1. 22.25 hours 15/05/2003 at A31 eastbound in vicinity of River Avon. This collision involved an inexperienced motorcyclist entering A31 from Ashley Heath interchange, lost control of his machine and collided with central barrier. The motor cyclist sustained fatal injuries.

2. 10.38 hours 08/08/2003 at A31 westbound Ringwood flyover. This collision involved an elderly passenger standing at the top of stairs of a bus which swerved causing the passenger to fall to bottom of stairs and sustain fatal injuries.

3. 22.28 hours 05/12/2006 at A31 eastbound Picket Post. A pedestrian intentionally ran into path of eastbound vehicle sustaining fatal injuries.

4. 23.45 hours 12/06/2008 at A31 eastbound Poulner. Vehicle travelling eastbound collides with a stationary broken down vehicle and recovery truck. The recovery truck driver who was standing adjacent to the stationary vehicles sustained fatal injuries.

5. 17.57 hours 15/02/2012 at A31 eastbound Ringwood flyover. The driver of a vehicle sustained fatal injuries after suffering a suspected medical episode, collides with central barrier and his car is then struck by following vehicle.

6. 02.30 hours 16/10/2012 at A31 westbound Picket Hill. A car was driven deliberately into lay-bay adjacent to A31 and collides with a stationary articulated goods vehicle. Car driver who was suffering from mental health issues sustained fatal injuries.

Police investigations into the six fatal collisions did not identify speed as a contributory factor in those collisions.

Continuation Sheet No 1:

G.31.B

Hampshire Constabulary injury collision database records twenty five serious injury collisions for the period 01/01/2003 to 31/12/2012.

The primary contributory factor recorded for sixteen of those collisions falls within the general category of 'driver/rider error or reaction'. Primary contributory factor for two of the collisions is 'animal in carriageway'. Primary contributory factor for four of the collisions relates to pedestrian actions e.g. wearing dark clothing whilst in carriageway during hours of darkness. One of those pedestrian related collisions involved a minibus carrying young males, returning from a social event in Bournemouth. A fight broke out amongst them whilst in transit causing the driver to stop in carriageway. The fight spilled out onto the eastbound A31 and two of the males were struck by passing vehicles causing potentially life threatening injuries. The primary contributory factors for the remaining three collisions are 'slippery road due to weather', 'learner or inexperienced rider' and 'Travelling too fast for conditions’.

Closer scrutiny of the serious injury collisions record a significant proportion occur when traffic flows are heavy and overall speeds are lower. Many of those collisions occur as a result of drivers/riders failing to react to events occurring in front of them. Consequently drivers/riders are unable to stop or slow safely within the distance which is clear ahead of them resulting in rear end type impacts or central barrier collisions.

Hampshire Constabulary injury collision database records one hundred and sixty two slight injury collisions for the period 01/01/2003 to 31/12/2012.

The primary contributory factors for eighty-five of those collisions fall within the category of 'driver/rider error or reaction'. Thirty collisions are categorised as 'injudicious action'. Twenty-nine collisions are categorised as 'road environment'. Eight are categorised as 'behaviour or inexperience', five as 'impairment or distraction', three as 'vehicle defects', one 'pedestrian crossing road masked by stationary vehicle' and one due to 'dazzling sun'.

Examination of the slight injury collisions identifies a majority occur during periods of heavy traffic volumes, when overall speeds are lower. A significant proportion is rear end shunt/impact collisions. During those periods, traffic speeds will ebb and flow for varying reasons such as sudden or unexpected braking, vehicles entering, leaving the main carriageway or changing lanes at last minute. Those types of manoeuvres will create pockets of stationary or slow moving traffic queues which will catch an approaching driver by surprise. Examination of collision statistic data shows attending Police Officers, when dealing with these types of collisions, will allocate a primary contributory factor from within the four main categories of 'driver/rider error or action', 'injudicious action', 'road environment' or 'behaviour or inexperience'. These types of collisions will be found at other strategic routes with similar traffic flows and driver behaviour.

The A31 between Picket Post and Dorset County boundary is a dual carriageway (two lanes in each direction changing to four lanes west of Ringwood Town until Ashley Heath). There is no hard shoulder facility. The road has narrow grass verges unsuitable for vehicle use.

Any collision occurring on either carriageway will result in traffic tailbacks. Tailbacks lengthen if a vehicle is damaged and requires recovery. There is usually no opportunity to move disabled vehicles off the carriageway and the problems worsen depending on the seriousness of the collision. A31 traffic volumes are very high and any obstruction of the carriageways creates lengthy queues, particularly on westbound carriageway. The queues cause drivers to divert away from the A31 to local roads which cannot cope with the increased traffic volume and this, inevitably, leads to severe congestion in nearby communities.

Department of Transport circular 01/2013 (DfT 1/13) states:-

Speed limits should be evidence-led and self-explaining and seek to reinforce people's assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. They should encourage self-compliance. Speed limits should be seen by drivers as the maximum rather than a target speed.

Continuation Sheet No 2:

G.31.B

Local speed limits should not be set in isolation, but as part of a package with other measures to manage vehicle speeds and improve road safety.

Speed limits are only one element of speed management. Local speed limits should not be set in isolation. They should be part of a package with other speed management measures including engineering and road geometry that respect the needs of all road users and raise the driver's awareness of their environment; education; driver information; training and publicity. Within their overall network management responsibilities, these measures should enable traffic authorities to deliver speed limits and, as importantly, actual vehicle speeds that are safe and appropriate for the road and its surroundings. The measures should also help drivers to be more readily aware of the road environment and to drive at an appropriate speed at all times.

DfT 01/13 states the Highways Agency is responsible for determining speed limits on the trunk road network. They have a statutory requirement to consult with The Chief Officer of Police when proposing speed limits.

It is Hampshire Constabulary's view that:-

(a). The introduction of a 50mph speed limit in isolation, whilst well intentioned, will not result in a reduction in road casualties at this location. (b). Introducing a 50mph speed limit in isolation will not achieve a significant reduction in overall speeds. A lower speed limit will require additional measures to obtain an appropriate level of compliance with the speed limit. (c). Drivers would not consider a 50mph limit to be appropriate for this road resulting in a general disregard of the speed limit which may put vulnerable road users at greater risk. A lowering of the speed limit may encourage increased usage of the A31 by vulnerable road users e.g. pedal cyclists who mistakenly believe that the 50mph limit has reduced overall vehicle speeds. (d). An inappropriate speed limit intended to create a safer environment may have an opposite effect partly caused by overall speeds which would likely remain similar to when the road was subject to national speed limit. (e).The A31 carries a high volume of traffic which converges at Ringwood where multiple vehicle interactions, lane and carriageway changes occur as a result of drivers making sudden, late or unexpected decisions. These types of manoeuvres cause traffic to ebb and flow and become a contributory factor for many of the collisions occurring on the A31. A lowering of the speed limit will not, by itself, reduce this type of driver behaviour. (f). Current collision history does not identify speed as a primary contributory factor for the majority of recorded injury collisions for the period 01/01/2003 to 31/12/2012. (g).The introduction of a 50mph speed limit, in isolation, would require Police enforcement at a level beyond our capacity to provide in order to achieve an acceptable level of compliance.

David Taylor: Safer Roads Officer Hampshire Constabulary, Roads Policing Unit, Totton Police Station, Testwood Lane, Totton, Southampton SO40 3ZE External: 101 Ext 675-344 E-mail: [email protected]

Annex D

PLANNING, TOWN & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE – 6TH SEPTEMBER 2013

FLOODING ISSUES - ENVIRONMENT AGENCY UPDATE

Following attendance at Full Council on 26th June 2013, this update has been received from Andrew Gill at the Environment Agency:

There are 2 large culverts under the Castleman Trailway (see map below). These culverts allow flood plain water on the upstream side of the Castleman Trailway to pass through the old railway embankment to the downstream side. These culverts are in need of some clearance and there is a small bank on the downstream side which forces water to flow along a ditch running parallel to the Trailway back into the Bickerley Millstream. We have joined up with a fisheries project which is being run in conjunction with the Wessex Chalk Rivers Trust and the Barbell Society. This project will clear the culverts and remove the section of bank behind them and re-instate one of the old ditches on the downstream side of the Trailway all the way to down the main Avon. This will then allow flood plain water to flow through the Castleman Trail and directly into the River Avon rather than back into the Bickerley Millstream as occurs at the moment. The aim of this work is to equalise levels on the flood plain upstream and downstream of the Castleman Trailway, relieve some of the pressure on the Bickerley Millstream at times of flood, and finally improve fish spawning habitat on the main Avon by creating refuges for fish fry at times of high flow.

This work should help lower flood levels in the flood plain upstream of the Castleman Trailway, but it will still act as a flood plain receiving flood water from both the Avon and Bickerley Millstream when their banks are over topped. One of the problems last winter was that flood levels on the upstream side of the trail were approximately 3ft higher than the downstream side. It is hoped that by carrying out this work flood plain levels will be equalised either side of the Trailway.

The work requires a Flood Defence Consent and we are currently working through this process here in Blandford. The works are planned for late September/early October this year.

For further information, please contact Jo Stannard, Deputy Town Clerk 01425 484721 [email protected]