Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan

Home , Benham Hill, Colthrop, Newbury railway station, Pangbourne, Snelsmore, Thatcham

LCWIP 1 Contents

Foreword 3

1 Introduction 4

2 Integration with Active Travel Policy 7

3 Active Travel context 9

4 Network planning for cycling 14

5 Network planning for walking 24

6 Infrastructure improvements 26

7 Prioritisation, integration and next steps 30

Appendicies

Appendix A Summary of Relevant Policy and Guidance 32

Appendix B Cycle Route Network Plans 36

Appendix C Eastern Area Cycle Routes 39 – Audit Key Findings and Recommended Improvements

Appendix D Newbury and Thatcham Prioritised 42 Strategic Cycle Routes – Audit Key Findings and Recommended Improvements

Appendix E Newbury and Thatcham 69 Key Walking Route Network Plan

Appendix F Newbury and Thatcham Prioritised 70 Key Walking Routes – Audit Key Findings and Recommended Improvements

2 LCWIP Foreword

West Berkshire Council is pleased to present our district. This joined-up approach covered our Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure cross-boundary routes and commuter zones on Plan (LCWIP) to act as a blueprint for future the urban fringe of Reading. We have adopted active travel routes in our district. It sets our a similar approach identifying walking and ambition to create a network of high-quality cycling routes in the settlements of Newbury interconnected cycle routes and walking zones and Thatcham and this report will prioritise the to encourage greater uptake of sustainable improvements of both urban areas together in travel modes. a comprehensive strategy for investment.

By adopting the long-term approach provided The LCWIP has focused on identifying key by the LCWIP we can ensure that planning corridors connecting residential areas (both policy, public health, highway improvements, existing and proposed) to destinations such regeneration and developments are better as town centres, local centres, schools, linked to a coherent strategy that will employment sites and transport hubs. In the attract future funding and lead to its full past investment in active travel infrastructure implementation. The delivery of the LCWIP has often come as a by-product to larger will support the Environment Strategy and the highways schemes or development sites. The Council’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2030. LCWIP instead identifies routes where it is possible to construct high-quality infrastructure Last year we worked in collaboration with to the minimum standards set out by the Reading and Wokingham Borough Councils Department for Transport in its 2020 Local to produce an LCWIP for the eastern area of Transport Note for Cycle Infrastructure Design.

LCWIP 3 1. Introduction

1.1 Background the Reading LCWIP , which was prepared and adopted during 2019. 1.1.1. This is West Berkshire’s Local Cycling This was prepared jointly by Reading and Walking Infrastructure Plan Borough Council, West Berkshire (LCWIP). It provides a new, strategic Council and Wokingham Borough and long-term approach to developing Council. The relevant proposals are cycling and walking improvements. The summarised in this document. LCWIP reflects our shared ambition with central government to make cycling and 1.2.3. The LCWIP process has a focus on walking the natural choices for shorter creating walking and cycling networks journeys and for part of longer-distance that connect people with places and journeys. activities. It focuses on areas which 1.1.2. Increasing the numbers of cycling have the highest existing demand and and walking journeys is central to greatest future potential for growing tackling many of the country’s pressing cycling and walking trips. This typically challenges, including carbon emissions means that plans are focussed on built- and the climate emergency, poor air up areas, which contain most key trip quality, physical inactivity, poor public origins and destinations. health and levels of traffic congestion. 1.2.4. The LCWIP process has a particular Better active travel infrastructure can emphasis on utility journeys. These also improve access to jobs, education are everyday journeys made for a and facilities, enhance economic vitality, purpose, such as commuting to work, improve mental wellbeing, reduce accessing education, healthcare or social isolation and better placemaking retail attractions. Directness and journey improves the quality of the lived-in times are often important considerations environment. The LCWIP is one of the when making utility journeys. However, key means by which West Berkshire the West Berkshire LCWIP also identifies Council is seeking to address these leisure corridors to be developed. These issues. were informed by public feedback from 1.2 LCWIP Scope previous council consultations and stakeholder comments submitted to 1.2.1. The West Berkshire LCWIP will be date. developed over time, through an iterative process, improving active travel 1.3 LCWIP Methodology networks and aligning to corporate 1.3.1. The LCWIP was developed in objectives, transport and planning accordance with technical guidance policies. The council will focus on published by the Department for working in partnership with local Transport (DfT). Transport consultants stakeholders to identify priority areas WSP were appointed to undertake and locations for planning and providing the technical aspects of planning the infrastructure, to enable more cycling cycling and walking networks, and a and walking journeys to be made. subsequent assessment of individual 1.2.2. This iteration of the West Berkshire routes identified for improvement. LCWIP focuses on routes in the following Network planning and auditing tools areas: provided by the DfT were used for this purpose. • Newbury and Thatcham, with network planning and analysis 1.3.2. The LCWIP Technical Guidance sets out undertaken in 2020; and a recommended methodology for the • Eastern Area settlements – including development of LCWIPs. This involves Calcot, Pangbourne, Purley-on- six stages, summarised in Table 1.1. Thames and Theale – as part of

4 LCWIP [1] https://www.reading.gov.uk/council/policies-finance-and-legal-information/transport- schemes-and-projects/transport-strategy/ Table 1.1 – LCWIP Development Process Stage Name Description 1 Determining Scope Establish the geographical extent of the LCWIP, and arrangements for governing and preparing the plan. 2 Gathering Information Identify existing patterns of walking and cycling and potential new journeys. Review existing conditions and identify barriers to cycling and walking. Review related transport and land use policies and programmes. 3 Network Planning for Identify origin and destination points and cycle flows. Convert Cycling flows into a network of routes and determine the type of improvements required. 4 Network Planning for Identify key trip generators, core walking zones and Walking routes, audit existing provision and determine the type of improvements required. 5 Prioritising Prioritise improvements to develop a phased programme for Improvements future investment. 6 Integration and Integrate outputs into local planning and transport policies, Application strategies, and delivery plans. Source: LCWIP Technical Guidance for Local Authorities, DfT, April 2017

1.3.3. The key outputs of the LCWIP are: personalised travel planning, the European Union-funded EMPOWER • a network plan for walking and project and workplace cycle cycling, which identifies preferred challenge; and routes and core zones for further development; • Site meeting with Access and Disabilities User groups. • a prioritised programme of infrastructure improvements for Newbury and Thatcham area future investment; and • this report, which sets out the 1.4.2. Throughout development of the LCWIP process and underlying analysis West Berkshire Council engaged with carried out and draws together our ward members, local town and parish LCWIP outputs. councils and a range of local groups. Council officers provided updates 1.4 Engagement and consultation throughout the process to the Transport Advisory Group, Cycle Forum and Engagement to date Mid and West Berkshire Local Access Forum. Key events comprised: Eastern area • July 2020: workshop held online in 1.4.1. LCWIP engagement for the Eastern Area July 2020 to present and discuss the comprised: proposed LCWIP methodology. The • Reading Local Transport Plan workshop session discussed the key 4 consultation events, including issues and opportunities affecting meetings, public drop-in sessions cycling and walking in Newbury and responses to an online survey; and Thatcham, the important origins • The Reading Cycle Forum’s and destinations to use for network Requested Schemes List and planning and consideration of routes workshop; to be taken forward for development. • Feedback from other user groups; - A briefing note was issued in advance proving background • Feedback from initiatives, including information about LCWIPs, the

[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/908535/cycling-walking-infrastructure-technical-guidance-document.pdf LCWIP 5 proposed methodology and the FORMAL CONSULTATION programme. 1.4.4. Formal consultation on the LCWIP took - Attendees comprised West place between February and April Berkshire Council ward members 2021. The consultation took place and officers and representatives both on a public engagement platform from Mid and West Berkshire called Commonplace3 as part of a Local Access Forum, Newbury larger Active Travel consultation which Town Council, Thatcham Town included several other schemes. Council and West Berkshire Spokes. The minutes and online 1.4.5. Formal consultation on the LCWIP whiteboard link were then proposals for the Eastern Area took 4 forwarded to parish councils for place between May and August 2020 . comment. 1.5 REPORT STRUCTURE - Newbury Road Club were consulted via the Cycle Forum. 1.5.1. The report is structured as follows: • September 2020: presentation • Chapter 2: Integration with Active given to the Mid and West Berkshire Travel Policy; Local Access Forum members. This • Chapter 3: Geographical Scope of summarised the LCWIP process and West Berkshire LCWIP; described the shortlisted strategic • Chapter 4: Active Travel Context; cycle routes and key walking routes • Chapter 5: Network Planning for to be audited during the autumn; Cycling; and • Chapter 6: Network Planning for • January 2021: Update presentation Walking; by WSP in January 2021 to the West Berkshire Cycle Forum. This outlined • Chapter 7: Infrastructure the proposed strategic cycle routes Improvements; and and the supporting network of local • Chapter 8: Prioritisation, Integration and leisure routes. and Next Steps

1.4.3. The draft LCWIP was considered by the council’s Transport Advisory Group on the 28 January 2021. The report was approved by members with some amendments added.

[3] https://westberksactivestreets.commonplace.is 6 LCWIP [4] As a sub-strategy of the Reading Transport Strategy 2036 https://consult.reading.gov. uk/dens/reading-transport-strategy-2036/ 2. Integration with active travel policy

2.1 Alignment with national policy separate, segregated paths which may and strategy require the reallocation of road space from motorised traffic where necessary. 2.1.1. The LCWIP contributes towards 2.1.4. In accordance with paragraph 2.19 of many important national policies and the central government LCWIP technical strategies, including those relating guidance, we will work with the local to transport, public health, planning, equestrian community to ensure air quality and carbon. Key relevant proposals do not adversely affect documents are set out in Figure 2.1, with equestrian routes and, where required, commentary in Appendix A, describing will work together to improve equestrian how the LCWIP will help achieve local routes. policy and strategy. 2.1.2. ‘Gear Change: a bold vision for cycling 2.2 Alignment with local policy and and walking’ was published by DfT in strategy July 2020. This national policy document 2.2.1. The LCWIP also supports West presents a vision for how active travel Berkshire’s policy and strategy infrastructure, incorporating the latest documents, particularly those illustrated design principles, will be delivered in Figure 2.2. across the country. 2.2.2. It is a key means of achieving the 2.1.3. Cycle Infrastructure Design (Local council’s 2030 carbon neutral target Transport Note (LTN) 1/20) was outlined in the Environment Strategy. published alongside Gear Change. It supports the council’s priorities, All new government-funded highway including for communities, the economy, schemes are expected to be the environment, health and wellbeing, implemented in accordance with these housing and transport. Commentary is design principles. LTN 01/20 states provided in Appendix A, describing how that in areas with high pedestrian the LCWIP will contribute to achieving or cyclist flows, people cycling and these local policies and strategies. people walking should be provided with

Figure 2.1 – Key relevant national policies and strategies supported by the LCWIP Clean Air Strategy Cycling and Walking Everybody Active, Future of Mobility: (2019) Investment Strategy Every Day (2014) Urban Strategy (2019) (2017)

rotect ro te to et Future of Mobility: Urban Strategy

Everybody active, every day Moving Britain Ahead An evidence-based approach &\FOLQJDQG:DONLQJ,QYHVWPHQW to physical activity CLEAN AIR 6WUDWHJ\ STRATEGY 2019

:HZDQWWRPDNHF\FOLQJDQGZDONLQJWKHQDWXUDOFKRLFHVIRU VKRUWHUMRXUQH\VRUDVSDUWRIDORQJHUMRXUQH\

March 2019 1 October 2014

LCWIP 7 Gear Change: A bold National Planning The Inclusive Transport vision for cycling and Policy Framework Transport Strategy Decarbonisation Plan walking (2020) (2019) (2018) (in preparation)

Decarbonising Transport The Inclusive Transport Strategy: Setting the Challenge Gear Achieving Equal Access for Disabled People Change A bold vision National Planning Policy Framework for cycling and walking

July 2018 March 2020 February 2019 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Environment Strategy for West West Berkshire Core Strategy: West Berkshire Council Berkshire 2020-2030 2006-2026 (2012) and other Strategy 2019-2023 planning policy

West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006 - 2026) Development Plan Document West Berkshire Council Strategy Environment Strategy Adopted July 2012 2019 – 2023 2020-2030 West Berkshire Local Plan Building on our strengths

STRATEGY 2020-30 1

West Berkshire Joint Health West Berkshire Local West Berkshire’s Rights of Way and Wellbeing Strategy 2017- Transport Plan and supporting Improvement Plan: 2010-2020 2020 Active Travel Strategy (Under Review)

Local Transport Plan for West Berkshire 2011-2026

West Berkshire Joint

Health and Wellbeing Strategy

2017-2020 RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2010 - 2020

WEST BERKSHIRE COUNCIL

1 1

8 LCWIP 3. Active Travel Context

3.1 Existing travel patterns in Figure 3.2. The data shows a similar picture to the Newbury 3.1.1. Using the case study of the Newbury and Thatcham area, with walking and Thatcham area, existing data on and cycling comprising 26% travel patterns indicate that there is of usual commuting to work substantial scope to increase walking journeys by people who live and cycling levels in West Berkshire. Key and work in the Eastern Area. headlines are as follows: However, more than 60% of these • The 2011 census provides the most commuting journeys were made comprehensive overview of travel by car or van and many of these patterns by all modes, albeit for will be less than 5km in length, journeys to work only. distances which can easily be - Data for commuting journeys with walked or cycled by many people both the trip start and end points if conditions were suitable. in the Newbury and Thatcham - When commuting journeys area5 is shown in Figure 3.1. The by Eastern Area residents to data indicates that walking and all locations are considered, cycling comprised 30% of usual the proportion by cycling and commuting to work journeys by walking is lower. The 2011 census people who live and work in the indicates that 6% of Eastern Area Newbury and Thatcham area; residents walked to work, 3% however, commuting by car or cycled, whilst 71% drove by car van was the largest mode share. or van. Many of these trips made by car or van will be less than 5km • The highest peak period cycle in length, distances which can flows are recorded on the east-west easily be walked or cycled by corridors connecting Newbury to many people. Thatcham. West Berkshire Council conducts surveys three times a year - When commuting journeys in February, June and October at 17 by Newbury and Thatcham locations across the council area. residents to all locations are From the last summer counts prior considered, the proportion by to Covid-19 pandemic, 118 people cycling and walking is lower. were recorded cycling on London The 2011 census indicates that Road west of Lower Way, 100 people 12% of Newbury and Thatcham were recorded cycling on Kiln Road residents walked to work, 4% and 90 on Love Lane. However, this cycled, whilst 74% drove by car equates to a very small proportion of or van6. overall movement on these corridors. - Data for commuting journeys with both the trip start and end points in the Eastern Area7 is shown

[5] https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/wu03EW Based on Middle Layer Super Output Area references West Berkshire 012, 013, 014, 016, 017 019, 020 and 021. These cover the urban areas of Newbury and Thatcham and some surrounding settlements. To ensure the analysis focused on short-distance trips the Middle Layer Super Output areas covering large rural areas surrounding the towns were excluded. Note that the analysis therefore excludes journeys to the Colthrop employment area, which falls within West Berkshire 018, as this statistical area extends as far as Aldermaston and Bradfield [6] https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/qs701ew Analysis based on adults aged 16 to 74 in employment at time of census. Excludes people recorded as working from home. [7] https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/wu03EW Based on Middle Layer Super Output Area references West Berkshire 003, 004, 005, 006, 008 and 009. These cover the main Eastern Area settlements but, in some cases, extend to cover areas further west as well. LCWIP 9 Figure 3.1 – Method of Travel to Work by Residents who live and work in the Newbury and Thatcham area (2011 census)

Figure 3.1 – Method of Travel to Work by Residents who live and work in the Newbury and 2% Figure 3.1 – MethodThatcham of Travel area to (2011Work census) by Residents who live and work in the Newbury and Thatcham area (2011 census) 6% 7% 2%

7% 6% Driving a car or van 7% On foot

Passenger in a car or 7% Driving a car or van 55% van BicycleOn foot 23% Bus,Passenger minibus in ora car coach or 55% van OtherBicycle modes 23% Bus, minibus or coach

Other modes

Figure 3.2 - Method of Travel to Work by Residents who live and work in the Eastern Area Figure 3.2 - Method(2011 of Travelcensus) to Work by Residents who live and work in the Eastern Area (2011 census) Figure 3.2 - Method of Travel to Work by Residents who live and work in the Eastern Area 1% (2011 census) 3% 4%

6% 1% 3% 4% Driving a car or van 6% On foot Passenger in a car or van 23% Driving a car or van Bicycle On foot Bus, minibus or coach 63% Passenger in a car or van 23% Other modes Bicycle Bus, minibus or coach 63% Other modes

3.2 Factors influencing cycling and • Other major roads with high traffic walking journeys volumes and a limited number of safe crossing opportunities 3.2.1. Geographical features can discourage for people walking and cycling or prevent people from making cycling (including the A4 corridor); and walking journeys. These tend to be • Limited opportunities to cross rivers linear features in the N urban environment, N NF PN (River Thames, River KennetP and P often man-made,Proect Nowhich have limited r e No P anary et erkire oncil Holy Brook), the Kennet and AvonPage o opportunities to people cycling and Canal and railway lines. walking to cross. N N NF PN P P Proect No r e No P anary 3.2.2. The main linearet physicalerkire oncil barriers to 3.2.3. The main barriers to movement inPage the o active travel movement in the Eastern Newbury and Thatcham area (shown in Area are: Figure 3.3) are: • The M4 motorway, which has limited • The A339 dual carriageway: safe crossing opportunities for there are limited safe crossing people cycling and walking between opportunities for people walking and Theale, Calcot and the Greater cycling; Reading area; • Robin Hood Roundabout (A339 / A4 junction): the current highway

10 LCWIP arrangement and its limited safe 3.2.4. The street layout of urban areas means crossing opportunities present a that some areas have dense networks of barrier to pedestrian and cycle routes for cycling and walking, whereas movements between Newbury town in others the network is more disjointed, centre and areas to the north and which can result in less direct journeys. east. People cycling and walking One example of a missing link is the are required to either use subways current absence of a direct north-south or deviate substantially from the connection from Newbury Railway most direct routes to reach surface- Station to Newbury town centre. This is level signal crossings. There are intended to be addressed as part of the design and personal security issues Market Street regeneration scheme. associated with the subways, 3.2.5. Hilliness is another important factor including the lack of natural which influences walking and cycling surveillance (overlooking), which can trips. While Newbury and Thatcham deter many people from walking or town centres are situated within a valley, cycling8 ; the gradients encountered to access • Other roads with high traffic volumes the town centres from the residential and a limited number of safe suburbs and surrounding settlements crossing points, or where crossing are likely to be an important factor for points do not connect to safe cycling many potential cycling and walking routes; and trips. The take-up of e-bikes, e-cargo • Limited opportunities to cross the bikes, and use of e-scooters subject rivers, canal and the railway line. to government authorisation, offers a means of overcoming gradient issues.

Figure 3.3 – Key Physical Barriers to Cycling and Walking in Newbury and Thatcham

THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED AND ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED

Legend

Signal or zebra crossing Bridge or Underpass (Step-Free) ± Bridge or Underpass (non Step- Free) Settlement Boundaries Barriers Primary Road, A/B Road Watercourses (River Lambourn & River Kennet) and Kennet & Avon B4494 B4009 Canal

i Ridgeline v

e r L am b ourn A34

A339

R i ve r L a m b ou rn A4 NEWBURY Copyright R ive THATCHAM This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey r ennet material with the permission of Ordnance Survey K on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

© Crown copyright B3421 M B3421 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown oo Jubilee r copyright and may lead to prosecution or D Lake civil proceedings. i t c h Contains Ordnance Survey data. Long Lake © Crown copyright and database right 2021 x d m s . r e i r r a B

_ Kenn 1 et and 0 Avon Ca 0 nal - C B W - 9 9 9

7 Revision Details By Date Suffix 6 0

0 Check 7 \ x d

M Drawing Status \ S I G \ g

n FINAL i

n R

n i

a v l er

P Job Title

t K r en o n

s p e

n t a r WEST BERKSHIRE T

P T \

P LOCAL CYCLING AND WALKING I W

0 INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN \ P I W C L

e r

i Drawing Title k s h r e B A343 s t STRATEGIC PHYSICAL e W - 0

2 BARRIERS TO 9 1 -

X CYCLING & WALKING X X X X X X -

C Scale at A3 B

W 1:25,000 - m

a Drawn h

g UKCDS008 n k i o Stage 1 check Stage 2 check Originated Date W

9 JP XX JP 11/08/2020 9 9 7 6 0 0 7 \ 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 x 9 7 6 0

0 Metres 7 \ s t c e j o r P \ a t a d

l a r t n c e \ m c o . p

u B4640 o r g

s p Drawing Number w k . u \

\ 70067999-WBC-001_Barriers_RevA

: h t a P Note: controlled crossing is a collective term referring to signal crossings and zebra crossings.

[8] https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2017-09/active-travel-design-guidance. pdf. Active Travel (Wales) Design Guidance notes that subways can deter walking through LCWIP 11 perceptions (real and perceived) of crime and personal safety. 3.3 Potential for growth in cycling segregation comprises wands either and walking side of junctions and Orcas (low- level rubber features attached to the 3.3.1. The DfT funded research to understand road surface); the potential levels of cycling growth • Active Travel Fund phase 2 under different scenarios. The proposals: In January 2021, West 9 Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) is an Berkshire Council consulted on a interactive website map which forecasts series of further measures to enable which travel to work and school trips more cycling and walking journeys. could most easily switch to cycling. The The proposed schemes were: (1) forecasts are based on factors such as permanent cycle tracks along a trip distance and topography, and the section of the A4 at Crown Mead, potential contribution of e-bikes. The Thatcham; (2) cycle tracks along a scenarios are based on journey to work section of the A4 Western Avenue; data from the 2011 census and 2011 (3) a school streets pilot in Calcot; school census data respectively. and, (4) ‘quietway’ proposals to 3.3.2. The PCT indicates that 22-27% of prioritise cycling and walking on commuting trips and between 35-50% Lawrence’s Lane, Thatcham and of school trips would be cycled by Deadman’s Lane, Theale; Newbury and Thatcham residents if • Hampstead Norreys to Hermitage Dutch levels of cycling were attained. Path Phase 1: The council worked These forecasts consider current trip with West Berkshire Spokes to distances and topography and vary by plan and construct a new off- neighbourhood. road connection between the two 3.3.3. In terms of forecasting the potential villages along the former railway growth in walking, there is currently no alignment. The unbound, all- publicly available equivalent to the PCT weather surface path opened in for walking journeys. 2020, having secured funding from Highways England. Further phases 3.4 Cycling and walking are intended to connect to Newbury infrastructure investment and settlements to the north of Hampstead Norreys; 3.4.1. The following schemes to develop • Kennet & Avon Canal Towpath and enhance the cycling and walking Upgrades: Works between the networks have been progressed in A339 and Hambridge Road were recent years: completed in September 2020, with • A4 upgrades (Newbury & widening in places and surfacing Thatcham): Funded by the Thames upgrades throughout. Further east, Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise works to the section east of Colthrop Partnership, this scheme widened and west of Midgham Lock were footways, introduced on-carriageway completed in Autumn 2020, funded cycle lanes, upgraded crossings and in partnership by the Canal and redesigned side road junctions; River Trust, Englefield Charitable • Active Travel Fund phase 1 Trust, the Greenham Common schemes: In summer 2020, West Trust, Thatcham Town Council, Berkshire Council was awarded West Berkshire Council and West £124,000 to provide enhanced Berkshire Spokes; cycling and walking infrastructure • King’s Road Link Road: This as part of its Covid-19 response. highway scheme will provide a new A significant part of the fund was route for through traffic between used to introduce light segregation Sainsbury’s and the Boundary along the A4 between Colthrop and Road junction. Its delivery is Thatcham to enforce mandatory related to planning permissions cycle lanes and protect people for development which will border cycling from motor traffic. The light the new route. On completion, the

[9 ] 12 LCWIP https://www.pct.bike/ parallel section of King’s Road will 3.5 LCWIP Objectives no longer be used by high volumes of traffic, making it more conducive 3.5.1. Based on the objectives in the for cycling and walking; government’s Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, the objectives of • Newbury Town Centre Wayfinding: the West Berkshire Council LCWIP are This scheme introduced a to: comprehensive system of pedestrian signage and wayfinding across the • Increase cycling activity, by doubling town centre, comprising fingerposts the number of cycling stages made and ‘monolith’ map boards; and by 2025; • Newbury Railway Station Cycle • Reduce the rate of cyclists killed Hubs: The Cycle Hub on the south or seriously injured on the district’s side (platform 1) is complete, with roads; the second hub for the north side • Increase walking activity, in terms of (platform 2) to be completed at walking stages per person; and the same time as the Market Street • Increase the percentage of children development. usually walking and cycling to school. In addition, the Newbury Town Centre Masterplan10 envisages investment in the streets and market square, and improvements to cycling and walking infrastructure.

[10] https://www.newburytowncentremasterplan.co.uk/ LCWIP 13 4 Network planning for cycling

4.1 Methodology 4.1.2. For this iteration of the LCWIP, a selected number of strategic corridors were 4.1.1. Figure 4.1 summarises the key steps for taken forward for further development. network planning for cycling. These are Additional corridors will be developed described in the following paragraphs as resources allow. below.

Figure 4.1 – Process for Network Planning for Cycling

Identify origins and destinations

Identify cycle routes connecting origins and destinations

Identify strategic cycling corridors

Map prioritised strategic cycling corridors to most direct existing routes

Undertake cycle route audits

Identify key improvements

4.2 Origins and destinations journey origins and destinations. Significant journey origins and 4.2.1. The LCWIP technical guidance states destinations were mapped as set out in that identifying demand for a planned the sections below. network of cycle routes should start by mapping the main journey origin Journey origins and destination points across the plan 4.2.3. The LCWIP technical guidance notes area. Straight line connections (known that trips usually originate from the main as desire lines) should then be plotted residential areas. The network planning between the origins and destinations. process took account of potential cycle Directness is an important factor demand from both existing and planned influencing the suitability of cycle routes, future residential areas. Existing meaning that corridors connecting residential areas were represented origins and destinations are shown as by geographical areas created by straight-line routes. These are mapped the Office for National Statistics with to the highway network later in the populations between 1,000 and 3,000 at process. the time of the 2011 census (known as 4.2.2. The focus of the LCWIP is on enhancing lower-layer super output areas11) . Each cycling connections between important output area has its own node, known as

[11] https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/ 14 LCWIP censusgeography#super-output-area-soa a population-weighted centroid12 . This sites (which will not be reflected in the represents where most people live in an census 2011 data). The strategic sites output area. represent: Eastern Area • Strategic sites allocated in the West Berkshire Core Strategy13 4.2.4. The residential areas within West (Sandleford Park and Newbury Berkshire included in the Reading Racecourse) and the large LCWIP are shown in green on Figure unallocated site granted on appeal 4.2. This includes Calcot, Pangbourne, (North Newbury); and Purley-on-Thames and Theale. Future residential developments identified • Potentially developable sites in the Reading Local Plan and in the identified by West Berkshire’s emerging local plans for West Berkshire Housing and Economic Land and Wokingham were considered as Availability Assessment14. part of the cycling and walking network planning. The relevant sites are shown in 4.2.6. The origins shown in Figure 4.4 were Figure 4.3. also used for the network planning for walking (described in chapter 5). Newbury and Thatcham Destinations 4.2.5. Figure 4.4 illustrates the residential origins used for the LCWIP network 4.2.7. The network planning was based on a planning, covering established range of destinations, including those residential areas and major strategic with high levels of trip generation. These are summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 – Destination Categories used in LCWIP cycle network planning Newbury and Thatcham Eastern Area (Reading LCWIP) • Primary schools, secondary schools and • Further and Higher Education Newbury College establishments • Key employment areas • Secondary schools • Town centres and other major retail sites • Areas of high employment • Major healthcare sites (West Berkshire • Major Local and District Centres Community Hospital) • Transport interchanges, including major • Transport interchanges (railway and bus bus stops stations) • Indicative leisure routes connecting into the surrounding countryside

4.2.8. The destinations used in the network planning for the Eastern Area are shown in Figure 4.3 and for Newbury and Thatcham shown in Figure 4.5. The destinations within the urban areas were also used to form the basis for the walking network planning (chapter 5).

[12] https://data.gov.uk/dataset/2c5695f2-39d0-457f-a03c-1f4d3617bb48/population- weighted-centroids-guidance [13] https://info.westberks.gov.uk/corestrategy [14] https://info.westberks.gov.uk/helaa. The Housing & Economic Land Availability Assessment makes a preliminary technical assessment of the suitability and potential of sites. It does not allocate sites for development or add weight to the site for the purpose of planning application decision-making. The allocation of future sites for development will only take place through the statutory plan-making process (eg Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plans) which undergo public consultation and independent examination. LCWIP 15 Figure 4.2 – Origins for Cycle Network Planning in the EasternFigure 4.2 – Origins for Cycle Network Area - Existing residential areas

16 LCWIP y r a h n g u u o o r

o y t i

r o h a t h u g s

n l i a c o o S h g e u r i o r h a o s e r r

e g

a n i e

I t r s a A e

e P ¯ Figure 4.3 – Origins and Destinations for Network Planning in the EasternFigure 4.3 – Origins and Destinations for Network destinations Area - Future residential sites and current and future key

LCWIP 17 0 2 x 0 G i f f 2 u / t S g N 7 c c I u 0 i i n / n i r e 0 b e 6 N g g K o n o 0 l R 1 a t D e e s 0 n D a L O t t A Y , E t C n e t d L i

1 F a e e S s i a

L t A e r a r a D N e – Y U E p y t t d

t P l y L O & P i k

s t s t p S i E

s s h l e s i c

r m i

N y i R m e 0 t

e W v e D n B d a g e i g I r h

d d

O e e b t e N g

C v e l u E n s L i 8 n l e n r e e n r p 0 c u a c a A e d L D S s b H n t t

l a e u

b S i 2 J P o y i s i O o o a t A E i o R

y ' B w r S a 0 D r i

g l W t _

a 0 a s l S u S c e S o

H o d 2 s t N E

c a c a 3 r p g i n a

d c t n

n p n U t S i n a e U o c e n n 0 0 0 j

C a

o o o K d e h N n n o o l l l O r i 0 0 a A n o t t A v i o n S l r u E N l l g I - H T s i s t

a i

i n 6 0 s a

d A L t e r n M o t e n N B l E n e r R C a a m e

, e n

s t u g r i r c u e v d . a T a n C a G O t p v B O r G Y p l e l n I n

a n

o s e r a N i y y g I 0 E h c e N e t f A s e t r e * I O a t o S W H I p u f a a e o

o t

U g g g r i l o -

o B M

b N t s f 0 n d D M r

l n d 3 N

B t p R E i 9

c L k m l n a

I n o e e o 0

n p t t : F

y n i t t

9 o S s i o R u r G 4 n y y r i v e r a

A o n L c l l 9 o f o h e c M

t e a a d O o O i l l 1 T d N o i

v e l X

I i e m e P o e 7 c d c t l

T I r r r s y d i P d i e d s i t t a a X 6 h c d D o 2 u C d p e i i -

m e r t r D S a W R 0 i g u g o n t t

s t m i S m e e s S c S S 1 i n o f e r N

0 A o d e s m e a 0 l n U l i r Y r i e e u n n

9 e A t e 7 E t a g o u w t t t t E 0 o t l R n P A e d y r 0 o

p c e

t e e s h 2 T h j .

S t n n C a a r e r e o D a p r m t t t C r n S r m i v e

r g E g e e T e s . r r u i i e

s e e R I a t t e o o l W e X l m p c e r s g e S e h S O i H i

I t n y r y r f h R e d A u n L a

t T f d i p A s P e E c o s i s i d t C d i S t r S e C C S t P o L P o M a C F t d p

m p H e h K l r f d a n e W t t O u s k t s T i i 3 e A o i a s e U O c o c o 0 D i

y S N

T t

f w n t r

p i s h c h e c n n t l d n h o e g g e g C a a c l n g o a a n o J P i t g h i w w g n n n i n

h r i i t i r i i 1 n r e i m r a o o s i o e e p T y u t ! ( " ) i ! . r r l O g r e

e w w y w w t l b t s v i p a n i e

a b a p a a C C a a a g r e o r

r v i n

o r L c a t h L n D S R C J o D c o © D c i U S o m T © C D S t

s t e w n t h o n t e u l r

e r y d n s e o l r m ' e o a r m m K i r e t g a a n b s s a

s t

T n t e F e m

e F s r l W

n M e t

h g r ± a r a s e e o n r r e u d r m s

g a l c k u o s i o h s e n G t K e w f G a l

f n t o

s f O e u k o a e F o a B u c r e s

o a H l . e o w D

C l

e W e r A B r i s e w H l e n

P r k e t o

t i

T a d u e t l n r n o i i d i s c o d e t o i a

s P a L V n m b C a H c a n e d e

r e s S t r n r m r e o c o n h n s t i s e s ' G e u a t s h o c L a t e u

e l

h F c l p t m e r e y u o e k t g g l n f r k W o p i r n i a t

r m r m

r G c H t M i e f r l i x y a e u a i ( o r C r o a W r

P a L o l F e F a n b h

s e m e a ! . s t t B l F n r m e u g p s p n o n i r m a o o M a a l e o p i t l l a e C h F t t i c l m c k l l i F e d o U a i l s o r m H v u n r c C e d

H a

r e e p o o B y l F

e l p t

d o p

e f

s e g e g l n t f a g r e

a m n g e a n e n o r s p

i t m r o d a e a t s a o n u f e d o B r i s s o t k o c h s t

n e t o a h a i p e a y l e n e o H a

s k h m l g o e l L G C T B r a T r l k M o o o

b d

d e C r m r . m t m S e P l a B e e o i n M a - r e

e m a r o b g h o i e L s a n g t

F r m

e C n

m i C a e W a T i t e m o

h t l t n

o k t t i s e r r k L g n e p o r m T o h a u a i a

e C e h t a r o o c y C p W T m F S t a r F o m H - t " ) p l r m l o l s n t a r m l u U l a s i o u

F a s i r

t t r m e H F d n s e n

a a s o ! . r y i s s e t o o p s s o n e s F d c n e t u s o p

c e r t d n

e g i e a

A s o ' s g

a U u a e c e d r m r t W e r s H a i y e

a t H r

l t h t a g e t i t s e o L n o s e t n y r l b F

l o i G u

d l u a o a o g C u S k e d

h i

y b l o C l T o t t l o e l n e l p l l i g W I i s e a i e t

! ( H O g a

H l G o H i

u . h u d o d o s e c i s e H M s o o a o l o p g s s r r s i l r t ' d v e r H L o l p l ! ( e t l

h e o e a i e S h t m b A t s e p g C e O o

s H

a o d u a a

n r m a d t e

f e t e r o n t C a t W ! ( n c h g e g o o v e u H o F S c h

r m

a a a T l n A l C t r n i C a ! . r m t h L a

p w o

i n t F a o c

t i r m e c n C n i F i e y C n a h l A M e s e v a l l k y r m l e F u m e d o t w e a C a e p

l o d a H ! ( o t F l

o )

F g r k f s i n a p r h s y a m o

r m C l d t V o n e

! ( n t B r o P a a a o d n c o o e a T o h F l n o E r d s e m b

C k

m l a P o W g l o a

A p

f o i & a h ! ( m p y d

d t o t r r o r n w t i o o r C g

H r m o l o o u ! ( t i s t o a n o C C h i p n e C b T F

h W T

s e a r e W t p u i u h m o o t u r o

r m t p s r b H s t

e a o

! ( l o h e

n F e f e

a e d

n g h ! ( i d W h v n n t l e

e e t ! ( T u o e a f i s h

K s e o h N d s o *

C u A ! ( x R r o

o A n e d e H F l v o k e

i h o v a T d e R L

A C

e o l k e i g o e d a b n n

n L o ! . W e

J u a

L k d t r m

t r o a a n a e F e r o e e n l r e ! ( n n C ! ( G r r s b e e s e s s e e d r ' u l

G K r l ! ( u d

e o a a t o e A l H b s e G H r r m

p P e o

k e a n o e a F w C

S t g y m e l C o l a g e t d s h o n r t n i s h o s e w T A o H

i h

u c A C

d t

i s e a l n o m p B o u o D w H S t r o C o P u o r m e

o s e H d a

! ( r g M u F w s o a o t r r ' r m n t H e e B o a a

r m o n r d w F s e a C o M s h e n o u i F t s L o m F r E r e a c k r c k

t e i c k i r y e H i o s e t e n g r s m S l r m w w

w n w u n s n e a o a n r t n e o n o a r n v e t C e F r m e e h L C s a e L a o H

M a s e a H

T a H e l B a H u C s h n l F

e i i

l o l o W F n H t a H P h n k

H v e m o e s e n n r a h a p a m o T h C o d B n m y r m C e r m s

r y a S m a e a r n e F r y ' r s e o r y F

u e r

u t n u e C G d d c u d b o g l n c o n t 0 A l d e B w i 0 f S e ! ( c e ! ( S a r m B r i

a N s e y m o a e R u r m F D h s e

n y a r T u u r F M o o

o s e u " ) e b u H b g m o s h n d r y r a H r

d L o A r a m s

r a n m e r y c h g e a s e G u a

v u a m o n p i M h a ! (

b o r i y f R o L n c k L C r m C

m e A d S p r m a s e e P e a e a d F u h

r ! ( o F o ! ( H T d o r t s G H e r m n r u w n w l R a o i o h i d o t k e F l k g C 1 i o a n

a k t 2 s o H g c n r y A s h i e n B u a r u W g n ! ( s b a B n n P l v y B u t I d w t o l w w e A d o Y o e o t n e m a i ! ( t C e e e g l R h d w F m w ! ( d a b ! (

! . t s i e o S e t a w U d d s t o a C N N S t o o ! ( a C B o o S h s E W e r y e W d

d u g W n h b a s i l t a l t g w E l i i o e H H 0 m ! ( A C N N

d a l h n n " ) e ! ( h ! ( r d i r t f o w o n r m o ! ( f e t o a e i e N m t l F h e d y m w t n p i W n o e S o C d S a t C N r e ! . o g o s e n i W u ! ( s m o l ! ( o n s l ' e e l t H n ! ( i t r e o t " ) S n H r e r m ! ( D r y a s i e F B a r h t r r m C e o a

n r F H

! ( n s e s

u ! ( e u o d r m

o b K n a r a H e l d

F t m a ! (

g o u s e a r d e a d o a l

u e e e n L v o o h s t i W C L ! ( o r A B e a H e R iv W C

R m r m s n a w e m F

m e o d r o r o t p n t a C e

t ! ( a o S s a k l S p ! ( r m r y s l y b s h a u e a m a s e e W b r F g a F

u n

s t d w o o o e d r i l e W e e n H H h s h e

r s e c h H O N t g

C a T u a n n s d a e a o o A t n y e t n h W H C B a k o u e T m o l a o w C e

r m a r l O R l B e a i n G F n H

n s J a r o e 0 n 0 m n 0 o C k i

d x m . s n i g i r O _ 3 0 0 - C B W - 9 9 9 7 6 0 0 7 \ d x M \ S I G \ g n i n n a l P t r o p s n a r T P T \ P I W 3 0 \ P I W C L e r i h s k r e B t s e W - 0 2 9 1 - X X X X X X X - C B W - m a h g n i k o W - 9 9 9 7 6 0 0 7 \ x x 9 7 6 0 0 7 \ s t c e j o r P \ a t a D l a r t n e C \ m o c . p u o r g p s w . k u \ \ : h t a P Figure 4.4 – Origins for Network Planning in Newbury and Thatcham Planning in Newbury and Thatcham Figure 4.4 – Origins for Network

18 LCWIP � � � Ζ ) Κ Η Η � � 5 Ω Υ Υ 0 � + � � Χ Χ � � � Γ 0 Γ Γ � − ς � � Τ Τ 4 Χ & � . & # 1 ∃ # # ; ∋ Γ ς � � Ξ ( . Χ 5 Ν Ν � . Γ # Κ Κ & 0 7 ∋ ; 4 � Χ Χ . 1 2 [ Μ � ς ς ∋ � Ε � g 0 Γ Υ Α 4 5 � [ 9 Γ ∃ & Γ Γ Ξ + Π ϑ � � � Υ Γ n 1 Τ ς % 0 Θ � i . ∋ Υ Ξ Υ Κ Ω Φ l Τ 0 4 4 Χ Χ Τ ς � # . Γ & Υ ∗ � � 5 ς Γ � Π Π Ω & , 2 Χ � c � Θ Κ Γ Γ # Χ ∋ 4 [ � ∃ [ Π Γ Γ & � Τ 5 Ψ Θ Τ Π Τ Τ Κ y 1 ∗ � � Κ Ρ 5 5 Κ Τ Τ � Θ Ε Γ ∋ Θ Υ ς + 0 Ι � � ς ς ς Χ c Υ ς 5 Κ Τ # # Π Υ 7 ς � 7 Γ � Τ & Π Ε Γ . � Λ � � � Γ ϑ Χ − Χ % Φ Π Π � 6 Π 1 ς ς 5 Θ Π Χ # ∋ Κ e 0 Π & Ι � 6 Κ ς Χ � Π Υ � Π Υ Γ Γ � r 0 # Π Π Φ Χ Α Τ ∃ ∋ / Κ Π 4 � Γ Τ # � � Γ � Π ς Τ � Ω � Ε Ω 6 Τ Φ Τ 1 Γ Γ � Ι % % % ; + ς Τ 1 ) � Υ Γ Θ � � 6 Υ Γ Χ Π Θ � 0 0 ∋ Κ Γ � Κ # ς 0 � 5 Υ Γ Η i Η Η � + 1 Χ Τ ∗ Ο Ο + ς Γ � � � � Χ Η � + Θ Θ 7 Γ Γ ∃ / 0 ∆ 0 / Η � � e Τ [ [ ∋ Π � � � Φ ∃ � Χ Τ Τ 1 1 % Γ l Κ Ο + Χ Θ Π & ∋ Ρ ς � ς ς ς � ( � ς � Π � � � Ε Μ 6 5 � � Θ Θ ∃ [ � Θ ) Θ 4 Ι t Π Τ ς ς Ν Ν Γ � Χ Τ Π / Θ . Π Π Π Γ Θ 1 Η ϑ 5 Θ Φ + ς Γ 0 Υ Κ 6 � Κ Φ Κ � Π : 9 n Ξ Ν Ω Ω � 5 � + Ρ Ρ Ε 6 � ς Ν Ν Γ Θ � � Γ ς Γ 2 Τ Υ r & Φ Γ Κ : Φ Κ Χ Φ Ε � [ a � Θ % Ω � � Χ Τ ς 9 5 4 Ε Γ Χ Τ 1 1 t Χ o ∋ Ο Ο Ω Π % % ς Ο 5 Ο ς � Γ 5 ϑ ς 0 � � Χ Ε Γ Π r # Γ Τ � Κ � � Γ Χ 7 Φ Χ Ι Τ Τ Ν Π � ; Ω Γ � Ε ∋ Γ Υ ∋ ς ∋ ∋ Γ i Χ 4 Θ � o ς Τ 2 Θ Π Ν Ρ Π Ε � ς � � � Ψ & ς # Τ Φ [ � Τ Θ Θ � 6 r Ε Γ Ρ ς Ν Υ � ϑ ϑ � Λ Λ 5 � & � Ψ Υ Κ % Θ r [ ς Υ Ω [ Χ Ρ % � 6 Π Γ ∋ � � Ψ Ψ Τ Ι Τ Ι � Ω + Γ Χ Υ � Κ Κ � ς Γ Χ Χ Υ 4 9 Θ Χ Ν Χ o Γ 5 Ν Ε Γ Γ Γ Γ Ω Φ Γ Ο Ρ ∗ Τ � ϑ Υ Κ Ι Κ . Θ Θ + m 4 � � Π ς � Η Π ∆ [ Τ [ Τ ϑ Γ c � 6 Ω Π . Χ � Η ς Κ Φ + 6 / − 5 ∃ ∋ ∗ − 4 / 6 % Φ ( ς Τ ∗ ς Φ Φ Γ Ρ Ρ � � 9 ϑ Ο Ν Τ Φ Η Π Χ Γ 1 ς 6 ς Θ Θ Υ Ξ Κ Ω � Κ ς Κ # Γ Θ Κ Χ Υ Γ Ε Μ 1 Ε Ε & Κ � � 0 � Χ [ � 6 � 0 # 5 � � ς � Η Ψ Γ ς Τ � � � Τ � Ν + � Ρ Υ ϑ ϑ Ε Γ ς Π Π Ν & � Π Θ Φ ϑ Γ % Ι Ι Ι Γ Χ Χ Ε Ν Π Ι Θ � , 2 Χ Χ Π Θ Κ ς Κ Ι ϑ Ψ Ψ Π Π Π Π Κ � Τ ϑ Κ Κ ς � Κ Π Κ Κ Τ Γ Ο � Θ Χ Θ Υ Κ Θ Γ Ρ Γ ∗ � [ Τ 6 ς Ω � � � � � � � � Τ Τ Κ 1 Ν Ι Γ � Γ � � Ψ Ψ Ψ Ψ � [ Τ λ κ λ µ ς Ν ∆ ς Υ Ρ Ξ Κ Π Χ Ι Χ Κ � Γ Χ Χ Χ Χ ∆ % Ρ % Χ Χ . Χ Τ Τ Θ Τ Τ Γ � Θ Ξ Κ Π � Ε ς ϑ . ς Π & & 5 % & & , Θ 4 ‹ % Ε Κ Ε Θ 7 ‹ 5 Θ Ο 6 5 Γ Γ Μ Υ Τ Π Π Υ Φ Ω Γ Χ Θ Γ Γ Γ Π ς Υ Θ 2 Τ Γ Υ Γ � Γ Ω 5 ∗ Ε ς Τ ∆ Ω Γ Θ Υ Ν # Θ ) ς Υ Ο ∗ ς Γ Κ ∗ Θ Φ Ο Υ . Γ Τ Π 9 � Ε Γ λ Π Υ Χ Υ Γ Ο ϑ Υ Χ Τ Ω Ν Γ Γ ( Ε Ρ Ν Τ Χ Θ Κ Μ Γ Π [ Ν Κ Θ ( ς Ρ Ε ) Τ ∗ / Τ � ς Κ Θ % Χ 9 Μ Ω Θ Τ Τ . Τ Γ Π ϑ ∆ Γ Χ ∃ Ν Υ ς Χ Ν Γ Ο Γ Ω 2 Ρ Ο Τ Ν Θ Ι Τ / Θ Χ Ρ Χ Μ % Χ ς ϑ ( Ν ς Ε Ν � ( 7 Κ Θ Ο Υ Ω Τ ∗ % Φ Χ � ∃ Θ [ ( � Θ ς Γ Γ Η Ν Η Ι Γ Π ς Ι Κ Υ Τ Ρ Ι Ο Γ Χ Π Χ Ο Τ Γ Π ς Τ ϑ Θ Χ ς Υ Χ ∃ Π Ω ς Χ Γ ς Φ Θ Ν Θ Ε Τ Υ Υ ς Χ ϑ Χ Θ Θ ∗ Γ [ Π Γ Χ Ρ Γ Θ Μ Θ ∃ Γ . Ν Ο Ι Ν Ν % Ν 6 / Χ Γ � Τ Θ Ο Θ % ∆ Φ � � 2 Τ Τ ∃ 5 Γ Γ Θ Ο Γ / Θ Τ � Τ Χ Ο Γ Γ ∆ Θ Ο ϑ Κ . Τ Θ Τ ( ς � % Γ Ι Ν Ο % 6 Χ Γ Χ Κ 9 Γ ϑ Ο ς ς � Θ Κ Τ � ς ( . Ι Ι � Γ 6 ϑ Θ Γ Γ Θ % Υ Κ ϑ Τ Ρ % Υ 9 6 5 ( Ρ Θ Τ 7 % Ν Π Ν Κ Ο Θ Γ Τ ς Τ ∗ Φ [ Γ Φ Ο � Χ Κ Χ Τ Τ Τ Ρ Θ Υ Υ Υ Ο Τ ( Φ ς Χ Τ Τ � Ρ Θ Τ Γ Γ Π ( Γ Υ Χ Χ � 7 Ι ς Μ Ω Ο ( 9 Τ Γ Χ Χ ∗ 5 Χ � Γ ς Χ Ι ς . Υ [ Τ 9 � Ν Θ ( Ν Ω � Θ Φ Ι Ν % Θ [ Θ Γ Ν Γ Π Γ Γ Γ Ν Ν Κ 1 Ν ∗ λ µ ) ∆ ∗ ς Γ Κ Υ Υ Ι Θ Γ Θ Φ ϑ Ω Ω Φ Υ Ο Κ ∗ Υ Θ Θ Θ Θ Ρ Υ Θ ς Υ Υ Τ Τ ϑ . Ν � Θ Φ ∗ ∗ Ν % Ν Γ � Γ Γ Χ Ν Θ 5 � � Γ ς % Υ Ι Γ 1 Θ ∗ Ο Ι Χ � Ω Χ Τ Π ϑ ς Χ Γ Θ ς ς Χ Γ Τ y Γ 9 Ε ς ϑ Θ r Ι ( Γ Ξ ∗ 5 Ο Θ 6 Τ Χ Π % # n ς Τ Ο % Χ ς � � Τ � Θ o ς Θ Ψ ( Χ Ο � e Π % Τ Γ % l ( Κ [ m Γ Γ � Ν Χ Ν Ξ Ν Ο k Υ [ Τ ( Φ Θ m % Γ Ω c � Γ Χ Ν Χ ( Γ Μ Φ Θ Ν o Κ ( Τ Θ Ι ϑ Χ Υ Τ Χ Τ Ο Χ 8 / Τ ς Φ ∃ Γ 2 ς Ο Χ Θ Π ∆ Θ Χ Φ ( Θ # Θ � � Φ Ο ϑ % Θ Τ Γ 9 Χ Μ Θ Ο Θ Ι ∗ Η ϑ Θ Χ Π ς Ο 9 Τ % ς � Ο Θ Τ Θ % Θ Θ Τ Ρ � � ϑ Χ Θ % % % Τ 6 6 ( ς � � � Υ Ρ # Γ Θ Τ Ο 9 ς Τ ∗ Υ ς Χ Γ Γ ( 6 �

9 Π Φ Ν Φ Ν Π Π ϑ Χ Γ Θ

Γ Ω Υ Π � � Υ ϑ − Θ �

Χ Ω Ζ # 4 � Θ � Τ Θ # % Φ � � Γ Γ ( ∗ Ν Γ

Ξ ϑ Π Μ Θ Κ 6 Θ Χ Γ 4 Φ Ξ % . Γ Γ � Θ Ν

# Μ Κ Ι Θ Γ Χ ∆ Π Φ Π . Ω Θ

Π 9 Γ , � Ο . Φ Χ ς Τ Τ Χ Χ ς Χ ( Γ Π Γ Τ Γ Ν

Π Γ %

Π ) Π Γ Γ Τ Γ Γ Υ Γ Υ � Φ Υ Ω

Τ − Ν Τ ) Ν Ω Θ � Γ Χ ς Γ Χ Θ ∗ Γ Υ ) ∆ Γ � � Τ ∗ Ρ � Γ 2 � � Θ � Μ Θ Γ Π ς Χ Γ Γ % Ψ 5 Ο Τ Ι % Θ 6 ϑ Χ Ι � Φ ς ς Π Υ Γ [ Π Ν Ψ Κ Θ Θ Ν Υ Κ # Θ Ρ ς Θ

Ω ϑ % Γ ∃ Χ Ε Θ Ο ∗ Υ ς ς Π

Ω Κ Ω ∗ 5 Τ & Ψ Θ 2 Ο

Θ Θ Τ Γ Θ ∗ Φ Χ � Ι

Τ / Ψ ( Υ Χ Ο � � � Θ � Θ ς Τ Τ Τ ς Π Ο Χ ∃ Γ Γ Θ Τ Χ Γ ( ϑ Ψ Χ % Τ Υ / Υ Θ � Κ ( Γ Ω ς . Μ Γ Μ ( Υ Θ Μ Τ Τ Χ Ε Ε ς Τ Ν Κ Γ Κ Γ Ε Γ ∗ Κ Υ Ο Π Θ � 5 Ι Υ Τ Τ Ψ Ψ � Ψ Γ Π Ψ Υ Χ Ω Γ Χ Π Π Τ ς Γ Π Θ Χ Π ς Θ % Ξ Τ Ο Γ ( Γ Γ ϑ . Γ Γ Τ Θ Χ Χ / ∗ ϑ ∗ 6 Υ ∗ � Χ ∗ Γ Ν % Υ ∃ Ν Ω Κ � Κ ( Ν � Θ Ν 9 ( ∗ Π Χ ∗ Γ ∗ Ξ Μ Γ ∗ Χ Υ � � Π Τ Ο Ρ Π Χ Χ % Θ Θ ϑ ∃ � Ο Π Ο % Τ Ο Υ [ Γ � Τ � � � Χ Τ Π Ο Χ Γ Τ [ Χ ( Τ Γ Θ � Τ ( Γ Ω Π � ς Γ Φ ) % Ω Φ Ν Θ Ε Ι Φ ς Ν Π Π ∃ # Φ Κ Γ � � Θ Χ Κ 5 Τ Η � t Ο 5 Ο ∃ Γ � Τ � [ Υ Χ Γ � � � Ο & Ω P a ϑ ( � Τ Θ 6 [ Χ y Π ∃

Τ Τ / ( a

� Ω Θ Ω Γ w ∆ ∆ Ι l ϑ i � � � Φ Π

Ο m Υ Τ a � Χ Χ Τ n Γ # Τ Θ . a � Ο Υ Χ Γ [ o

Τ Θ Ο ) � Τ � � Ι Υ Γ Χ Χ Ω

Ξ Ο n Π Η / Ρ m

∃ Κ Κ ϑ � Μ ∆ [ Τ � � Θ 4 e Ε Π Φ � � . Ρ Ο m % λ µ e Γ Ο Τ Γ # Γ Ο 5 r o Χ Τ 2 Υ Χ Γ Χ ( Ω Φ Τ � ∗ Θ Θ ( Φ � Θ ) ∗ Ο Γ Υ Τ Τ Π Ψ Π 4 Χ Φ Γ Ν Θ Υ ϑ Κ Κ Φ Μ Χ ( ς Μ Ι Μ Κ ϑ Θ Π Θ Χ Χ Μ Υ ς Τ ∗ Ω Θ Υ 1 Ε Π # ∃ ∃ Γ Χ 9 � � Ν Ι [ Π ∃ Τ Κ 2 Χ Υ Ξ ς + � � ς Ψ Φ Ν Ο Θ Ψ Γ Θ Τ Γ ς % Π Χ Κ Γ Χ � � Γ Γ Γ Ι Ν ( ϑ Ψ ( Υ � Φ Χ ∆ � ς Γ Ω ς � 5 Ψ ς Χ Ψ ς Θ � Υ Χ � � Θ Φ Χ 0 � � 5 ∗ ϑ � Χ Θ ϑ % � ; � 5 Θ ϑ 5 ∋ Υ Ι ∃ Κ 4 Γ 9 � � Γ � Γ Φ Φ Ι Κ e . � ϑ Χ r 7 Π Υ λ κ ς � � Ν i � Ι Ν ς Κ Κ Χ Ν � Θ ∃ ∗ ∗ λ µ � � % # Ο e Φ Χ Ν 9 ϑ Γ i m Κ � � � � Η Ο Π a Τ ∋ Γ y ς Γ Χ � � Κ � � r ( t ϑ Γ 0 [ n � � Ρ ς 9 t Κ r 5 Π � � % o o Θ Γ ς � Τ N � Θ Ι Γ Υ � Π Ο Κ Ω � Υ Ν Θ Π ∃ Γ Γ ∗ Π Π Γ Υ Θ Τ 5 ς Φ Ο Υ [ Ν & Ν Τ Τ � � Ν Τ Γ Χ Γ Κ e Γ Π ( r Ψ ϑ ( Γ n Ν � o � � ς % Ο o ) ς Υ Θ m Τ Γ m Γ Γ

% Π l Π

Υ Τ Π m e 9

Ω Ω Ο Γ

o Θ Τ Θ − Χ � ∗ n ∆ � ( � � � n � Ω Ο �

Γ Τ Χ o Ν

ς Χ Γ Γ � � # � Π

Υ Ξ Υ . Κ � � ∃ � Χ Τ Θ Γ Ψ Γ 4 Υ # % Θ Ξ � � 4Κ Ο Τ Ο Τ Ω Π Τ Χ Θ Χ Γ t Ο ( ∗ Ρ � l Γ e Ο Θ Φ 5 Θ a n Ρ Τ ς Π ς % n Γ n � 5 Χ Θ ς Ν Υ a ϑ ∆ [ Μ Ο Χ Ν Χ Τ Τ [ Υ Υ e Χ Ω Χ Γ Γ Ο Χ 9 ( ς ∆ ( Π � Τ Ι � Υ ς Θ Κ Ψ Φ ϑ Θ Γ 9 Τ Φ Π Γ Γ Γ Ν ∗ Γ Γ ϑ Υ ϑ Π Θ Τ Υ Υ Ε 0 ∗ 1 Χ % Ι 6 � Ω � Ω Χ Ο Ν Π Θ Γ Χ Θ Θ 9 Γ Γ ϑ ∗ ∗ % ∃ Μ ∃ 6 Χ

Φ Ζ Ο � Υ Π Θ Κ ς Χ Π Κ ς Υ Γ & Α � � � � % ∃ 9 � � � � � � � � � > Φ Ζ / > 5 + ) > Ι Π Κ Π Π Χ Ν 2 � ς Τ Θ Ρ Υ Π Χ Τ 6 � 2 6 > 2 + 9 � � � > 2 + 9 % . � Γ Τ Κ ϑ Υ Μ Τ Γ ∃ � ς Υ Γ 9 � � � � � � : : : : : : : � % ∃ 9 � Ο Χ ϑ Ι Π Κ Μ Θ 9 � � � � � � � � � � � > Ζ Ζ � � � � � � > Υ ς Ε Γ Λ Θ Τ 2 > Χ ς Χ & � Ν Χ Τ ς Π Γ % > Ο Θ Ε � Ρ Ω Θ Τ Ι Ρ Υ Ψ � Μ Ω > > � � ϑ ς Χ 2 Figure 4.5 – Destinations for Network Planning in Newbury and Thatcham Figure 4.5 – Destinations for Network

LCWIP 19 4.3 Identifying strategic cycle 4.3.2. A network of strategic cycling corridors routes does not constitute a full cycle network on its own. The sections below outline 4.3.1. Following the identification of key the other categories of route which journey origins and destinations constitute the two cycling networks. (outlined above), a combination of methods was used to identify a suitable network of strategic cycle corridors for the two plan areas (summarised by Table 4.2 below).

Table 4.2 – Methods used to Develop Network of Strategic Cycle Corridors Methods used to Identify Strategic Cycle Corridors Eastern Newbury Area and Thatcham Identify corridors with most significant potential demand for journeys to a range of destinations How identified: Clustering of desire lines (straight-line connections between   origins and destinations) to identify key trends Identify corridors with most significant forecast demand How identified: Propensity to Cycle Tool data (based on commuting flows from 2011 census)   Identify routes with greatest forecast potential for increased levels of cycling How identified: Propensity to Cycle Tool data (forecast future cycle flows under the ‘Go-Dutch’ scenario  

4.4 Classification of cycle likely future cycle demand. Table 4.3 corridors describes the categories applied to cycle routes in the West Berkshire 4.4.1. The LCWIP technical guidance suggests LCWIP. that cycle corridors are classified according to their significance and

Table 4.3 – Categories of Cycle Route Methods used to Identify Strategic Cycle Corridors Eastern Newbury Area and Thatcham Strategic Cycle Routes – direct, safe, high-quality routes serving major destinations with segregation from motor traffic in many places   Orbital Cycle Routes – providing access between strategic cycle routes. High-quality routes with segregation from motor traffic in many places  Local Cycle Routes – providing links to local destinations and feeder connections to strategic cycle routes. Emphasis on streets with low traffic flows and speeds plus traffic-free links and segregation from traffic where   required Leisure Cycle Routes – routes with a focus on leisure journeys, alongside watercourses, through rural areas, with an emphasis on traffic-free links or quiet roads  

20 LCWIP Eastern Area Strategic routes 4.4.2. The network plan covering the Eastern 4.4.7. Following consultation between council Area, and illustrating the four categories officers and stakeholder groups, seven of cycle route, is contained in Appendix strategic corridors were chosen for B. It includes routes which extend initial development, as follows: across the greater Reading area. • Wash Common to Newbury town 4.4.3. In terms of routes within West Berkshire, centre; the plan comprises: • East Thatcham to Newbury town • Strategic routes S4 (Oxford Road centre; (Pangbourne Railway Station to • Thatcham town centre to North central Reading)) and S5 (Bath Newbury; Road (The Green, Theale to central • Thatcham railway station to Reading)); Thatcham town centre; • Orbital route O3 (Tilehurst Railway • South Thatcham to Newbury town Station to Bath Road / Old Bath Road centre; junction); • North Newbury to Newbury town • Leisure routes L1 (Sulham village centre; and to Calcot via Nunhide Lane) and L2 • Speen to Shaw. (Kennet and Avon Canal towpath east of Theale); 4.4.8. These will connect several key current • Local routes across West Reading and future residential areas to a range (reference L5), such as Pincents of destinations, including the two Lane, Calcot and Long Lane, Purley- town centres, employment areas and on-Thames. secondary schools. Other strategic corridors will be taken forward for 4.4.4. The draft cycle network was developed development in future iterations of the in partnership with stakeholders. This LCWIP, or as funding opportunities arise. included discussions the Reading Cycle Forum in March 2019, including a Local cycle routes member of the public who considered 4.4.9. A network of secondary, or local, cycle the proposals from a pedestrian point- routes was identified to complement and of-view. Further discussions took place integrate with the strategic cycle routes at a workshop with the Cycle Forum in and connect each main residential area May 2019, attended by the Member across the two towns. Many of the local of Parliament for Reading East, ward routes were recommendations from the members, Reading Cycle Campaign 2016 Cycle Working Group report. members and a representative from 4.4.10. Many sections of the identified local the University of Reading. Further routes follow residential streets which workshops were held with Reading, are broadly suitable for people of all West Berkshire and Wokingham Council ages or abilities to cycle along (low officers. traffic flows and low traffic speeds). 4.4.5. All of the identified strategic routes, Where traffic flows or speeds are higher, including the routes with sections in measures can be identified to create West Berkshire, were audited during the conditions to enable people to cycle 2019. safely (see chapter 6). Newbury and Thatcham 4.4.11. The proposed local cycle network will 4.4.6. Appendix B contains a network plan also require a network of new and showing the proposals for strategic, improved crossings to safely connect local and leisure cycle routes serving residential neighbourhoods to each Newbury and Thatcham. other across the busiest roads. Many of these will be signal crossings or parallel zebra crossings with space to cater for people cycling and walking.

LCWIP 21 Leisure-focused routes • Links south and west into the quieter lanes of Hampshire and West 4.4.12. Feedback from the West Berkshire Berkshire; and Covid-19 Residents’ Survey15 and • An indicative link representing the LCWIP• FRPIRUWworkshop attendees highlighted the absence of safe leisure cycling proposal for a cycling and walking 7KHQXPEHURIµFULWLFDOMXQFWLRQV¶DUHDOVRUHFRUGHGWRHQDEOHDKLJKOHYHOHYDOXDWLRQ routes to access open spaces and the route on or close to the former RIERWKOLQNVDQGMXQFWLRQVZLWKLQRQHWRRO$µFULWLFDOMXQFWLRQ¶LVGHILQHGDVRQHWKDWNewbury to Didcot railway line. countrysideKDVFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWDUHKD]DUGRXVIRUF\FOLVWVHJKLJKW surrounding the district’s UDIILFYROXPHVODFNRI main SULRULW\RUVHJUHJDWLRQFURVVLQJKLJKVSHHGRQRIIVOLSURDGVsettlements. The LCWIP network RUODUJHURXQGDERXWV plans therefore also identify indicative 4.5 Route selection process *UDGLHQWKDVEHHQDGGHGDVLWLVDQLPSRUWDQWIDFWRULQWKleisure routes for people cycling. These HFKRLFHVWKDWF\FOLVWVPDNH ZKHQFRQVLGHULQJURXWHRSWLRQV 4.5.1. The first iteration of the LCWIP identifies were identified by attendees at the a shortlist of strategic cycling corridors $WWUDFWLYHQHVVLVQRWLQFOXGHGLQWKH567DVLWLVQRWGHHPHGWREHDNH\GHFLGLQJ LCWIP workshop and comprise the for further development. These were followingIDFWRUEHWZHHQURXWHVKRZHYHUFOHDUO\DWWUDFWLYHQHVVVKRXOGEH routes: FRQVLGHUHGZKHUH OHLVXUHLVDQLPSRUWDQWMRXUQH\SXUSRVH mapped to existing routes available for • The Kennet and Avon Canal towpath; cycling and assessed in accordance :KHUHSRVVLEOHORFDOXVHUYLHZVVKRXOGEHVRXJKWWRVXSSOwith HPHQWVLWHREVHUYDWLRQVthe route selection process set out • LinksDQGHQVXUHWKHEHVWSRVVLEOHURXWHVDQGVROXWLRQVDUHLGHQWLILH to Bucklebury, Crookham, G Greenham, and Snelsmore in LCWIP technical guidance (see Figure 7KHSURFHVVWRIROORZZKHQXVLQJWKHWRROLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUH)XUWKHUGHWDLOVRIWKH Commons; 4.6 below). 567DQGJXLGDQFHRQXVLQJWKHWRROFDQEHIRXQGLQ$QQH[% Figure 4.6 – Route Audit Process outlined in LCWIP technical guidance )LJXUH5RXWH6HOHFWLRQ3URFHVV

(Source:%DUULHU7UHDWPHQWVDQG$UHD3RURVLW\ LCWIP Technical Guidance for Local Authorities, DfT, 2017)

$VZHOODVWKHNH\URXWHVWKDWMRLQRULJLQDQGGHVWLQDWLRQSRLQWVWKHUHLVDZLGHU 4.5.2. The qualityQHWZRUNRITXLHWVWUHHWVFRXQWU\ODQHVDQGSXEOLFULJKWVRIZD and suitability of these scores\WKDWSURYLGHLPSRUWDQW of less than the minimum routesORFDOOLQNV:KLOHLWFDQEHDVVXPHGWKDWFRQGLWLRQVJHQHUDOO\ were then assessed against recommendedDUHDFFHSWDEOHIRU score in the RST for each the fiveF\FOLQJGXHWRORZHUVSHHGVDQGYROXPHVRIPRWRUWUDIILFVRPH core design criteria of the DfT route section,URXWHVZLOOUHTXLUH although improvements LQIUDVWUXFWXUHLPSURYHPHQWV)RUH[DPSOHDWMXQFWLRQVZLWKEXV\URDGVRUWRFURVV Route Selection Tool (RST) - directness, were identified for most route sections. SK\VLFDOEDUULHUVVXFKDVULYHUVFDQDOVDQGUDLOZD\OLQHV gradient, safety, connectivity, and $VVHVVLQJWKHQXPEHURIDFFHVVSRLQWVWRWKHVHDUHDVLVUHcomfort. In addition, junctions were 4.6 RouteIHUUHGWRLQWKH/RQGRQ audit findings &\FOLQJ'HVLJQ6WDQGDUGVDVµ$UHD3RURVLW\$QDO\VLV¶VLQFHLPSURYHGDFFHVVSRLQWV identified which were considered to Introduction LQFUHDVHWKHµSRURVLW\¶RIWKHDUHD have characteristics hazardous to 4.6.1. Audits and site visits of the strategic cycling ,IDQ\LPSURYHPHQWVWRLQFUHDVHWKHµSRURVLW\¶RIWKHDUHD (referred to as critical junctions). DUHLGHQWLILHGVXFKDV MXQFWLRQLPSURYHPHQWVRUFURVVLQJVWKHVHVKRXOGEHDGGHGWRWKroutes wereH/&:,3 undertaken to gather 4.5.3. The RSTSURJUDPPHRISODQQHGLPSURYHPHQWV was used to identify and information on (i) the quality and assess how improvements could make suitability of existing infrastructure the selected routes more suitable for and (ii) the potential for, and feasibility cycling. There was an emphasis on of, route improvements (considering identifying improvements for route any apparent constraints). These were sections with safety and/or comfort

22 LCWIP [15] http://info.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=49030&p=0 carried out in Autumn 2019 for routes in the Eastern Area and in Autumn 2020 for routes in Newbury and Thatcham. All the potential improvements identified in the appendices are subject to further study, feasibility and consultation. Eastern Area 4.6.2. Appendix C contains the summary of the audits of the two strategic cycle routes in the Eastern Area. These cover Oxford Road, from Pangbourne to central Reading, and Bath Road, from Theale to central Reading. The appendix also contains the schedule of improvements for strategic, orbital, leisure and local routes within West Berkshire. Newbury and Thatcham 4.6.3. Appendix D summarises the findings and infrastructure recommendations from the audits of the shortlisted strategic cycle corridors in Newbury and Thatcham. Where relevant, several alternative alignments were considered as part of the process to identify the most suitable cycle route.

LCWIP 23 5 Network planning for walking

5.1 Methodology walking route network should start with consideration of origin and destination 5.1.1. Figure 5.1 summarises the process points across the plan area. The same for network planning for walking. In set of origins and destinations in similarity to the process for cycling Newbury and Thatcham were used for networks, DfT guidance suggests this purpose (shown above in Figure 4.4 that the development of a planned and Figure 4.5).

Figure 5.1 – Process for Network Planning for Walking

Identify origins and destinations

Define core walking zone/s

Identify key walking routes

Undertake walking route audits

Identify key improvements

5.2 Core walking zones and key Development Plan Policies Map16; walking routes and • Newbury and Thatcham Railway 5.2.1. The LCWIP technical guidance states Stations. that in planning for walking, local 5.2.3. Appendix E contains a plan showing authorities should identify Core Walking the identified Core Walking Zones Zones and Key Walking Routes. and a network of Key Walking Routes 5.2.2. Core Walking Zones are defined in the connecting to them. The Key Walking guidance as an area in which many Routes are important pedestrian routes walking trip generators are located linking key destinations to the Core close together, such as a town centre Walking Zones and provide balanced or business park. Within a Core Walking coverage of the plan area. The Zone, all pedestrian infrastructure is process for walking network planning particularly important. Three Core is based on routes currently available Walking Zones were identified for the to pedestrians, rather than straight-line LCWIP. These were based on: corridors. • Newbury and Thatcham town 5.2.4. The LCWIP technical guidance suggests centre commercial area boundaries, that walking has the potential to replace defined by West Berkshire’s trips made by other modes of up to

[16] 24 LCWIP https://info.westberks.gov.uk/corestrategy 2km in length. Most parts of Newbury 5.4 The route auditing process and Thatcham are within 2km of their respective town centres, and the 5.4.1. Walking route audits were undertaken network of routes shown extends in to assess the broad suitability of many places to the fringes of the built- the shortlisted corridors. The audits up area. Consideration of connections established whether these routes are to surrounding rural settlements which suitable in their current form and what are within reasonable walking distance needs to be improved. This process of Newbury and Thatcham may be followed LCWIP technical guidance considered as part of future iterations of and used the Walking Route Audit the LCWIP. Tool (WRAT). Routes were divided into sections with similar characteristics and 5.3 Shortlisted key walking routes scored against twenty criteria grouped into five themes (attractiveness, comfort, 5.3.1. A selected number of routes in Newbury directness, safety and coherence). and Thatcham were shortlisted for Improvements were identified which initial development as part of the West would address the issues identified. Berkshire LCWIP. These were chosen to give a relatively balanced coverage 5.4.2. Appendix F contains a set of plans of routes across the two towns and the which summarise the key issues key destinations. The intention is for the affecting the pedestrian environment remaining routes illustrated in Appendix along each shortlisted corridor and E to be progressed as resources (time suggested improvements. All potential and funding) allow, as well as routes improvements are subject to further in other settlements. The routes taken study, feasibility and consultation. forward for initial development are set out below: • Wash Common to Newbury town centre; • West Fields to Hambridge Road Employment Area; • North Newbury to Newbury town centre; • North Thatcham to Thatcham town centre via Park Lane; • Dunston Park to Park Lane via Park Avenue; • Northfield Road to Park Lane (Sagecroft Road, Masefield Road and Shakespeare Road); and • Thatcham town centre to Thatcham Railway Station (Station Road).

LCWIP 25 6 Infrastructure improvements

6.1 Introduction of infrastructure design, better crossing facilities (width options of pedestrian refuges, reduced crossing distance and tighter radii of side roads 6.1.1. A key aspect of the LCWIP process is kerblines) and use of technology and to identify a schedule of infrastructure innovation on the highway (such as improvements to bring cycling and on-crossing detectors). More benches walking routes up to a suitable standard. and parklets could also be provided The audits were used to inform the where space allows, so that people with broad types of intervention which limited walking mobility can manage have the potential to be delivered, longer walks by taking breaks. The and overcome the issues identified importance of placemaking and urban to improve the quality of cycling and design for encouraging the take up of walking routes. This will involve a range walking should not be underestimated, of techniques and interventions. The with street trees, lighting and passive cycling proposals are summarised in surveillance of paramount importance. Appendix C and Appendix D and the 6.1.4 Horses are legal users of bridleways, walking proposals are summarised in byways and public roads. The design of Appendix F. active travel infrastructure must therefore 6.1.2. Some of the key concepts are briefly also take into account the needs of explained in Figure 6.1 overleaf. Local horse riders and horse drawn carriage Transport Note 1/20 Cycle Infrastructure drivers, especially (but not only) outside Design17 provides current information of urban areas. This is especially on cycle design principles. Government important for off-road leisure cycling has not published a directly equivalent and walking routes using public rights document setting out design advice for of way where the needs of equestrians the pedestrian environment. However, need to be borne in mind where they there are several relevant publications. have access; for example, regarding These include Manual for Streets and the width of off-carriageway routes, the Manual for Streets 218 , The Welsh arrangement of road crossings and Government’s Active Travel Design differing surfacing standards. Although Guidance19 and Designing for Walking20 the specific routes that have been by the Chartered Institute of Highways audited in this iteration of the LCWIP and Transportation. largely use public roads in urban areas, 6.1.3. In accordance with relevant design it is important that this is not overlooked guidance the LCWIP infrastructure in future iterations of the LCWIP which proposals must ensure that the needs may develop the network further to are recognised and met for all types of include more rural settlements.” users – including families and those who 6.2 Balancing priorities are less mobile or have disabilities. Such groups must not be overlooked in future 6.2.1. Highway space is shared between iterations of the Plan. The LCWIP should different road users. The government go further than just provision of tactile expects authorities to provide for growth paving and dropped kerbs, but consider in cycling and walking and scheme other factors such as the suitability of design standards make it clear that shared use routes (conflict between people cycling must be separated cyclists and pedestrians instead opting from high traffic flows. However, for full segregation), consideration of the accommodating new infrastructure can needs of mobility scooters, de-cluttering be particularly challenging in urban the streetscape and better urban areas where highway space is limited.

[17] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120 [18] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets [19] https://gov.wales/active-travel-design-guidance 26 LCWIP [20] https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/4460/ciht_-_designing_for_walking_document_v2_singles. pdf In some locations, creating segregated 6.3 Public engagement and cycle tracks of an appropriate width – or decision making wider footways – can only be achieved by using road space currently allocated 6.3.1. As highlighted above, many of the to motor vehicles. In some instances, the recommended cycling and walking route audit findings suggested that the infrastructure improvements will reallocation of carriageway space for require changes to road layouts to cycling may not be deliverable. In other accommodate them. Early public instances, a series of potential options engagement, followed by formal were identified to overcome such consultation, will therefore be an integral constraints. Each of the options has the part of developing and delivering the potential to enhance routes and make infrastructure proposed in the LCWIP. them attractive for cycling but will have 6.3.2. Determining a suitable balance between different impacts on other road users. space for different transport modes, or which potential option is most appropriate, will be considered carefully by the council, informed by available evidence and stakeholder views.

Figure 6.1 – Case study examples of cycling and walking infrastructure

Cycle Tracks

These are routes separate from the main carriageway and separate from footways, for sole use by cyclists, usually surfaced in tarmac. Depending on the location, they can be for two-way or one-way cycling. In some circumstances, shared-use paths (used by cyclists and pedestrians without segregation) can be appropriate where fully segregated options have been considered first and are not deliverable. This includes locations where current and future pedestrian flows are, or will be, low.

Road Crossings

There are a range of new designs to give formal crossing priority to cyclists and pedestrians. These include: • Parallel crossings, which are zebra crossings with separate, parallel space for cyclists and pedestrians to cross; • Priority crossings, where road markings require vehicle drivers on the carriageway to give way to people using the crossing; • Signal crossings which provide separate crossing areas for people cycling and walking.

These can be accompanied by other measures to slow motor vehicle speeds and enable safer crossing, such as placing the crossing on a flat-topped road hump (known as a raised table).

LCWIP 27 Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods

This is an approach to prevent undesirable through-traffic from using roads through residential areas, and instead ensure streets are safe and attractive spaces for people walking, cycling and playing. Whilst vehicle access is maintained to all properties, specific access restrictions are employed to restrict through-traffic. These types of schemes are common in European countries and have been widely introduced in many parts of London and other parts of the UK.

Designs can include: • Closing specific points on some streets to through traffic movements by motor vehicles, whilst enabling cycle movements (by using bollards, gates and/or planters). These are sometimes referred to as modal filters. Vehicle access would still be maintained to all properties either side of the closure points; • On bus routes, allowing through movements by buses (and cycles) but no other vehicles (known as bus gates); and • Introducing one-way streets in the neighbourhood which can prevent through traffic movements for motor vehicles (note that one-way streets can lead to higher vehicle speeds than previous two- way arrangements).

There are a range of measures which can be used to reduce vehicle speeds in residential areas and, in turn, reduce the incidence and severity of road collisions. These include area-wide 20mph speed limits, physical traffic calming, redesigning side roads with tighter geometry and natural traffic calming (planting).

6.4 Complementary measures 6.4.4. Wayfinding measures are similarly important for people walking. Walking 6.4.1. There are a range of complementary route signing will be provided along measures which will support the each of the shortlisted Key Walking identified route-specific infrastructure. Routes, and in the Core Walking Zones, Some of these are summarised below. to complement a recently completed Wayfinding wayfinding scheme for Newbury town centre and establish a comprehensive 6.4.2. Local Transport Note 1/20 Cycle network of legible walking routes. Infrastructure Design states that schemes must be clearly and School streets comprehensively signposted and 6.4.5. The aims of school streets are to labelled, with direction information create calmer, safer and more pleasant provided at every decision point and conditions for parents and children sometimes in between for reassurance. travelling to and from school and to 6.4.3. Clear, easily visible and legible improve air quality in the vicinity. The wayfinding signage will be provided on schemes involve designating zones each of the shortlisted cycle corridors immediately surrounding schools where to help people cycling navigate along motor traffic is restricted at pick-up a route. Direction signage will be and drop-off times, during term-time. accompanied by repeater signs, road Access is retained for people cycling markings and cycle route branding, to and walking and vehicles registered guide route users and build awareness to addresses in the zone are exempt of each route. Signing connecting from the restrictions. As mentioned in routes to/from/across strategic corridors section 3.4, West Berkshire Council is will help to promote use of the cycle consulting on a possible school street network. scheme for Calcot.

28 LCWIP Cycle parking 6.4.6. Local Transport Note 1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design states that cycle parking is integral to any cycle network and that cycle parking must be included as part of substantial infrastructure schemes and in sufficient quantity. 6.4.7. Additional secure and covered cycle parking should be installed at key trip generators (including railway stations, key employment sites, out-of-town retail areas and a range of locations in Newbury and Thatcham town centres), to plan for expected increases in demand. 6.4.8. Any cycle parking that is installed should be visible, well overlooked, convenient and as close to the destination entrance as possible. It must consider the needs of all potential users and cater for the different range of cycle shapes and sizes which use the facilities.

LCWIP 29 7 Prioritisation, integration and next steps

7.1 Scheme prioritisation categorised into (a) scheme impact and effectiveness; (b) alignment with 7.1.1. The LCWIP technical guidance advises policy; and (c) ease of implementation that local authorities should develop a and deliverability. Potential factors are prioritised programme of walking and illustrated in Figure 7.1. The number cycling infrastructure improvements, to of available funding streams may determine which improvements can be also influence the prioritisation of implemented over the short-, medium- improvements. and long term. Figure 7.1 – Potential Scheme Prioritisation 7.1.2. Factors likely to influence the Criteria prioritisation of infrastructure can be

Figure 7.1 – Potential Scheme Prioritisation Criteria

7.2 Funding opportunities and • The council’s Local Transport Plan; partnership working • New developments via planning permissions (Community 7.2.1. The West Berkshire LCWIP outlines Infrastructure Levy and legal an ambitious set of improvements for agreements, under section 106 of cycling and walking infrastructure in the Town & Country Planning Act Newbury and Thatcham. The council and section 278 of the Highways Act will work in partnership with other 1980, as amended); organisations to secure funding to • Other partner organisations, such as deliver its LCWIP. Investment will be the Thames Valley Berkshire Local derived from a range of sources. This Enterprise Partnership, the Canal includes potential contributions from: and River Trust, Highways England • The Department for Transport, or Great Western Railway. through any future capital grants or funding competitions for active travel 7.3 Integration with planning infrastructure; applications and future • Ministry of Communities, Housing and Local Government investment development via the High Streets Fund or 7.3.1. The council will work closely with other potential future funding planning applicants and other opportunities; stakeholders to achieve the strategic

30 LCWIP proposals identified in the LCWIP and 7.4 Alignment with West other necessary local active travel Berkshire’s Local Plan infrastructure. 7.4.1. The council is currently undertaking 7.3.2. New developments will be fundamental a review of its Local Plan to cover the to the delivery of the council’s LCWIP in period up to 2036. This will consider terms of: future levels of need for new homes and • The construction of high-quality on- employment areas and the associated site cycling infrastructure; and infrastructure required to serve major • developer contributions towards development areas. The LCWIP provides off-site cycle and walking network evidence to support the council’s improvements. local plan review and feed into revised policies. It also identifies schemes 7.3.3. National and local planning policy for inclusion in the accompanying requires major developments to Infrastructure Delivery Plan. provide good-quality cycling and 7.4.2. The strategic cycling and walking walking infrastructure on-site and, networks set out in the LCWIP are where appropriate, provide financial intended to serve and provide contributions to enhance off-site routes. connections from existing and future Chapter 14 of Local Transport Note 1/20 major development sites and key covers cycling in new developments facilities. and Gear Change reinforces that government expects developers to 7.5 Update and review process use the guidance in the design of their 7.5.1. This is the first iteration of West schemes. LTN1/20 states that ‘cycling Berkshire’s LCWIP. The plan identifies facilities should be regarded as an a shortlist of cycling and walking essential component of the site access corridors for further development. The and any off-site highway improvements council will periodically review and that may be necessary. Developments update the LCWIP to take account that do not adequately make provision of new information and changing for cycling in their transport proposals circumstances. This will ensure that the should not be approved.’ It also programme of infrastructure remains notes that good standards of cycle focused and ambitious. provision ‘should include … new cycle routes connecting to and through developments and enhancing the provision for cycling when making alterations to links and junctions on existing highways. It will not usually be acceptable to maintain an existing poor level of service when undertaking highway improvement schemes.’ 7.3.4. The LCWIP is intended to provide a sound basis for securing appropriate developer contributions towards the delivery of the strategic cycle network and the network of Key Walking Routes.

LCWIP 31 Appendix A Sumary of relevant policy and guidance

The national policy and strategy context

Clean air strategy (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2019) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-air-strategy-2019

Outlines how the government intends to tackle all sources of air pollution. Increasing cycling and walking is one of the identified actions to reduce congestion and emissions from road transport.

Cycling and walking investment strategy (Department for Transport, 2017) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycling-and-walking-investment-strategy

Sets out government’s ambition to make walking and cycling the natural choice for shorter journeys or a part of a longer journey, for example in combination with a train journey. The strategy outlined the concept of LCWIPs as a means of achieving the government’s walking and cycling objectives. It noted that LCWIP technical guidance had been prepared to assist local authorities, published simultaneously with the strategy. .

Everybody active, everyday (Public Health England, 2014) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/374914/Framework_13.pdf

Highlights how the built and natural environment shapes the travel choices people make. Underscores the importance of effective urban design and transport systems which create ‘active environments’ to promote walking, cycling and create more liveable communities.

Future of mobility: Urban strategy (Department for Transport, 2019) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-of-mobility-urban-strategy

Outlines nine principles to address the challenge of transforming towns and cities to meet current and future transport demands. Includes the principle that ‘walking, cycling and active travel must remain the best option for short urban journeys.’ An accompanying rural strategy is expected shortly.

32 LCWIP Gear change: A bold vision for cycling and walking (Department for Transport, 2020) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/904146/gear-change-a-bold-vision-for-cycling-and-walking.pdf

Describes a bold future vision for places in England which are truly walkable and to make cycling and mass form of transit. It sets a goal of half of all journeys in towns and cities being cycled and walked by 2030. New and higher design standards for Cycle Infrastructure Design were published alongside the vision. A new funding body and inspectorate were also announced – Active Travel England – to enforce the new standards, set time limits for spending money, raise performance generally and review major planning applications. All new government-funded highway schemes are expected to be implemented in accordance with these design standards. The new standards state that in areas with high pedestrian or cyclist flows, people cycling and people walking should be provided with separate, segregated paths.

National planning policy framework (Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf

Sets out England’s planning policies and must be taken into account when preparing local plans. It states that planning policies should provide for high-quality walking and cycling networks and supporting facilities such as cycle parking, drawing on LCWIPs.

The Inclusive transport strategy (Department for Transport, 2018) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-transport-strategy

The Inclusive Transport Strategy states that the transport system must provide inclusive infrastructure, with streetscapes designed to accommodate the needs of all people.

Transport decarbonisation plan https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creating-the-transport-decarbonisation-plan

When published later in 2020, this will set out how the government intends to reduce transport emissions and reach net zero transport emissions by 2050. An initial publication entitled Decarbonising transport: setting the challenge was published in March 2020. One of the five strategic priorities it set was accelerating the mode shift to public transport and active travel.

LCWIP 33 The Local policy and strategy context

Declaration of climate emergency and West Berkshire envirionment strategy https://info.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=49068&p=0

In July 2019, West Berkshire Council unanimously declared a climate emergency and, along with other actions, committed to the creation of a strategic plan to work towards carbon neutrality in the district by 2030. To this end a finalised Environment Strategy was published in September 2020.

The plan is based around five strategic objectives: (a) carbon neutral by 2030; (b) responsible economic growth; (c) healthy communities; (d) resilience to climate change and (e) working with communities and partners. Sustainable transport is one of the five themes for action, including investment in active travel infrastructure.

West Berkshire development plan https://info.westberks.gov.uk/localplan

The Development Plan is a legal term referring to the Council’s documents which set out local planning policies for the authority. Strategic policies are contained in the West Berkshire Core Strategy. Strategic objective 7 is relevant to the creation of new sustainable transport networks which support growth in West Berkshire and provide connections to existing and future development. Districtwide policies CS5 (Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery), CS13 (Transport) and CS18 (Green Infrastructure) are particularly relevant to cycling and walking infrastructure. Policies CS2 and CS3 relate to the Sandleford and Newbury Racecourse Strategic Sites respectively, including associated infrastructure.

The council is currently undertaking a review of its Local Plan to cover the period up to 2036.

West Berkshire Council Strategy 2019-2023 https://info.westberks.gov.uk/strategyandperformance

The strategy supports the Council’s vision for the future and sets out the six key areas of improvement for the Council for the four-year period from 2019-2023.

The six priority areas include a focus on maintaining a green district, with some references to specific requirements. These include the need to provide cycle routes of a suitable standard for commuters, travelling at higher speeds than on leisure routes.

The document also states that, to deliver this priority improvement area, the Council will: • Develop more sustainable transport solutions which protect the environment; and • Promote and improve cycleways in the district.

West Berkshire Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy http://info.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=33954

The Health and Welling Strategy is a long-term strategy for meeting the health and wellbeing needs of the local population, developed jointly by West Berkshire Council and other constituent members of West Berkshire’s Health and Wellbeing Board.

The document contains a set of overarching aims and objectives. These aims include the building of a sustainable environment in which communities can flourish.

This aim is supported by several objectives, including: • A decrease in levels of air pollution in areas that need it; • Ensuring that housing is of good quality, accessible and affordable; and • Improved rural access to services.

34 STRATEGY 2020-30 Local Transport Plan for West Berkshire: 2011-2026 https://info.westberks.gov.uk/ltp

West Berkshire’s Local Transport Plan (LTP) is the overarching vision document for transport policy in the district. An Active Travel Strategy 2011-2026 is part of the LTP and sets out West Berkshire’s strategies for walking and cycling, alongside strategies for equestrian activities. The strategy document highlights the Council’s ambition to improve facilities and opportunities for active travel, and to increase the number of people walking and cycling as part of a daily routine.

The Active Travel Strategy sets out the Local Transport Plan’s walking and cycling policies as follows:

• Policy SC1 states that the council will increase the use of walking as a mode for local journeys and as a means of accessing other sustainable modes for longer journeys by maintaining and improving the condition of the pedestrian network, facilitating safe and prioritised pedestrian access to destinations, through Rights of Way improvements, and by promoting health and wellbeing benefits of walking. • Policy SC2 states that the council will work alongside the West Berkshire Cycle Forum to increase cycling by establishing a network of strategic and local cycle routes, ensuring new developments are supported by cycling connections to the local cycle network, and by promoting health and wellbeing benefits of walking.

Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2010-2020 https://info.westberks.gov.uk/article/29147

The Plan sets out the Council’s aims to improve its network of Public Rights of Way, cycle tracks, routes permitted for use by landowners, informal routes used by the public and land open for public access.

The plan contains 12 themes for improvement. These include a Well-maintained access network, Development of new and improved access, Physical improvements to the access network, and Improving accessibility for all users.

West Berkshire Council are currently reviewing the ROWIP to meet the requirements of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which states that the plan must be reviewed every ten years. The existing ROWIP is still in force until the new ROWIP is adopted in early 2022, currently in Consultation period. The development and implementation of the LCWIP and RoWIP are related and their interaction needs to be managed within the Council.

STRATEGY 2020 -30 35 Appendix B Cycle route network plans D 0 C

x A G

2 f

2 S u

e 1 e 0

1 9 o 0 e N v 2 2 1 2 K t t b / / 0 / R

2 e a D 0 0 / 1 L D / A , O / d o Y E b 1 h 1 e

7 t 1 t / F / 2

L a S e

L t 1 A 6 9 1 D t

E U a Y d

t u

n L O P y

N E a

t c

e L o N y R

0 e

r y P W e

B t

D v t

d I h

n 0

e r i

O A r g k C N

s E L v 8 u r C d D m S e S S r r 1 e - A S / L a p e D s s H S e L t t

u n D o 2 J P C n

C C 4 i o A a

E Y R

y ' d u B y e r 0 m S D

r u 1 w

n h 0

H i

S S o 2 P c e t w i

0 E s t o

n N g n

a b T l

S i - r

t n e t C U u U

e i

r n c e 0 D u 0 j

g a h

K d C C a r

e n

t O S b i 0 o a A i E

N n t

a l ( K T

B t i a

n 6 s s 0

s n

d N

B E M n D n r k R r

a e

e ,

o u W

c u s e

T s d r r O t ( o . A g

- C t I o Y r O e G e r

e s e o

n a N l e 9 e

e i E t e 0 i w A f s e t I S

c l t O a t t H r s e s

f o a U h

a B M b ) ) e N N M 0 c

f r

i u 9 u 3 E n e d B e

N p y i

m a I h s n o 0 p r t t E t 7

d d : y N t

I c k S

o o o

o y G R o c 4 c r n k 6

e r a p u n o u M L e e

i W e

f O r e o t C s i I c 0 y N 1 r y

T d

i l R R

v B c h I

l t

o T o o e n n h s

r P r

d a e i J P D s d i i T r n c

o d 2

C u y

W R r S a a e e u R R n

r w m m t B m S p e e S c e N

r r d

A r e

m m U d

0 a

d g n l r l l Y u a

E t e p r r e E a o t

u s u R 0 P o e l P r i t t d A n

e a a r y

p c t s t 2 h

a e e . h S

s k s D N i o C p a

t m C n o T

t t u c i c i

E r

h r S g

i g e e t s . I i i e

s n R a

W e e r e l c e r S p m H r n e e o o e i o e h s g C i i C o s s s

m I

R s t n b f h y r y t t t e i u n t T

L a f t i d a l d d b c P L L L L L W S r t d F d t H p p

e n n n m n h W l r f d a n t e O t T s e e e u t i i 3 e e A i o s e a O c k c o c o 0

i N

y N S T

f t w

m m m e r t

r l

I s L h c l t n n n o h d d d e C g d g g e a c h a l n g o

a a o D i t h g i n n n w w n i n n n n i h

r i i t 1 i i i n r m r a

o o e e e s o e e e p

T y r u t i i r r l O e e

w w w

w y t l s t b v p a n g i a

b p a a a C a C a a a r e r r o

r n v i o

L t c h A m A m A m t n A m T S D m R o D D C J o S S © D U c o c i C © ±

t e l n a n n e

a K C r

n e e v o k i

v a

e R L

A e e

l i k g

d a b n

n L u o

J a L

h c it D or o M

n r

u n

o e b K m r a e L v r i

Riv e R

d x m . n a l P _ k r o w t e N _ e l c y C _ d e n i b m o C _ 4 1 0 - C B W - 9 9 9 7 6 0 0 7 \ d x M \ S I G \ g n i n n a l P t r o p s n a r T P T \ P I W 3 0 \ P I W C L e r i h s k r e B t s e W - 0 2 9 1 - X X X X X X X - C B W - m a h g n i k o W - 9 9 9 7 6 0 0 7 \ x x 9 7 6 0 0 7 \ s t c e j o r P \ a t a D l a r t n e C \ m o c . p u o r g p s w . k u \ \ : h t a P

36 LCWIP LCWIP 37 38 LCWIP Appendix C Eastern Area Cycle Routes 38 – Audit Key Findings and Recommended Improvements

ocal ycling an alking nratrctre Plan ote election ool ROUTE SUMMARY

Route Name at oa Overall Length km Name of Assessor(s) cy Primall an ame rner Date of Assessment ly Performance Scores Criterion Existing Potential Directness Gradient Safety Connectivity Comfort

Bath Road 0 – Black 1 – Purple Directness 2 – Red 5 4 3 2 Comfort Gradient 1 3 – Amber 4 – Green 5 – Deep Green 0 Connectivity Safety

Number of Existing Critical Junctions/Crossings Number of Potential Critical Junctions/Crossings Pyically rotect cyclit on ater roa or were olme are ig Description of emoe otential or eicle to ark al on egregate cycle at etween Improvements l at oa an et rie mroe race trog eale an at critical nction wit tation oa Proie cycle roiion at nction

Indicative Cost

LCWIP 39 ocal ycling an alking nratrctre Plan ote election ool ROUTE SUMMARY

Route Name or oa Overall Length km Name of Assessor(s) cy Primall an ame rner Date of Assessment ly Performance Scores Criterion Existing Potential Directness Gradient Safety Connectivity Comfort

Oxford Road 0 – Black 1 – Purple Directness 2 – Red 5 4 3 2 Comfort Gradient 1 3 – Amber 4 – Green 5 – Deep Green 0 Connectivity Safety

Number of Existing Critical Junctions/Crossings Number of Potential Critical Junctions/Crossings Pycially rotect cyclit at ier ater ection etween erown oa Description of an lam ane ignage along entire rote roiion or cycle lane Improvements towar mile to en o rote racing imroement reire on ootway

Indicative Cost eim to ig

40 LCWIP 22 26 26 22 22 19 Total Total Score 1 1 1 2 2 3 9m) 9m) 9m) 1.9m) Estimated scheme Estimated band to 0 costband costband band 5m to band 5m to band 5m to 3 (Low cost 1 (High cost (High 1 cost 1 (High cost (High 1 cost (High 1 cost 2 (Moderate 2 (Moderate 2m to 4.9m) 2m to 4.9m) PCT flows PCT 244 433 344 422 322 333 issues) issues) issues) issues) issues) Issues) 4 (Limited 4 (Limited 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate deliverability deliverability deliverability deliverability deliverability deliverability deliverability deliverability deliverability Deliverability Deliverability 2 (Significant2 3 3 2 2 Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) 2 (Limited 2 (Limited 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate 3 3 1 (No Fit) 1 3 2 1 (No Fit) 1 4 4 4 4 Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) 2 (Limited (Significant (Significant (Significant (Significant 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate 3 3 3 3 4 4 Criteria (Scored according to themes from RBC Local Transport Plan) RBC(Scoredfrom Local accordingCriteria themes to 4 4 Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) (Significant (Significant (Significant (Significant 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate 3 3 3 4 4 2 4 4 Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) 2 (Limited (Significant (Significant (Significant (Significant 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate 4 3 3 4 4 2 12345 6 78 4 4 4 Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) Fit) People and Places and People Lifestyles Healthy Green and Clean Growth Inclusive Smart Solutions Deliverability 2 (Limited (Significant (Significant (Significant (Significant (Significant (Significant 3 (Moderate 3 (Moderate Description Signage,speed limit reductions, traffic calming, cycle priority measures,lining, improved and cycle crossings, new enhancementssignals, at surface Crossing enhancements on main Physically protect cyclists where cyclists protect Physically re- routes, possible, segregated allocateroadspace - lining and widening, surface carriageway improvements,crossing signage, enhancements main sideon and roads,widen/new ped/cycle cycle bridge,parking restrictions, enhancementssignal at junctions, cyclecounters Physically protect cyclists where cyclists protect Physically re- routes, possible, segregated allocateroadspace - lining and widening, resurface carriageway carriagewayfootway, and signage,20mph extend zone, crossingsideenhancements on main and roads, cycle enhancementssignal at junctions, cyclecounters improvements Signage,vegetation annual maintenance, cyclemaintenance surfacing,lighting points, and side roads, and segregation where possible, shared use where not, cycle signage, surfacing, enhancementssignal at junctions, Mini Hollands treatments - further research required Signage,vegetation annual maintenance, cyclemaintenance surfacing,lighting points, Section (To) Bath Road/ Old Bath Road Bath Road/IDR Pangbourne Station Thames Valley Park Nunhide Lane/ Pincents Lane (From) Section Tilehurst Railway Station/ Oxford Road The Green n/a n/a Oxford Road/IDR West of Hanger Road/ Station Road Route Bath Road (S5) West Reading (LO5) Oxford Road (S4) L2 (L2) L1 (L1) SulhamHill S5 S4 O3 (O3) LO5 Scheme Reference Orbital Routes Cycle Leisure RoutesCycle LocalRoutes Cycle Strategic Cycle Routes Strategic Cycle

LCWIP 41 Appendix D Newbury and Thatcham prioritised strategic cycle routes - Audit key findings and recommended improvements

42 LCWIP Limited space to infrastructure. accommodate impacts on Potential motor traffic on strategic of Limited examples links. some types ofdelivering proposed infrastructure Limited space to infrastructure. accommodate impacts on Potential motor traffic on strategic of Limited examples links. some types ofdelivering proposed infrastructure Requires liaison with Requires planning Park Sandleford applicants Limited space to infrastructureaccommodate in some places 1 1 3 2 Technical Feasibility and Feasibility Technical Complexity 3-point scale where 3 represents and 1 represents least complex most complex Provides connections to Thatcham connections to Thatcham Provides Campus, Vodafone Centre, Town Berkshire West School, Trinity Hospital and North Newbury strategic site development Provides connections to NewburyProvides and Newbury Centres, Town Thatcham Colthrop and Faraday Business Park, West areas, employment Road School Berkshire Hospital and Kennet local destinations plus several Provides connections to NewburyProvides Newbury Centre, Railway Town St. Bartholomew’sStation, strategic Park Sandleford School, local site plus several development destinations Provides connections to NewburyProvides Newbury Centre, Railway Town St. Bartholomew’sStation, School, Park Sandleford House School, Park site plus development strategic local destinations several 3 3 3 3 3-point scale where 3 represents wide range of and/or strategic destinations sites served and 1 represents development small range of served destinations Strategic case – key origins and education, centres, destinations (town employment, transport interchanges, sites?) strategic development High potential cycle High potential cycle demand (commuting) – top 20 corridor High potential cycle High potential cycle demand (commuting) – top 10 corridor High potential cycle High potential cycle demand (commuting) – top 10 corridor High potential cycle High potential cycle demand (commuting) – top 10 corridor 2 3 3 3 Current and Likely Future Demand 3-point scale where 3 represents high demand and 1 represents low demand Segregated cycle tracks, tracks, cycle Segregated new and improved upgraded traffic- crossings, free paths Segregated cycle tracks, tracks, cycle Segregated crossings new and improved New and improved New and improved measures to crossings, residential safer create cycling streets for Segregated cycle tracks, tracks, cycle Segregated new and improved measures to crossings, residential safer create cycling streets for Main categories of infrastructure proposed / likely interventions required (subject to further study) Cycle Corridor Cycle 3 – Thatcham Centre to Town North Newbury Cycle Corridor 2 Cycle – East Thatcham to Newbury Centre Town Cycle Corridor Cycle 1a – Sandleford to NewburyPark Centre Town Cycle Corridor 1 Cycle Common – Wash to Newbury Centre Town Schedule of Prioritised Routes / Route Location

LCWIP 43 Limited space to infrastructure. accommodate impacts on Potential motor traffic on strategic of Limited examples links. some elements ofdelivering infrastructure Limited space to improved accommodate infrastructure in some places Limited issues. Some initial Limited issues. work already feasibility undertaken. Requires liaison with private liaison with private Requires landowners Limited space to infrastructure. accommodate impacts on Potential motor traffic on strategic of Limited examples links. some elements ofdelivering infrastructure Limited space to infrastructure. accommodate impacts on Potential motor traffic on strategic Limited examples links. of some types delivering elements of proposed infrastructure 1 2 3 3 1 1 Provides connections to NewburyProvides Hambridge Road Centre, Town local area, plus several employment destinations Provides connections to NewburyProvides Newbury Centre, Railway Town St. Bartholomew’sStation, School, Park Sandleford House School, Park site plus development strategic local destinations several Connects western residential areas routes and cycle to other strategic serves a range of local destinations Provides connections to NewburyProvides Campus and Vodafone Centre, Town and North School Newbury Trinity site plus development strategic local destinations several Provides connections to NewburyProvides Hambridge Road Centre, Town Railway area, Thatcham employment local destinations plus several Station Provides connections to Thatcham connections to Thatcham Provides Railway Thatcham Centre, Town area Colthrop employment Station, local plus several School and Kennet destinations 2 3 1 3 3 3 Directly servesDirectly Core Zone covering Walking Centre Newbury Town and Newbury Rail Station Directly servesDirectly Core Zone covering Walking Centre Newbury Town and Newbury Rail Station High potential cycle High potential cycle demand (commuting) – top 10 corridor High potential cycle High potential cycle demand (commuting) – top 10 corridor High potential cycle High potential cycle demand (commuting) – top 10 corridor High potential cycle High potential cycle demand (commuting) – top 10 corridor 3 3 3 3 3 3 New and improved main New and improved road and side widened footways crossings, New and improved main New and improved road and side widened footways crossings, Segregated cycle tracks cycle Segregated Segregated cycle tracks, tracks, cycle Segregated measures new crossings, residential safer to create upgraded cycling, streets for traffic-free paths Segregated cycle tracks, tracks, cycle Segregated new and improved measures to crossings, residential safer create cycling streets for Segregated cycle tracks, tracks, cycle Segregated new and improved upgraded traffic- crossings, free paths Key Walking Walking Key 2 – Route Fields to West Road Hambridge Employment Area Key Walking Walking Key 1 – Wash Route Common to Newbury Town Centre Cycle Corridor 7 Cycle – Speen to Shaw Cycle Corridor 6 Cycle – North Newbury to Newbury Centre Town Cycle Corridor Cycle 5 – South to Thatcham Newbury Town Centre Cycle Corridor Cycle 4 – Thatcham Station Railway to Thatcham Centre Town

44 LCWIP Limited space to infrastructure. accommodate ofLimited examples some elements ofdelivering infrastructure Limited space to infrastructure. accommodate ofLimited examples some elements ofdelivering infrastructure Limited issues Limited space to infrastructure. accommodate impacts on Potential motor traffic on strategic oflinks Limited examples some elements ofdelivering infrastructure Limited space to infrastructureaccommodate Potential in some places. impacts on motor traffic Limited links. on strategic ofexamples some delivering elements of infrastructure 2 3 1 2 2 Provides connections to Thatcham connections to Thatcham Provides Colthrop employment Centre, Town plus several School area and Kennet local destinations Provides connections to Whitelands connections to Whitelands Provides PrimaryPark and to the rest School of Walking via other Key Thatcham Routes Provides connections to Thatcham connections to Thatcham Provides PrimaryPark and to the rest School of Walking via other Key Thatcham Routes Provides connections to Thatcham connections to Thatcham Provides Park Centre and Thatcham Town local Primary plus several School destinations Provides connections to NewburyProvides Campus and Vodafone Centre, Town and North School Newbury Trinity site plus development strategic local destinations several 1 1 2 3 2 Directly servesDirectly Zones Core Walking Thatcham covering Centre and Town Railway Thatcham Station Within 1km ofWithin Core Zone covering Walking Centre Town Thatcham Within 1km ofWithin Core Zone covering Walking Centre Town Thatcham Directly servesDirectly Core Zone covering Walking Centre Town Thatcham Directly servesDirectly Core Zone covering Walking Centre Newbury Town and Newbury Rail Station 2 2 3 3 3 New and improved main New and improved road and side widened crossings, space for separate footways, and walking people cycling New and improved road New and improved widened crossings, measures to tackle footways, parking, potential for footway measures to reduce traffic speeds New and improved road New and improved widened and crossings, redesigning new footways, easier access by to enable and walking, people cycling measures to potential for reduce traffic speeds New and improved main New and improved road and side widened crossings, street tackle footways, furniture obstructions, measures to potential for reduce traffic speeds New and improved main New and improved road and side widened crossings, space for separate footways, and walking people cycling Key Walking Walking Key 7 – Route Thatcham Station Railway to Thatcham Centre Town Key Walking Walking Key 6 – Route NorthfieldRoad Lane to Park Key Walking Walking Key 5 – Route to Dunstan Park Lane Park Key Walking Walking Key 4 – NorthRoute to Thatcham Town Thatcham Centre via Park Lane Key Walking Walking Key 3 – NorthRoute Newbury to Newbury Town Centre

LCWIP 45 West Berkshire Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) Prioritised Strategic Cycle Routes – Audit Findings and Recommended Improvements

West Berkshire Council

January 2021 Quality Control

Rev Date Details 1st Draft 03/12/2020 2nd Draft 15/01/2021 3rd Draft

Name Prepared by: RS, JM, DL Review by: JP Approved by: AW

WSP House 70 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1AF wsp.com

-2- Cycle Routes for Initial Audit

6 3

2 and 3 2 7

5 4

5 1a 1

Corridor 1 – Wash Common to Newbury Town Centre Corridor 1a – Sandleford Park to Newbury Town Centre Corridor 2 – East Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre Corridor 3 – Thatcham Town Centre to Vodafone Campus Corridor 4 – Thatcham Railway Station to Thatcham Town Centre Corridor 5 – South Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre Corridor 6 – Vodafone Campus to Newbury Town Centre Corridor 7 – Speen to Shaw 3 -3- Summary of findings from cycle route audits (based on Route Selection Tool scoring criteria)

Key to colours on charts:

Corridor 1 – Wash Common Corridor 2 - East Thatcham to Corridor 3 - Thatcham Town to Newbury Town Centre Newbury Town Centre Centre to Vodafone Campus

Corridor 4 – Thatcham Railway Corridor 5 - South Thatcham Corridor 6 - Vodafone Campus Station to Thatcham Town Centre to Newbury Town Centre to Newbury Town Centre

-4- Key to plans

Wide / flared side road junction

Critical junction where cyclists potential in conflict with high traffic volumes

Proposed primary route for improvement

Other audited route

Commentary on existing issues

The improvements outlined in this findings summary are draft only at this stage. They will be developed and revised following:

• the outcome of scheme/route specific consultation; • further design and technical work; • and funding requirements.

Schemes will be designed in accordance with the DfT’s Local Transport Note 1/20.

-5- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 1: Wash Common to Newbury Town Centre Wash Common to St. John’s Roundabout

Summary of existing situation For northern route Plan of existing situation continuation • High traffic volumes and no protected cycle infrastructure means See next page that Andover Road scores very poorly in terms of safety and comfort. • Andover Road: People cycling currently Multiple junctions with characteristics hazardous to people cycling mix with high traffic flows. Space (critical junctions). constraints on some sections mean • Route climbs northwards from Wash Common before descending to that it would not be feasible to provide town centre with the middle part of the route scoring very poorly in continuous protected cycle track(s) of gradient terms. an appropriate standard if two traffic • There are limited alternative north-south routes. Currently there are lanes are retained. no publicly accessible routes east of Andover Road and south of The Gun junction which connect to Monks Lane for people cycling. Andover Road: The steep incline on Andover Road means that this section Recommended improvements scores poorly in terms of gradient. Width constraints on parts of Andover Road north of Monks Lane mean that continuous cycle tracks of an appropriate standard could not be Andover Road: A site visit by provided within the existing highway boundary whilst retaining two WSP found that the road traffic lanes and existing footways. An alternative route is recommended: surface was poor in places.

• Option A: west of Andover Road via Battery End or Falkland Road, Charles Street, Essex Street, Elizabeth Avenue, Valley Road and Andover Road / Essex Street / connecting streets to reach Bartholomew Street (see next page for Andover Road: Monks Lane junction: further details); and/or Wider highway People cycling are in potential • Option B: from the proposed Sandleford development sites via section with grass conflict with very high traffic Monks Lane, Rupert Road and Wendan Road to reach the northern verges. People volumes at double-mini- end of Andover Road (discussed on a separate page). cycling currently roundabouts mix with high The following infrastructure would be required to connect southern parts traffic flows of Wash Common to option A: Falkland Park House • Construct protected cycle track(s) on section of Andover Road south Primary Secondary of the Essex Street / Monks Lane junction to serve the schools and School School local facilities (using sections of highway verge / kerb realignment). • Upgrade and/or relocate the signal crossing as part of measures to enable safe access to Park House School

-6- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 1: Wash Common to Newbury Town Centre Western route variant via Elizabeth Avenue

Summary of existing situation Plan of existing • situation For northern route Less direct route (800m longer) than Andover continuation Road, but serves large residential areas see next page • Mostly uses streets with lower traffic levels but B2 some short sections of roads with higher traffic B1 flows (Essex Street) • Steep gradient on the southern end of Elizabeth Eli zabeth Avenue / V alley Road / Fifth Road / Buckingham Avenue Road: Fewer than 2,500 vehicles per day are estimated Recommended improvements to use these roads, making • Battery End, Charles Street, Falkland Road, Essex them broadly suitable for Street, Elizabeth Avenue, Valley Road, Fifth Road cycling. areas: The introduction of a 20mph speed limit would improve safety for people cycling. • Essex Street (between Charles Street and Elizabeth Avenue): Space for cycling segregated from motor vehicles may be required, along with an improved crossing for people cycling and walking. However, width constraints limit what can be accommodated within the highway boundary Essex Street: More than 2,500 vehicles whilst retaining two traffic lanes. Consideration per day are estimated to use this road, could be given to a priority working arrangement which means that on-carriageway to provide additional space for people cycling and cycling is not suitable for all people and infrastructure would be required walking. • to make this section more suitable in Elizabeth Avenue, Valley Road and Fifth Road: If terms of safety and comfort. appropriate, consider additional measures to ensure these roads have low traffic flows and low traffic speeds suitable for on-carriageway cycling. This could include traffic calming, or measures to prevent through traffic whilst maintaining vehicle access to all properties. • Redesign wide / flared side road junctions to reduce the potential for collisions between motor vehicles and people cycling or walking. Battery End, Falkland • Consider redesigning the junctions of Andover Road and Charles Street: Road with Battery End or Falkland Road and Essex Fewer than 2,500 Street / Charles Street to enable people cycling to vehicles per day are estimated to use these make safer turning movements, including to / from roads, making them the proposed cycle tracks. Width constraints could broadly suitable for require a particular junction to be closed to cycling. through-traffic to accommodate a revised layout.

-7- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 1a: Sandleford to Newbury Town Centre Eastern route option: Sandleford to Andover Road Section

Summary of existing situation Plan of existing • For northern route A alignment via Elizabeth Avenue is recommended to situation continuation connect Wash Common to Newbury town centre but see next page this would not serve areas east of Andover Road. • An eastern alignment was also assessed. Much of the route would follow streets with lower traffic levels and scores well against the cycle design criteria. However, it St. Bartholomew’s would also include Monks Lane, which has higher traffic School flows, and the western end has no cycle tracks to protect people cycling from motor traffic. • Currently there are no other publicly accessible routes east of Andover Road and south of Monks Lane within Rupert Road, Chandos Road an d West Berkshire for people cycling; however the Wendan Road: Fewer 2,500 vehicles Sandleford Park development allocation is intended to per day are estimated to use these provide new links. roads, making these streets broadly • Steep gradients for people cycling south along Wendan suitable for cycling. Road, Chandos Road and Rupert Road. Wendan Road and Chandos Road: Sections of carriageway in poor Recommended improvements condition. • Sandleford Park development: Ensure good quality cycle routes are provided through the proposed development, to connect Andover Road to Monks Lane as part of Monks Lane ( west of Park House development proposals. School pedestrian access): Monks • Monks Lane: Work with Sandleford Park developers to (i) Lane has high traffic flows and the secure wider path on southern side of road, with approximately 100m section east of segregated space for people cycling and people walking Andover Road has no infrastructure • Monks Lane / Rupert Road junction: Work with to physically protect people cycling Monks Lane shared-use from motor vehicles. Width path: High pedestrian Sandleford Park developers to enable people cycling to flows on Monks Lane safely access Rupert Road from the cycle track (and vice constraints means that cycle tracks could not be provided whilst and limited widths on versa). This is likely to require the signal crossing to be retaining two traffic lanes. the shared-use path redesigned and relocated. It may also require the Rupert mean that this section Road junction to be redesigned to enable safe cycle scores poorly in comfort movements, such as one-way entry or exit on Rupert terms. Road. • Rupert Road, Chandos Road and Wendan Road areas: If Monks Lane / Rupert Road appropriate, consider measures to ensure they have low junction: signal crossing is traffic flows and low traffic speeds suitable for on- located approximately 20m to carriageway cycling. This could potentially include the west of the junction, with very narrow shared-use path on 20mph speed limits or measures to prevent through Sandleford Park traffic whilst maintaining vehicle access to all properties. northern side of Monks Lane Development Site connecting to Rupert Road. Requires people cycling to make complex manoeuvres.

-8- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 1: Wash Common to Newbury Town Centre Buckingham Road / Wendan Road to town centre

Plan of existing situation Summary of existing situation • Newtown Road and Bartholomew Street score very poorly Rockingham Road an d Craven Road: Fewer for safety and comfort, where people cycling mix with heavy than 2,500 vehicles per day are estimated Newbury traffic flows. to use these roads, making these streets Town centre • Highway widths on Newtown Road and Bartholomew broadly suitable for cycling. Street mean that continuous cycle tracks of an appropriate A standard could not be provided unless the streets were converted to one-way operation for motor vehicles, and En borne Road an d Pound St reet: parking bays were removed along one side of Bartholomew Single-carriageway road with two Newtown Road & Bartholomew Street. These changes would be very challenging to deliver traffic lanes, hatched road Street: People cycling currently and there are few other railway crossings. markings and occasional on-street mix with high traffic flows. 20mph • A western alternative route is recommended to avoid the parking. Traffic volumes estimated zone north of the rail bridge. identified issues on Newtown Road and Bartholomew to be >5,000 vehicles per day. Space constraints mean that it Street using the Rockingham Road railway bridge. A route would not be feasible to provide following Buckingham Road, Enborne Road, Rockingham continuous protected cycle Road and Craven Road (reference A) would mostly follow track(s) of an appropriate standard residential streets with lower traffic levels (<2,500 vehicles and retain two traffic lanes A per day) which are broadly suitable in their current form. It would however include sections of roads with higher traffic B Andover Road / Newtown flows (Enborne Road). A connecting route is identified from Road / St John’s Road Wendan Road (reference B). roundabout: Multi-lane roundabout with existing, unprotected cycle lanes. Recommended improvements Cyclists come into • Enborne Road – construct protected cycle tracks with potential conflict with very priority across side roads. Redesign junctions with high traffic volumes. Rockingham Road, Buckingham Road and Rectory Close to enable safer cycle movements. Construct enhanced crossings of Enborne Road for people cycling and walking, An dover Road ( Wendan Road t o such as a parallel crossings. St. John’s Roundabout): Two • Consider measures to reduce vehicle speeds on residential traffic lanes with bus stop streets, potentially including 20mph speed limits Redesign laybys, bound by sections of highway verge. One-way cycle wide / flared side road junctions. tracks on both sides of • Andover Road – construct protected cycle tracks between For southern route carriageway but without Buckingham Road and City Recreation Ground access. protection from motor traffic. Redesign junctions with Buckingham Road and Wendan continuation City Recreation Ground: See previous pages Protected, stepped cycle track Road to enable safe cycle movements onto/off cycle track. Existing traffic-free for southbound movements Redesign and potentially reposition signal crossing to route. Limited natural only on approach to Wendan enable comfortable cycle crossings of Andover Road. This surveillance; limited Road. could potentially take the form of a signal junction where lighting Wendan Road meets Andover Road. • City Recreation Ground: Explore options to illuminate the path. Widen path and segregated space for people cycling and people walking. -9- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 2: East Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre Colthrop to Stoney Lane Section

Summary of existing situation Plan of A4 Bath Road: Very high traffic volumes and • Combination of narrow shared-use paths existing situation high traffic speeds (40mph speed limit). and on-carriageway cycle lanes with light Westbound mandatory cycle lane, with light segregation segregation features (wands / armadillos). The • Route section scores well in safety terms distance separating people cycling from due to provision of protected infrastructure; adjacent motor vehicles does not appear to however the infrastructure does not appear meet the minimum standards in LTN 1/20 for to provide sufficient separation distances roads with 40mph speed limits (0.5m). from motor traffic based on standards set People cycling eastbound are directed to use out in LTN1/20. Floral Way roundabout: Critical junction, where a shared-use path with limited width. • westbound cycle movements mix with very Route section scores less well in terms of high traffic volumes. Eastbound cycle comfort, due to limited widths of off- movements cross multiple traffic lanes without carriageway shared-use paths. Pipers Way roundabout: priority (Floral Way entry / exit arm). Critical junction, where • Several junctions with characteristics which westbound cycle may be hazardous to people cycling, movements mix with very including all the A4 roundabouts. high traffic volumes. No coherent means for westbound cycle Recommended improvements • movements to join Provide continuous protected infrastructure shared-use path (north of with priority over intervening side roads, For western Bath Road) on approach with the minimum required separation route to roundabout. widths from motor traffic, set out in LTN1/20. continuation see next page • London Road ( Floral Way These improvements are likely to require West Berkshire to Stoney Lane): reallocation of carriageway space, kerb Crematorium realignment and loss of on-street parking in Mandatory one-way cycle some locations. In locations where lanes, with light segregation features adequate separation from motor vehicles (combination of wands cannot be achieved, such as on Bath Road and armadillos). Very east of Pipers Way, consider measures to high traffic volumes. reduce motor vehicle speeds, such as with revised speed limit.

• A4 B ath Road ( East of Pi pers Way Redesign critical junctions to enable safer roundabout): Very high traffic volumes and crossing movements for people cycling and high traffic speeds (national speed limit). walking. This could comprise signal or For people cycling west there is a parallel crossings on the roundabout mandatory cycle lane with light Colthrop approaches, for example. segregation features (wands / armadillos). Industrial People cycling east are directed to use a Estate shared-use path of limited width. The distance separating people cycling from adjacent motor vehicles does not meet the minimum standards in LTN 1/20 for roads with 60mph speed limits (2m). -10- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 2: East Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre Stoney Lane to Bourne Road Section

Summary of existing situation Plan of existing situation • Sections between Stoney Lane and Northfield Chapel St reet / Harts Hi ll Road scores poorly in both safety and comfort Road, Chapel St reet / The terms, there is a mandatory cycle lane and Moors, Chapel St reet / light segregation in parts, however this is not B roadway, Chapel St reet / consistent and people cycling occasionally B ath Road / Northfield Road / Park Lane: Critical mix with heavy traffic flows .. Matthews Close: Critical junctions, where people • Several junctions with characteristics which junctions, where people cycling on the may be hazardous to people cycling. cycling using carriageway carriageway come into come into conflict with heavy potential conflict with motor traffic volumes. heavy motor traffic volumes. For western route continuation see next For eastern page route continuation see previous page Recommended improvements • Provide continuous segregated cycle tracks with priority over intervening side roads, with the minimum required separation widths from motor traffic, set out in LTN1/20. These Thatcham improvements are likely to require reallocation Town centre of carriageway space, kerb realignment and Bath Road: Two-lane carriageway with right-turn removal of on-street parking in some locations. lanes. Very high traffic volumes and occasional on-street parking. West of High Street, shared-use • Chapel Street: Two-lane carriageway with Redesign other critical junctions, including the paths of limited width on both carriageway sides. sections of hatched road markings, right-turn signal junctions, to enable safer crossing Additional on-carriageway cycle provision in both lanes. Multiple critical junctions. Mandatory one- movements for people cycling, both east-west directions, formed of: mandatory cycle lanes with way cycle lanes on approach to Broadway, Harts and north-south movements (where relevant) light segregation features; and, where widths are Hill Road.. Very high traffic volumes and people to give access to and from the segregated more limited, advisory cycle lanes. cycling mix with motor vehicles are various cycle tracks. This could for example dedicated points. crossing phases to avoid potential conflict with turning motor vehicles.

-11- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 2: East Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre Bourne Road to Hambridge Road section

Summary of existing situation Plan of existing Benham Hill / Lower situation Way junction: East- west crossings • Mix of on-carriageway advisory cycle lanes and B enham Hi ll / Tull Way / simplified as part of off-carriageway shared-use paths Turnpike Road roundabout: recently implemented Critical junction, with • Sections where people cycling must mix with London Road: Narrow B ath Road / B enham Hi ll: scheme. People people cycling east shared-use path on Single carriageway with right-turning very high traffic volumes score very poorly in cycling are however required to cross multiple southern side of lanes and very high traffic volumes. safety and comfort terms required to cross in traffic lanes at roundabout carriageway. Effective On-street, advisory cycle lanes. Off- • Sections of existing shared-use path score poorly two stages to reach without priority, or in widths are reduced at carriageway, shared-use path set in comfort terms due to width constraints. shared-use path to multiple stages via Bath points due to road back behind highway verge on north • Several junctions with conditions hazardous to west of Lower Way, Road service road and signage / bus stop side of Bath Road west of Henwick adding to journey shared-use paths. people cycling, including garden centre infrastructure. Lane. roundabout. times, and without • priority on one of the The Hambridge Road junction can only be two crossings. crossed in multiple stages, adding significantly Thatcham to cycle journey times. Garden Centre West Recommended improvements Berkshire For western For eastern Hospital route route • On Bath Road and Benham Hill, construct continuation continuation continuous, protected cycling infrastructure, with see next see previous sufficient separation between people cycling and page page motor vehicles in accordance with LTN1/20 and with priority over intervening side roads. These improvements would require the reallocation of some carriageway space / kerb realignment and potentially some land in private ownership. • Provide signal crossings on the approach arms to B enham Hi ll service road: People cycling west are the Benham Hill / Tull Way roundabout to enable Benham Hill / London Road: Single- directed to use the Benham Hill service road, safe and comfortable crossings for people cycling carriageway road with very high avoiding the Benham Hill / Tull Way roundabout and walking. traffic volumes. On-carriageway (critical junction). • Redesign Benham Hill / Lower Way and London London Road / advisory cycle lanes for some Road / Hambridge Way signal junctions, to enable Hambridge Road sections. Shared-use path on junction: East-west southern side of carriageway. Further people cycling to cross more efficiently (in fewer shared-use provision to north of separate stages). cycle movements required to cross in carriageway on approach to the multiple stages, adding Lower Way junction. significantly to journey times.

-12- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 2: East Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre Hambridge Road to A339 section

-13- Summary of existing situation Plan of existing situation • Section scores well for safety as infrastructure of London Road: Shared- different widths and standards protects people cycling London Road: Sections of use path, around 2-2.5m London Road: Shared- shared-use path on from very high traffic volumes alongside London Road. wide on southern side of • use path 3m wide on southern side of The two-way, segregated cycle track on London Road carriageway, although southern side of carriageway (estimated to (from Tesco to Mercedes-Benz garage) scores well for with severe pinch point carriageway. Effective be 2-3m wide), connected both safety and comfort. adjacent to the former widths reduced by bus by a short section of road • Sections score poorly for comfort where there are Narrow Boat public stop infrastructure near (providing access to the house. London Road is width constraints on the shared-use paths and cycle Mercedes-Benz garage, Newbury Boat Company single carriageway with tracks segregated from pedestrian space by a white bringing people cycling and residential hatched road markings / Access to Newbury line. into potential conflict properties). Limited right-turn lanes and Manor: Critical junction, • Multiple junctions with conditions hazardous to people with people walking. widths east of the River some highway verge. where people cycling cycling, where crossing movements require multiple Lambourn mean the cross path of turning stages, adding significantly to journey times. paths score poorly in vehicles without priority. • Gentle gradients comfort terms.

Recommended improvements • Redesign London Road corridor to create better quality infrastructure of consistent standard with physically For western separated space for people cycling and people walking. route These improvements would require the reallocation of continuation some carriageway space and kerb realignment and see next potentially some land in private ownership. page For eastern route • Further study is required to investigate whether there is continuation sufficient highway space adjacent to the former Narrow see previous Boat public house to retain two traffic lanes and page construct a segregated two-way cycle track of at least London Road / Faraday 3m width, which would achieve the minimum Road junction: Critical London Road: Two-way, recommended comfort score. junction. Cycle fully segregated cycle movements to/from track with kerb • Redesign accesses at Newbury Manor, London Road Faraday Road mix with separation from motor heavy traffic volumes. Retail Park and Tesco to give formal priority to crossing traffic. Bus stop boarder Tesco Supermarket cycle movements over motor vehicles. in vicinity of Skyllings. access: Raised Retail park access: Raised crossing. People crossing with ‘elephant’s cycling cross footprints’ and give way multiple traffic lanes markings to denote that without formal people cycling have priority priority over motor over motor vehicles. vehicles.

-13- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 2: East Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre Faraday Road to Newbury town centre section

Summary of existing situation Plan of existing situation • Faraday Road has poor surface quality, very wide side road River Kennet towpath: junctions and a significant traffic flows, meaning that it is Designated shared-use largely unsuitable for cycling in its current form. Path to Wharf path, with connections • The route past Newbury Town Football Club (reference A) Road: People to Faraday Road via and Kennet towpath to Northbrook Street (reference B) are football club car park. cycling are For eastern not overlooked by adjacent land uses, are shared with required to Limited widths and pedestrians and narrow in places, particularly under the relatively high route dismount to continuation pedestrian flows mean Wharf Road bridge and also immediately east of reach Wharf see previous that this section scores Northbrook Street. This reduces its safety and comfort Road from page scores. towpath. poorly in comfort terms. • Wharf Road (reference C) provides another connection across the River Kennet. However, people cycling are required to dismount on the narrow path on the edge of Victoria Park leading up to the bridge. Therefore, this route is not currently available for all people of ages and abilities to cycle.

Recommended improvements • London Road / Faraday Road junction: Redesign to provide Faraday Road: Single- carriageway road serving safe and segregated cycle infrastructure, with signal crossings Newbury as appropriate. commercial and industrial land Town Centre uses. 30mph speed limit. A Estimated to be between 2,500 • Faraday Road corridor: Protected cycle tracks are required, B C and 5,000 vehicle movements with priority over intervening side roads. These will need to be per day, including high number secured as part of any future redevelopment of frontages. Newbury Town of HGV movements. Significant Football Club number of carriageway surface • Kennet Towpath: Popular route for pedestrians particularly in car park defects. No space for protected the summer month, Space constraints severely limit cycle tracks. opportunities to provide to consistently provide more space for people cycling and walking. Further study could be undertaken to understand if a cantilevered boardwalk could River Kennet towpath: Designated be provided, such as under the Wharf Road bridge. Wharf Road bridge: • The alternative route via Wharf Road route is recommended shared-use path, estimated to be c.3m- Access permitted instead. This will require a wide and gently sloping path for wide. People cycling for buses, taxis and use by both people cycling and walking to connect the are directed to cycles only. Two- towpath to Wharf Road. dismount when way movements passing underneath over Wharf Road Wharf Road where bridge controlled by useable width shuttle signals. reduces to around 1.5m. -14- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 3: Thatcham Town Centre to North Newbury Turnpike Road

-15- Plan of existing Summary of existing situation situation Turnpike Road: Two- • Turnpike Road/ Fire Turnpike Road: Section scores well for safety (due to cycle tracks lane carriageway, Tree Lane mini- Cycle track around separated from motor traffic) but poorly for comfort subject to 30mph 3m wide, set back (due to width constraints / pinch points, and potential speed limit, with traffic roundabout: Turnpike Road / People cycling from carriageway conflict between people cycling and walking). volumes estimated to Avon Way cross multiple by sections of • People cycling do not have priority at side roads along roundabout: Wide exceed 5,000 vehicles highway verge. per day. Highway traffic lanes without the cycle track, bringing them into potential conflict side road, where priority. Markings delineate with motor vehicles. people cycling bordered on both separate space for sides by existing • Multiple critical junctions. cross multiple people cycling and residential frontages. • Significant gradients on some parts of Turnpike Road. traffic lanes without walking. priority.

Recommended improvements • Benham Hill to Waller Drive: To improve the comfort and safety scores, introduce physical segregation of people cycling and walking (such as with kerbs) and separate For western the track from the 40mph carriageway by an absolute route minimum 0.5m. continuation see page 17 • West of Waller Drive: An initial review indicates that there is insufficient width to accommodate a segregated Thatcham Garden cycle track of appropriate standard plus two traffic lanes Centre and separate footways. Due to the high traffic flows on this important access route, other options to achieve a West suitable standard of segregated cycle track within the Berkshire highway boundary are considered to be unfeasible. Hospital

• It is therefore recommended that a wider shared-use For eastern path of at least 3.5m width be constructed wherever route space allows. This would require some road space continuation Turnpike Road: Path typically around 3m wide, reallocation, kerb realignment and potential loss or see route C2 likely to be used by large number of pedestrians, relocation of some on-street parking. It is recommended with markings delineating separate space for that side road junctions are redesigned to give priority people cycling and walking. Site observations for people cycling and walking along Turnpike Road. indicated widespread pavement parking, Further study is required to identify feasible options. reducing useable width. Benham Hill / Tull Way / Turnpike Road roundabout: Critical junction, with people cycling required to cross multiple traffic lanes without priority, and in multiple stages, to reach Benham Hill. -15- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 3: Thatcham Town Centre to North Newbury Kiln Road and Church Road

Summary of existing situation Plan of existing • situation Church Road: 20mph speed Kiln Road: Shared-use path, likely to be Kiln Road scores well for safety due to the current traffic-free limit and no through route for cycle track but poorly for comfort due to its limited width. used by large number of pedestrians, general motor vehicles. Higher with markings delineating separate Other issues reduce the quality of the track, including Love Lane / Church Road traffic levels during school start junction: Critical junction, space for people cycling and walking. widespread footway parking, no priority for people cycling at and finish times, including Generally around 3m wide, although intervening junctions and guardrailing which may impede use where cycle movements mix student cyclists. Existing shared- with moderate traffic observations made on-site indicated by some cycle designs. use provision of very limited that its useable width is reduced by • volumes on Love Lane. Zebra width (c.2m) between Shaw Kiln Road east of Pear Tree Lane: significant gradients. crossing on eastern arm. pavement parking. Single • Church Road has characteristics broadly suitable for on-street Road and Shaw House, without carriageway, subject to 30mph speed cycling due to low traffic flows and 20mph speed limit and priority over intervening limit, with traffic volumes estimated to accesses. scores well in safety and comfort terms on Church Road. exceed 5,000 vehicles per day. Highway However, the existing shared-use provision scores poorly due bordered on both sides by existing to its limited width. residential frontages. • Multiple critical junctions and significant design issues at the existing Shaw Road signal crossing. • There are significant gradients on some parts of Kiln Road.

Recommended improvements Kiln Road: Steep gradients, • An initial review indicates that there is insufficient width to especially west of For eastern accommodate a segregated cycle track of appropriate standard Church Road: Traffic- Pear Tree Lane. route plus two traffic lanes and separate footways. Due to the high free section in vicinity continuation traffic flows on this strategic route, other options to achieve a of Trinity School see page 16 suitable standard of segregated cycle track within the highway boundary are considered to be unfeasible.

• It is therefore recommended that a wider shared-use path of at Kiln Road / Walton least 3.5m width be constructed wherever space allows. This Way: critical junction, would require some road space reallocation, kerb realignment where cycle Shaw Road / Ki ln Road / Kiln Road / Gaywood and potential loss or relocation of some on-street parking. It is Church Road junction: junction movements cross recommended that side road junctions are redesigned to give multiple traffic lanes Drive roundabout: with several characteristics critical junction. People priority for people cycling and walking along Kiln Road. Further without priority. hazardous to cyclists. Cyclists cycling cross multiple study is required to identify feasible options. are directed to use a signal traffic lanes without crossing on the southern arm, priority. • Redesign the Shaw Road / Kiln Road / Church Road junction, to avoiding the critical junction enable east-west cycle crossing movements on the desire line. A and connecting to the existing Church Road shared-use path. number of options may be possible, some of which would have Turnpike Road: The existing crossing provision impacts on motor vehicle movements. Two locations has significant design issues, • Upgrade the Love Lane zebra crossing to a parallel crossing and where guard with insufficient space for railing may redesign approach paths, to enable their use by people cycling people cycling and people restrict access by and walking, and to better connect into the Vodafone Campus. walking, and requiring cyclists • some cycle Remove existing guardrailing on Kiln Road to enable all cycle to make several 90-degree designs. designs to use the cycle track. turns to reach Church Road. -16- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 4: Thatcham Railway Station to Thatcham Town Centre Thatcham Railway Station to Stoney Lane

Summary of existing situation Plan of existing situation • Rail Station to Pipers Way: scores poorly in terms of safety and comfort as people cycling mix with high traffic flows. • Pipers Way to Oak Tree Road section: Existing shared-use Station Road: Narrower path scores well in terms of safety and comfort terms, but section of shared-use would benefit from physical segregation of cyclists from path. Limited widths and pedestrians. For northern section high pedestrian flows • Oak Tree Road to Stoney Lane: Narrower shared-use path see page 19 mean that this section scores well for safety, but poorly for comfort (due to scores poorly in terms of potential conflict between people cycling and walking). comfort. People cycling • Multiple crossings with significant design issues (where have no priority when cyclists are required to make sharp turns, follow crossing intervening side roads. ambiguous routes or cross heavily-trafficked roads without priority) • Multiple wide / flared side road junctions.

Station Road / Wheelers Suggested improvements Green Way junction: critical • Widen the cycle track along Station Road to provide fully junction, where cyclists segregated space for people cycling and people walking, cross multiple traffic lanes such as with kerbs. Width constraints may mean that without priority. priority working for motor vehicles, or land acquisition, may Station Road: Traffic-free be required to achieve continuous cycle tracks of an Urquhart Road roundabout: segregated path on eastern appropriate standard south of Pipers Way and north of Oak critical junction, where east- side of carriageway, estimated Tree Road. Station Road is also an important access route west cycle movements between to be 3.5m-4m wide, with for motor vehicles means that it is very challenging to Station Road shared-use path white lines denoting separate substantially reduce traffic volumes and create conditions and Urquhart Road cross high spaces for pedestrians and suitable for on-street cycling. volumes of traffic without cyclists south of Urquhart • priority. Between Pipers Way and Oak Tree Road the upgraded Road and north of Wheelers provision should provide priority for people cycling across Green Way. intervening side roads. Station Road / Pipers • In terms of critical junctions, remodel the Station Road / Way roundabout: Existing signal crossing Pipers Way roundabout and Station Road / Urquhart Road set back substantially roundabout, to provide a more compact design with from the desire line, protected cycle tracks around the junction and enhanced requiring a series of crossings on each arm, such as with priority, parallel or Station Road: Very high traffic sharp 90-degree turns signal crossing designs. volumes, including a high and extra journey time. number of HGV movements. The roundabout has People cycling currently share characteristics which the carriageway with motor would be hazardous to vehicles. people cycling with Road bound to east by verge very high traffic (the ownership status of which is volumes and flared currently unknown). entry / exit arms. -17- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 4: Thatcham Railway Station to Thatcham Town Centre Stoney Lane to The Broadway

Plan of existing Summary of existing situation situation • Section east of The Moors scores well for safety and poorly for comfort as the existing shared-use path is narrow and likely to bring people cycling and walking See Corridor 2 for into conflict with each other further details • Section west of The Moors scores poorly in terms of St oney Lane ( n orth of Kennet School): single- safety and comfort as people cycling mix with high carriageway road with traffic flows. 20mph speed limit. • Multiple critical junctions where people cycling are in The Broadway: One-way loop Thatcham Current traffic volumes potential conflict with heavy traffic flows with moderate traffic flows and estimated to be 2,500- Town centre • Multiple wide / flared side road junctions extensive on-street parking. 5,000 vehicles per day north of Kennet School. Recommended improvements Highway space constraints mean that it is not feasible to construct protected cycle tracks of an acceptable standard Kennet if two-way traffic are retained on Station Road between School Stoney Lane and The Moors, or between The Moors and The Broadway. Station Road is also an important access route for Station Road: Single- Stoney Lane (Station Road motor vehicles which means that it is challenging to carriageway road with limited to Domoney Close): Shared substantially reduce traffic volumes and create conditions highway width and residential use path delineated by suitable for on-street cycling. An alternative option is to frontages. 20mph zone with white line and very narrow provide a cycle route suitable for all ages and abilities via traffic calming features (speed in places. Very high humps). Estimated to have Stoney Lane to connect to the proposed improvements for pedestrian flows. Section of more than 2,500 vehicles per corridor 2 on Chapel Street. The following is recommended: Stoney Lane between day. No protected cycling Domoney Close and Kennet infrastructure. • School is one-way Redesign Station Road / Stoney Lane junction to enable southbound for motor safe and comfortable transitions to/from protected vehicles. cycling infrastructure on Station Road. • Work with Kennet School and local residents to design a For southern scheme for safe cycling and walking on Stoney Lane. section Options could include: (a) introduction of point road see previous page closures to motor vehicles north of Kennet School), to The Moors / Station Road Station Road: Single- roundabouts: People cycling are carriageway road with prevent through-traffic or (b) widening and extending Stoney Lane cycle tracks and (c) introducing restrictions on motor directed to use an existing high traffic flows. uncontrolled crossing of The Moors, Limited highway roundabout: traffic at pick-up and drop-off times (known as school People cycling avoiding the two critical junctions width between streets). cross multiple • and connecting to the existing Cochrane Close and Redesign Chapel Street / Stoney Lane junction, to enable shared-use provision north of Station Neville Drive. Existing traffic lanes on Stoney Lane. safe turning movements to/from the proposed London Road. The crossing point has shared-use path to Raised table Road cycle track and safe crossings of Chapel Street itself significant design issues, including: north of carriageway for people cycling and walking. This could take the form insufficient width where people (c.2m wide) scores very crossing without priority over of a signal junction. cycling mix with people walking; poorly in comfort motor vehicles. sharp 90-degree turns; approaches terms. Multiple wide to the crossing are ambiguous. side road junctions. -18- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 5: South Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre Urquhart Road, Ilkley Way and The Moors

Summary of existing situation Plan of existing situation

• Urquhart Road, Braemore Close and Ilkley Way: The Moors / I lkley Way: estimated to have low traffic flows and are For western People cycling are in continuation The Moors: Single-carriageway road with two traffic lanes broadly suitable for on-carriageway cycling. potential conflict with high • see next page The Moors: High traffic volumes mean that and high traffic flows. Existing shared-use path to north of traffic volumes. protected cycle tracks are required to protect carriageway is approximately 2m wide and scores poorly people cycling, although width constraints limit in comfort terms. Flanked in many places by walls and options to provide continuous cycling hedges, limiting natural surveillance (overlooking). Width constraints west of Grassington Place. infrastructure of an appropriate quality. • Urquhart Road, Ilkley Way and The Moors: Existing shared-use provision on scores well for safety due to segregation from traffic but poorly for comfort (due to narrow width and potential conflict with high pedestrian flows). • Multiple critical junctions and wide side road junctions. Ilkley Way: Single-carriageway Recommended improvements road. Recorded peak hour • The Moors west of Grassington Place: Constructing traffic volumes indicate that a cycle track of appropriate width on sections traffic flows may exceed 5,000 without grassed verges would require carriageway vehicles per day. Limited narrowing and priority working for motor vehicles, natural surveillance as few which may not be deliverable. An alternative cycle properties front onto the road. route alignment via the western section of Ilkley Way avoids this narrow section. • Ilkley Way: If surveys indicate the southern and For Station western sections have high traffic flows, then Road section construct cycle tracks with physical protection see route C4 from motor vehicles using highway verge, and with priority across redesigned side road junctions. There may be a requirement for priority working for motor vehicles where space is most limited. • Urquhart Road, Braemore Close: Consider additional measures to ensure low-traffic, low- Urquhart Road / Braemore Close: Single- speed streets (such as 20mph speed limits or carriageway road, subject to 30mph speed traffic calming measures). limit, with characteristics broadly suitable Urquhart Road roundabout: • The Moors south of Lower Way: Highway width for on-carriageway cycling. There are critical junction, where people constraints mean that a small strip of land in estimated to be fewer than 2,500 vehicles cycling between the Station private ownership (the eastern edge of the playing per day using Urquhart Close due to bus Road shared-use path and gate. Some surface defects. Shared-use fields site) may be required to create protected Urquhart Road cross high path on southern side of carriageway, volumes of traffic without cycle tracks. • estimated to be c.3m wide. Residential priority. Redesign wide side road junctions with reduced frontages mean the path is likely to be used junction radii. by large numbers of pedestrians. -19- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Corridor 5: South Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre The Moors (western section) and Lower Way

Summary of existing situation Plan of existing situation • Lower Way: Shared-use paths along full length of road score well in safety terms (separating Lower Way / The Moors / people cycling from the heavy traffic flows on Existing toucan crossing Lower Way: Existing Church Gate: Existing the adjacent carriageway), but poorly on point for people cycling. shared-use path to shared-use crossing with significant design issues: comfort (due to the narrow paths where people north of carriageway, shared with high crossing set back cycling come into potential conflict with people pedestrian flows. The substantially from the walking). highway width limits desire line, requiring • The shared-use path is mostly located on opportunities to people cycling to make southern side of carriageway, except for a short construct physically sharp 90-degree turns section on the northern side between Thatcham Lower Way protected infrastructure and cross in multiple Children’s Centre and Church Gate roundabout. (Critical crossing): of an appropriate stages to reach shared- The change in layout requires two road People cycling standard. use path on The Moors. crossings without priority or signal crossings. cross two traffic lanes without priority or Recommended improvements dedicated crossing. • There is limited highway width along Lower Way to widen the existing traffic-free route. As the road provides a strategic connection between For western Thatcham and Newbury it is not considered continuation possible to reduce, or re-route motor traffic, see next page which would preclude other options to widen For eastern the cycle track or create safer conditions to continuation cycle on-carriageway. see previous • Achieving the required width for a cycle track page would in most places require a strip of land to Lower Way between The Moors be secured from relevant landowners on the London Road and Playing Fields southern side of the road. Thatcham Children’s • If these potential improvements cannot be Centre: Existing shared secured then it is recommended that improved use path on the connections are made to route C2 (Bath Road). southern side of the This would require a segregated track adjacent route. to the carriageway of Church Gate to connect The Moors: Single-carriageway road with high onto the carriageway of Green Lane. traffic flows. Existing shared-use path to east of • There may be the potential to identify a route carriageway is approximately 2m wide and scores poorly in comfort terms. Flanked in many places skirting The Moors Playing Fields to avoid the by walls and hedges, limiting natural surveillance pinch point at the western end of The Moors (overlooking). Width constraints on approach to and the eastern end of Lower Way, subject to the Lower Way / The Moors / Church Gate discussion with landowners. roundabout.

-20- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Route C5: South Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre Hambridge Road

Summary of existing situation Plan of existing situation • London Road to Hambridge Lane: Section scores well for safety (due to the shared-use path) but scores poorly for comfort due to the narrow width, where people cycling may come into potential conflict with people walking • Hambridge Lane to King’s Road:

Recommended improvements See Cycle Route C2 For eastern • continuation Hambridge Road between London Road and see page 21 Hambridge Lane: Upgrade existing shared-use path to provide segregated space of appropriate width for people cycling and walking. This will require kerb Hambridge Road / Hambridge Lane realignment and may require a new cantilevered roundabout: People cycling mix with bridge over the River Kennet to achieve suitable heavy traffic and there is no segregated cycle infrastructure to avoid the standards. roundabout. • Redesign the Hambridge Road / Hambridge Lane Hambridge Road: Narrow shared- use path on eastern side of roundabout to enable safer and more comfortable For western carriageway. Pinch points where crossings for people cycling and walking. This could continuation path passes between river and for example take the form of a more compact see next page canal bridge parapets and the 23 roundabout with protected space for people to cycle carriageway. around the edge of the junction with parallel crossings on approach arms.

• Hambridge Road west of Hambridge Lane roundabout: Construct segregated cycle tracks, with priority over intervening side roads. Space for the cycle tracks will require agreement to purchase Hambridge Road: grassed verges from frontagers. Between Bone Lane High traffic flows, and Boundary Road, if two-way traffic and existing including parking is retained, space for the protected cycle significant numbers tracks can only be achieved by securing land as part of heavy goods of future redevelopment schemes of employment vehicles and no cycle infrastructure sites.

-21- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Route C5: South Thatcham to Newbury Town Centre Kings Road and Town Centre

A339 Roundabout: People Summary Plan of existing cycling are required to • The section mostly comprises streets with high traffic situation dismount if using the flows and almost no segregated cycle infrastructure. It underpass, which excludes Mill Road and Hambridge Road: High traffic flows and therefore scores poorly in safety and comfort terms. Bear Lane: People people of all ages and no segregated cycle • Several roads - Mill Lane, Boundary Road and Kings cycling mix with abilities from using it. The infrastructure. Route is vehicles on Bear alternative involves multiple Road - form a clockwise one-way system which can currently 30mph. Many Lane (20mph zone stages of signal crossings, add additional distances to cycle journeys. wide road junctions. • with greater than adding significantly to The section has multiple critical junctions with journey times. characteristics hazardous to people cycling, either 2,500 vehicles per day). Mini- where cycles mix with heavy traffic flows or cross wide roundabout with side roads, such as industrial accesses • Wharf Road is a key People cycling are required to cross A339 roundabout exit from Newbury in multiple stages, adding significantly to journey times. bus interchange.

Recommended improvements • Hambridge Road corridor: Segregated cycle tracks are required, with priority over intervening side roads. If two- way traffic and existing parking is retained, space for the protected cycle tracks can only be achieved by securing Newbury For western land on the road frontage as part of all future Town Centre continuation redevelopment schemes of employment sites in the area. see page 22 • The planned Kings Road Link Road will connect the Sainsbury’s access to the Boundary Road / Kings Road / Hambridge Road crossroads through the Sterling Cables development site. The parallel section of Kings Road will become a cul-de-sac for motor vehicles and will be suitable for two-way on-carriageway cycling. King’s Road: Narrow shared-use path Mill Road and King’s Road: Narrow • Kings Road (Sainsbury’s frontage): Segregated cycle on northern boundary of Sainsbury’s streets with traffic lane for one-way tracks are required. Further study is required to confirm site brings people cycling into potential traffic and on-street parking spaces. whether this could be accommodated with a redesigned with people walking. Significant numbers of heavy and light highway layout whilst retaining the current traffic lanes goods vehicles. • A339 Roundabout: Provide single-stage east-west crossings for people cycling as part of future upgrades • Bear Lane: Cycle tracks cannot be accommodated unless the road was made one-way for motor vehicles or land was secured as part of redevelopment of an adjacent site. It is recommended that in the short term the east-west cycle route enter the town centre via Kings Road West and Cheap Street.

-22- Cycle Route Audits – Key Findings Route C6: North Newbury to Newbury Town Centre

Love Lane: Estimated to be used by Plan of existing Summary of existing situation North Newbury Vodafone more than 2,500 vehicles per day, situation • The A4 and A339 create significant severance for development Campus making the carriageway unsuitable people cycling (and walking). There are few existing for all abilities and ages to cycle crossings suitable for people cycling. None of the Dene Way & Northern subways / underpasses have the required height Avenue: No-through routes Church Road: : 20mph speed limit and many are narrow and have sharp turns. At- for motor vehicles with low and no through route for general surface alternative crossing are located some traffic flows. motor vehicles. Higher traffic levels distance from the subways. • during school start and finish times, Connecting shared-use paths are traffic-free but including student cyclists. tend to be narrow, especially sections alongside A4 Shared-use path and A339, potentially bringing people cycling into with lighting but limited natural conflict with people walking. They lack natural See Corridor C3 surveillance (overlooking) and some are unlit. The surveillance route south of Shaw House has barriers which is (overlooking). Narrow sections, likely to prevent some types of non-standard Shared-use path with including at no lighting or natural bicycle. bridge over River surveillance • Some sections of traffic-free path are shared by B Lambourn (overlooking) on route people cycling and walking, including all subways through Shaw and sections adjacent to A4 and A339. woodland. Two sets of barriers likely to Recommended improvements Unsurfaced and unlit path via prevent passage of • It is recommended that a route alignment (B) to the subway some cycle designs. west of the A339 and avoiding the Robin Hood Path narrows adjacent Roundabout is taken forward. to the A339. • Western Avenue: No at- Construct segregated cycle tracks on London Road surface signal crossing between St. Mary’s Road and Hawthorn Road. provision to connect Redesign, and potentially relocate, the existing signal residential areas north and crossing and redesign side junctions to improve south of Western Avenue, safety for people cycling meaning the subway is the A339: Subways of limited • Construct segregated cycle track and new signal only direct option. height and width, no natural crossing on Western Avenue between Chestnut surveillance and requiring Crescent and Dolman Road. Redesign side junctions sharp turns to access / exit Western Avenue: Existing to improve safety for people cycling. • shared use path is very Widen traffic-free path between Dene Way and narrow, bringing users in Poplar Place, including with replacement or parallel potential conflict. second bridge to accommodate people cycling and London Road: High walking traffic flows and no • Reconfigure Love Lane to provide safer north-south St Mary’s Road: No-through route for space for people motor vehicles with low traffic flows crossing from North Newbury development into cycling protected Northern Avenue, and narrow the carriageway to from motor provide off-road cycle track between Northern Newbury vehicles Town Centre Avenue and Church Road • Consider 20mph speed limits to enhance safety on residential streets. -23- Appendix E Walking network plans

1 0 2 0

0 x G i 0 f f , 2 h a m / k 1 S u D c r N 1 t n I s 0 o i / b u r y c c u f N i i e e

e 8 N L n K t h a t r r b

R 0 1 g g S a e d o i e d D A l o o T r e w 0 n L D A e e O s

i f Y E 8 e a t t t t E F a n C C A N L a s e S

i L i

e s i A a a i n D S r

l o N i E U t r r Y T i t

i p e s L d

O P y m m k r a n d a s t E

E m c s t s t p

e e

N s t R e y n W U o o e o r

B i d e n t 0 t m e D v I t i a n d h

a r r

e r e e O 0 o r e f f s C N

d d

. N u E L t v d i u d

i 6 r s s 1 n t O A 0 L e R D a p e e n s H u r y c u o S P t c a e

u n D e 2 J P

t t 1 e A o a b o u n d a r i e s a S E r R e y ' O B y i o o r 0 b e r S i D o t t w 0 n

c e c e P R a p ) e 0

g H R i l r s S S - o 2 c e e

l E s t o r N d g

e i o n s w w S i n n c a c a r Z n S t c t a n d t U

e U C e A

r n L

c e D M a 0 i g j

t 0 a h w

K g C e

a a o o B n e o O n u d S n a A t i a t l l E N n y g t 0 n n t G T r u t i a

l l e e s 0 e d A N N n r 4 a l W e s B E M a r e n s t s t n a G o n r R

l l n e

o ,

- i i a a k i c u S t T n d s t N r O u l i e s h i r e ’ s . e g N C 9 C n a I

Y r O p s s o

a G w d d e s e l

n a

- R N N I o s

n o t l E 9 y y a 0 r i o n N A f s e t I S i f

t i i a l o n e e O a t H r

I l i c C 9 I t

p e o

f o a U e y y g g g b Z B e N N a y

f r t g n a n n 7 K l l n 3 E n 0 y m

d B

W i r O a t i m a I c o n o f f e p e e E n

: t t F 6 d t t

0 n e

c k K -

o o S

e o g - - r t t o o n y G R s R u r n l w e r c L e d t 0 e r r l a 2 t o y o

M L n n e f O i Z Z S e o t B e r k s i I a a o N 1 k i T d 0 L

i o l m

v w w u c h i n m e t p I

l l t

c e y T r r e a i l s m

S a e P r 7 A d t i i J P D d a s t t r c k h

o d 2 o o y

C g g u p d a a l a n P o

l a W R r S A t O t K a R u g m t n C m t b i m t u v e S e

s i S c e N S S a

n n o n A i r e

a l o U i d e a P e s g i i n l l c r c r r r Y e W u

o m e W E S b o

e e E

a u w t o t R l n P o

t o k w t P d k k r A 0 e o e e r y W

T c p c t l l l m h I W j r . h S

W a D w s p i r r S o C

t y y s p a h C n v e p r T m m w

h r

e e r g g r e a a s . I Y i a a i t e

s D t t e o a o o R a W e e e c u t e e e n t l c e r S p m h a m e k k H e r W o h s g i i r e

R E r e t n b m f h y r y C e u n T

L a c f b y d s i s i W W 1 2 S K O N T M K S H R B C C S I M p t i E d r t d F d t H p p

e o m h W l r f d a n t e O t T R s u t i i 3 p m L C e A i o s e a K O e n t c k C c o c o

i N

y N S T

f w

e r t h a t

r l

I c s L c l t n n n O o h e C g g g e a c h a l T n o

a a e l o o i n e d h e D t h g i w w n i n n n i h

r i n i e t 1 i i i n t r m r a

H o o s o C e e p ! (

T u t i i ! ( r r À Á À ¿ l O e e

w w w

w y t l s t b e v v a n g h r i a

b p a a a C a C a a o w o r a r e r r

r n v i o

t e l n

a n n e

a K C r

n e ! ( e v o k i

v a

e R L

A e e

l i k g

d a b n

n L u o

J a L

K ! ( ! (

h c it D or o M H ! ( ! ( ! ( rn u o b m La er iv R À Á ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( À ¿ ! ( À Á ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

t ! (

n r

u n

o e b K

m ! ( r ! ( a e

L v ! ( r i ! ( e R

Riv ! (

d x m . d e t s i l t r o h S _ s e t u o R _ g n i k l a W _ 0 1 0 - C B W - 9 9 9 7 6 0 0 7 \ d x M \ S I G \ g n i n n a l P t r o p s n a r T P T \ P I W 3 0 \ P I W C L e r i h s k r e B t s e W - 0 2 9 1 - X X X X X X X - C B W - m a h g n i k o W - 9 9 9 7 6 0 0 7 \ x x 9 7 6 0 0 7 \ s t c e j o r P \ a t a d l a r t n e c \ m o c . p u o r g p s w . k u \ \ : h t a P

69 LCWIP Appendix F Newbury and Thatcham prioritised key walking routes - Audit key findings and recommended improvements

LCWIP 70 West Berkshire Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) Newbury and Thatcham Prioritised Key Walking Routes – Audit Findings and Recommended Improvements

West Berkshire Council

January 2021 Quality Control

Rev Date Details 1st Draft 18/01/2021 70067999 2nd Draft 3rd Draft

Name Date Signature Prepared by: RS, JM, DL 13/01/2021 Review by: JP 18/01/2021 Approved by: AW 18/01/2021

WSP House 70 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1AF wsp.com

-2- Walking Routes Shortlisted for Auditing

Route W1 – Wash Common to Newbury Town Centre Route W2 – West Fields to Hambridge Road Route W3 – Vodafone Campus to Newbury Town Centre Route W4 – Park Lane to Thatcham Town Centre Route W5 – Dunstan Park to Park Lane (Thatcham) Route W6 – Northfield Road to Park Lane (Thatcham) Route W7 – Thatcham Rail Station to Thatcham Town Centre

-3- Key to Plans

Audited key walking route

1 Audit section reference

Audit section start and end point

Commentary on existing issues

Existing signal or zebra crossing

The improvements outlined in this findings summary are draft only at this stage. They will be developed and revised following:

• the outcome of scheme/route specific consultation; • further design and technical work; • and funding requirements.

Schemes will be designed in accordance with the best practice guidance, such as that contained in Manual for Streets and Manual for Streets 2, The Welsh Government’s Active Travel Design Guidance and Designing for Walking by the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation.

Blue text relates to recommendations from the LCWIP cycle route audits where solutions are required which can accommodate the needs of people cycling and walking.

-4- Walking Route Audits Route W1 – Wash Common to Newbury Town Centre

Summary of existing context and key Plan of key issues issues Newtown Road & Bartholomew Street: Footway widths generally Bartholomew Street / • Connects Wash Common and south around 2m but with some some pinch points on the railway bridge Market Street junction: Newbury to Newbury town centre and on Bartholomew Street. Some lamp columns / advance direction Crossings located away signs are sited in the middle of footway causing pinch points <2m. from pedestrian desire • High traffic volumes and traffic noise on Bartholomew Street / Pound Street junction: Pedestrian refuge at lines (pedestrians Andover Road. required to cross in Pound Street crossing may not be sufficiently wide to accommodate 4 • Narrow sections of footway, particularly all users. multiple stages). No on- between Monks Lane and Buckingham crossing detectors to Wide side road crossing of Pound Street results in longer pedestrian Road, and some sections without modify green man time. crossing distances, albeit as part of a signal crossing phase. footways on both sides of the 3 Traffic calming features (raised tables, to reduce traffic speeds and carriageway. St John’s Roundabout: enable level pedestrian crossing, with cobbled strips) are provided at • Street furniture reduces usable footway Crossings on the four major St Michael's Road but not at other side roads (Station Road, Craven widths in various locations, and arms of the St John’s Road mini-roundabout). obstructions caused by overhanging Roundabout are located off vegetation, wheelie bins and footway the north-south and east- parking (between Monks Lane and Andover Road (Monks Lane to Buckingham Road): west pedestrian desire lines, Buckingham Road). Narrow footway to the west of Andover Road (<1.5m wide). due to the size of the • Crossings located away from pedestrian Sections of footway to the east of Andover Road, where roundabout and offset from desire lines at St John’s Roundabout, they exist, tend to be narrower. Overhanging vegetation, 2 the circulatory carriageway. Andover Road / Monks Lane / Essex wheelie bins and instances of footway parking (between Street junction and the Bartholomew Tarn Lane and Falkland Drive), which reduce usable Street / Market Street junction. footway widths. • Some side road crossings are set back Many side road junctions, such as Bartlemy Road, have from pedestrian desire lines gentle corner radii which lengthen pedestrian crossing • No on-crossing detectors to modify distances. Side road crossings set back from pedestrian green man time at the Bartholomew desire lines at Monkswood Close and Kingsland Grange. Street / Market Street junction or the Multiple side road junctions where dropped kerbs and/or signal crossing between Buckingham tactile paving are missing. Andover Road (Buckingham Road to St Road and Wendan Road. John’s Roundabout): Footway widths • generally between 1.5m and 2m. The Old Pedestrian refuges which may not be Andover Road (south of Monks wide enough for all users. Newtown Road side road junction has Lane): Footway widths generally Andover Road / Monks Lane / • gentle corner radii, which lengthens Multiple wide side roads, which between 1.5m-2m. Some Essex Street junction: crossing pedestrian crossing distances lengthen pedestrian crossing distances, lighting columns or utility units Pedestrian refuge on Monks and may lead to higher vehicle turning and side road crossings where tactile cause minor obstructions on 1 Lane is not sufficiently wide to speeds. Crossing of side roads generally paving and/or dropped kerbs are footway. Evidence of footway accommodate all potential easy and without delay but without missing. damage. Wide side road users. Zebra crossing on Essex formal pedestrian priority over vehicles. • Evidence of footway damage south of junctions lengthen pedestrian Street is set back from the Monks Lane. crossing distances. Significant north-south pedestrian desire Signal crossing between Buckingham gaps between signal / zebra line. Extensive guardrailing Road and Wendan Road does not have crossings. Tactile paving missing suggests other pedestrian on-crossing detectors to modify green at all side road junctions apart desire lines may not be well man time and take account of from Falkland Road. catered for. pedestrian crossing speeds. -5- Walking Route Audits Route W1 – Wash Common to Newbury Town Centre

Recommended improvements Location ( subject t o f urther st udy, f easibility an d c onsultation) • Develop scheme to widen footways using available adjacent highway verge. Andover Road • Review the potential to relocate street furniture which causes footway obstructions. (south of Monks • Lane) Review side road junction layouts to identify whether pedestrian crossing distances can be reduced for pedestrians by amending kerblines. • Install tactile paving / dropped kerbs at each side road. Andover Road / Identify options to construct additional signal or zebra crossing on Monks Lane close to Andover Road (to facilitate safer north-south journeys) and Monks Lane / Andover Road in the vicinity of Monks Lane / Essex Street (to facilitate safer east-west journeys). If a central refuge is part of the chosen design, ensure this Essex Street has suitable width to accommodate all users comfortably whilst waiting to cross. Where appropriate, reduce use of guardrailing as part of any future junction redesign. Throughout section: Further study required to confirm whether there is sufficient highway width to: a) widen the western footway; and/or b) accommodate a continuous footway of usable width of the eastern side of the carriageway. If (b) is not possible, ensure there are safe and comfortable crossing points at regular intervals to connect to the western footway, with dropped kerbs. Andover Road ▪ Further surveys required to ascertain whether footway parking occurs regularly. (Monks Lane to ▪ Further surveys would be required to confirm whether bins are usually stored on the footway. If this is the case, consider awareness campaign to ensure Buckingham residents do not obstruct the footway with their bins. Road) ▪ Review side road junction layouts to identify whether pedestrian crossing distances can be reduced for pedestrians by amending kerblines. Monkswood Close and Kingsland Grange side road junctions: Redesign to provide the pedestrian crossing (and dropped kerbs) on the desire line. Monkswood Close, Woodridge, Tydehams, Kingsland Grange, Falkland Drive and Erleigh Dene side road junctions: Install tactile paving and/or dropped kerbs where missing Faiview and adjacent access: Install dropped kerbs where absent to better delineate pedestrian space where the footway crosses.

-6- Walking Route Audits Route W1 – Wash Common to Newbury Town Centre

Location Recommended improvements ( subject t o f urther st udy, f easibility an d c onsultation) Throughout section: Identify opportunities to widen narrow sections of footway through kerb realignment / carriageway narrowing, whilst retaining two traffic lanes of appropriate width. Old Newtown Road side road junction: • Review junction layout to identify whether pedestrian crossing distances can be reduced for pedestrians by amending kerblines. • Consider potential for / feasibility of continuous footways, to give greater pedestrian priority with raised table for level crossing. Andover Road Derby Road side road junction: Consider potential for / feasibility of continuous footways, to give greater pedestrian priority with raised table for level (Buckingham crossing. Road to St John’s Roundabout) Note that the cycle route audits recommend the following: • Construct a cycle track on the section of Andover Road between Buckingham Road and City Recreation Ground access • Redesign the Buckingham Road and Wendan Road junctions to enable safe cycle movements onto/off cycle track; and • Redesign and potentially reposition the signal crossing to enable comfortable cycle crossings of Andover Road. This could potentially take the form of a signal junction where Wendan Road meets Andover Road. Throughout section: Identify opportunities to widen narrow footway sections. Substantial widening only possible if there was a reduction in the number of traffic lanes (eg conversion into one-way street for motor vehicles). Bartholomew Street / Pound Street junction: Consider constructing larger central refuge, or creating design with shorter crossing distances and no central refuge, as part of future redesign. Newtown Road & St John’s Roundabout: Reconstruct roundabout as a more compact design with reduced circulatory carriageway, to enable crossings to be provided Bartholomew closer to the desire line. These could be designed to enable use by people cycling and people walking. Street (St. John's Roundabout to Bartholomew Street / Station Road junction: Consider potential for / feasibility of continuous footways at Station Road junction to give greater Market Place) pedestrian priority, with raised table for level crossing. Bartholomew Street / Market Street junction: Redesign junction to enable single-stage crossing movements, with crossings on pedestrian desire lines. Install on-crossing detectors as part of future junction upgrades. Bartholomew Street and Newtown Road (railway bridge to St. John’s Roundabout): An extended 20mph zone could be considered for this section running south from the existing town centre zone.

-7- Walking Route Audits Route W2 – West Fields to Hambridge Road Employment Area

Summary of existing context and key issues • Several wide side road junctions, resulting in longer crossing distances, and • East-west route connecting Newbury town centre to Hambridge Road Employment junctions / crossings without tactile paving. Area and Newbury Racecourse strategic development site • Pedestrians required to cross in multiple stages at A339 roundabout signal • Several locations with narrow footways and pedestrians in close proximity to high crossings, and deviate to reach crossings, which increases journey times for traffic flows. Some sections with footway provision on one side of the carriageway only. people walking. • One location (shared-use path) with potential for conflict between people cycling and • There are two other junctions where existing crossing provision deviates from people walking. pedestrian desire lines. • Some sections with high traffic volumes, and with high motor traffic noise due to their proximity to the A339. • Substantial gaps between pedestrian crossings on Hambridge Lane. Plan of key issues

Cheap Street & Bear Lane: Lighting columns, Bartholomew Street / Kings Road (Sainsbury’s frontage): Kings Road / Hectors Way junction: highway direction signs and bus shelters Market Street Narrow shared-use path to south of Pedestrian refuge on hector’s Way reduce usable footway widths in some junction: Pedestrians Kings Road (section of Sainsbury's may not be wide enough to locations. Gentle junction radii at Cheap required to cross in Frontage) brings people walking into accommodate all waiting pedestrians. Street / Market Street junction means that multiple stages. No potential conflict with people cycling. The other two arms do not have signal crossings are located slightly off the on-crossing detectors Lighting columns / signage within crossing facilities for people walking, desire line to provide sufficient visibility. East- to modify green man footway reduces useable widths <2m at which may result in longer pedestrian west crossing movements of Wharf Road time. some points. journeys associated with potential delay.

Kennet Road side road: Poor visibility for crossing 2 4 pedestrians. 3 1

Kings Road (east of Sainsbury’s) & Hambridge Road: Footways generally 1.5-2m wide. Particular pinch points (1m-1.5m wide) on Kings Road and on Hambridge Road between Junction A339 Roundabout: Multi-lane roundabout with Terrace and Bone Lane. Sections of King’s Road and subway and surface level signal crossings on Mill Hambridge Road have no southern footway. Some footway Craven Road: Sections Market Street: Lane, King’s Road and A339 south arms. Pedestrians defects and overhanging vegetation which reduces usable with limited footway Pedestrian refuge required to cross King’s Road and A339 south arms footway widths. Significant gaps between crossings, which width (1-1.5m). Limited may not be wide in three stages, adding to journey times. Crossing may result in longer pedestrian journeys. Tactile paving missing highway space on enough to movements require significant deviation from at 10 side road junctions, and at two accesses onto Hambridge approach to Bartholomew accommodate all desire lines due to location of crossing points and Road. Several wide side road junctions, which lengthen Street. users. absence of provision on some entry/exit arms. pedestrian crossing distances. -8- Walking Route Audits Route W2 – West Fields to Hambridge Road Employment Area

Recommended improvements Location ( subject t o f urther st udy, f easibility an d c onsultation) • Develop scheme to create wider footways through kerb realignment. Highway space constraints mean that sections of narrow footway on Craven Road approach to Bartholomew Street would remain unless one-way arrangements were introduced for motor vehicles. Kennet Road side road • Improve visibility for crossing pedestrians through kerb realignment and redesigned junction radii. junction Bartholomew Street / • Redesign junction to provide single-stage crossing movements on pedestrian desire lines. Install on-crossing detectors as part of future Market Street junction junction upgrades. Market Street • Review and, if required, redesign pedestrian refuge to ensure there is suitable usable width to accommodate all users.

• Bear Lane / Wharf Road junction: Consider feasibility of a continuous east-west footway at the junction of to give greater pedestrian priority. Cheap Street and Bear Lane • Throughout section: Identify opportunities to re-site or re-design street furniture which reduces footway widths.

• Identify longer-term solutions to provide high-quality and direct crossing infrastructure for people cycling and walking, especially for east- A339 Roundabout west movements, which minimises delay to active travel journeys,. Kings Road (A339 Develop scheme to widen the southern footway and provide segregated cycling provision of an appropriate standard. roundabout to Hector’s Way) Kings Road / Hectors Way Redesign junction to provide single-stage signal crossings on each arm. junction Kings Road (Hector’s Way to Review, and where feasible, provide wider footways (or new footways where currently absent) when King’s Road Link Road is completed and Boundary Road) traffic levels reduce on between Hector’s Way and Boundary Road, whilst retaining on-street parking. Secure continuous and wider footways on at least one side of the Hambridge Road carriageway as part of development proposals which come forward along the corridor. This corridor is also identified as a proposed strategic cycle route corridor and segregated cycle tracks will also be required. Hambridge Road (Boundary Road to Bone Lane): Redesign wide side road junctions / accesses with reduced junction radii, and with priority for crossing pedestrians at minor roads and accesses. Install tactile paving at each side road junction. Identify opportunities to provide additional pedestrian crossings of Hambridge Road.

-9- Walking Route Audits Route W3 – North Newbury to Newbury Town Centre

Summary of existing context and key issues Plan of key issues Church Road: Footways generally around 2m wide, although with pinch points at southern • Provides connections between Vodafone Campus, Love Lane / Church Road mini-roundabout: end of Church Road. Sections of narrow Trinity School and Newbury town centre pedestrian refuge (western arm) may not shared-use path with insufficient width to be wide enough (space between comfortably accommodate people cycling • High traffic volumes on B4009 Shaw Road and the carriageways) to accommodate all users. and people walking. Some sections without footways on both carriageway sides. Some A339 corridor, and route sections with high motor Tactile paving missing. evidence of footway damage. Limited natural traffic noise due to their proximity to the A339. • surveillance due to absence of residential Several locations where footpaths and footways are frontages west of Shaw House. No tactile narrow (less than 1.5m wide) S h aw R oad / S h aw H i l l / K i ln R oa d / C h urch R oad paving at two side road junctions and • 1 Some sections with shared use paths of limited double mini-roundabout: Extensive guardrailing accesses to Shaw House. width with potential for conflict between people and the absence of crossing provision on Shaw walking and people cycling. Hill suggest that pedestrian desire lines may not • Sections of Church Road with footways on one be well catered for. carriageway side only. A • Several crossing locations, including at side road junctions, without tactile paving. One wide side Shaw Woodland road junction. (alternative route 2 • Limited natural surveillance and poor visibility at section A): Shared- Robin Hood Roundabout subways. Surface level use path with no signal crossings are not provided on most approach lighting or natural Shaw Road: Footway widths generally roads. surveillance 1.5m-2m, although with pinch points • Route sections with limited natural surveillance. (overlooking). Path where Shaw Road crosses the River narrows adjacent Lambourn. Wide side road crossing at to the A339. Hutton Close results in longer pedestrian crossing distances. No Park Lane: Footpath generally around 2m wide, tactile paving at the Coachman's Court although with pinch points at the northern and Hutton Close side road junctions. end of the path (c.1.5m). Path flanked on both sides by boundary features (walls, fences and B hedges). Sections where natural surveillance Robin Hood Roundabout: Subways (overlooking) is limited due to absence of 3 connecting Shaw Road with London residential frontages. Tactile paving missing on Road (West) have no natural crossing of Charlton Place. surveillance (overlooking). involve A339 and connecting link into several sharp 90-degree turns, which Victoria Park (alternative route impede sight lines and divert Victoria Park: Path designated for shared use by section B): Footpaths generally pedestrians away from desire lines. people walking and people cycling, with limited wider than 2m, although pinch The absence of surface level crossings natural surveillance. points on approach to Robin Hood on the London Road (A4) and A339 arms of Robin Hood Roundabout 4 Roundabout (c1-1.5m and flanked Wharf Road: Tactile paving missing on two arms of the Wharf Road / Wharf by some sections of highway verge). means that some east-west crossing Street junction. Pedestrian routes on Wharf Road could be improved to better Pedestrians in proximity to very movements are not catered for. The cater for east-west pedestrian desire lines between Newbury town centre high motor traffic volumes. Link signal crossing on the Shaw Road arm (Wharf Street) and Wharf Road bridge. The extensive use of bollards, barriers through Victoria Park (connecting is located significantly off the east-west and other street furniture associated with car parks on Wharf Road detract to route section 3) has limited desire line. from the quality of the urban environment. natural surveillance (overlooking). -10- Walking Route Audits Route W3 – North Newbury to Newbury Town Centre

Recommended improvements Location ( subject t o f urther st udy, f easibility an d c onsultation)

Love Lane / Church Road • Provide tactile paving and dropped kerbs. mini-roundabout • Review, and if required, redesign pedestrian refuge to ensure there is suitable width for all users.

• Provide dropped kerbs and tactile paving at each junction / access. • Review, and where feasible, provide wider footways whilst maintaining appropriate carriageway widths. Some narrow footway sections will Church Road remain unless priority working for motor vehicles is introduced. Initial findings from a cycle route audit of Church Road indicate that the road has characteristics broadly suitable for on-street cycling, with a 20mph speed limit and low traffic volumes (although with higher traffic levels during school start and finish times).

Shaw Road / Shaw Hill / • Redesign the junction with a more compact design to enable enhanced crossings to be provided closer to the east-west and north-south Kiln Lane / Church Road desire lines. The cycle audit also identified a requirement for improved east-west cycle crossing infrastructure at this location. Achieving this double mini-roundabout may potentially require conversion to a signal-controlled junction.

• Identify opportunities to widen footways on Shaw Road through kerb realignment / carriageway narrowing, whilst retaining two traffic lanes of appropriate width and on-street parking. No footway widening is likely to be possible north of the Cock Inn within the highway boundary whilst retaining two traffic lanes. • Redesign Hutton Close side road junctions with tighter radii to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Install tactile paving at Hutton Close and Shaw Road Coachman’s Close side road junctions.

• If monitoring of traffic speeds on Shaw Road indicates non-adherence to speed limits, then, consider measures to reduce traffic vehicle speeds, such as physical or natural traffic calming features (such as carriageway narrowing, gateway traffic calming features or removal of central white line road markings).

-11- Walking Route Audits Route W3 – North Newbury to Newbury Town Centre

Location Recommended improvements ( subject t o f urther st udy, f easibility an d c onsultation)

Robin Hood • Identify longer-term solutions to provide safe, high-quality and direct crossing infrastructure for people cycling and walking which minimises delay to Roundabout active travel journeys. Crossing infrastructure will be required on both north-south and east-west alignments.

• Consider redesigning the route across Victoria Park to provide separate space for people cycling and people walking, such as with different levels or a kerb, to reduce potential conflict. • Install tactile paving on the pedestrian crossing of Charlton Place (where crossed by Park Lane). Park Lane and Victoria Park The layout of the surrounding area limits improvements which can be made in terms of passive surveillance, although the LCWIP and other District-wide transport programmes aim to encourage more travel on foot and by cycle, which may reduce fear of crime, as numbers of pedestrians and cyclists increase. constraints on Park Lane mean that some Narrow sections of Park Lane are flanked narrow sections of path would remain unless additional land adjacent to the footpath could be acquired.

• Install tactile paving where currently absent at the Wharf Road / Wharf Street junction. • Explore opportunities to provide more direct pedestrian connections from Wharf Road bridge to Wharf Street across land currently occupied by Wharf Wharf Road Pay & Display Car Park (such as part of any future redesign or redevelopment of the site). • Identify opportunities to remove / rationalise bollards and other furniture within the highway and on other council-owned land. Replacing bollards with those of a single, unified material and style could also improve the quality of the environment.

-12- Walking Route Audit Route W4 – North Thatcham to Thatcham Town Centre via Park Lane

Summary of existing context and key issues Plan of key issues H eath La ne / F l oral W a y / P a rk La ne r oundabout: Pedestrian refuges may not be wide enough for all potential users. Tactile paving missing at crossings. • Park Lane provides access to Thatcham town Park Lane: north of Parkside Road: Much of this Roundabout has wide road approaches on all arms, centre from residential areas in North Thatcham. section has no western footway. Footways to the lengthening pedestrian crossing distances, and a small east of the carriageway are generally less than central island, which enables higher vehicle speeds. • Some narrow footway sections (less than 1.5m 1.5m wide. Highway width constraints which wide), meaning people walking are in close limit opportunities to achieve more suitable 1 proximity to traffic. Most of section north of footway widths if two-way traffic is retained. Park Lane / Sagecroft Road junction: No dropped kerbs on northern side of junction. Dropped kerbs on west Sagecroft Road does not have a footway on Many properties on Park Lane are screened by and southern arms are set back from junction, western side of the carriageway. vegetation, which limits natural surveillance. • potentially lengthening walking distances. Gentle Some locations where overgrown vegetation Some evidence of footway damage. junction radii may encourage higher vehicle speeds. reduces usable footway widths. Likely to be significant location for people crossing • Significant gaps between crossing facilities on between footways on Park Lane due to limited Park Lane. Traffic flows are likely to delay people alternatives. crossing the road. • Several wide side road junctions, which lengthen Park Lane: Two locations where pedestrian crossing distances, including at Heath street furniture reduces usable Lane / Floral Way / Park Lane roundabout. footway widths. • No tactile paving at Park Avenue and Parkside Road side road junctions and Heath Lane / Floral Way / Park Lane roundabout. 2

Park Lane:The eastern footway is generally 1m-1.5m wide, with the western footway generally 1.5m-2m wide, although with pinch points at the southern end of Park Lane. The highway width limits opportunities to achieve substantially better footway widths if two-way motor traffic is retained. Limited formal east-west crossing opportunities for people walking and some evidence of footway damage. Instances of footway parking observed. Many wide side road junctions (which Bath Road / Park Lane / High Street increase pedestrian crossing distances) and two side road crossings without tactile paving). signal junction: No signal crossing on Crossing of side roads generally easy but without pedestrian priority over vehicles. southern arm. Signal crossings on Eastern and western arms are set back from the north-south pedestrian desire lines. P a rk La ne ( S outh of A4) & H i gh S t reet: 20mph zone with traffic calming features (raised tables, to reduce traffic speeds and enable level pedestrian crossing). H i gh S t reet / P a rk La ne Footways generally 1.5m wide, although with some pinch less than 1.5m wide and some wider junction: Very wide junction sections. The width of the highway means that any scheme for significant footway widening requiring long crossing may require the loss of some on-street parking bays. Usable footway widths reduced in various 3 distances. No tactile paving. locations by direction signage, lighting columns and the siting of bollards. Two locations where crossings are located off pedestrian desire lines.

Some planters on High Street but no other planting or street trees to enhance the townscape. -13- Walking Route Audits Route W4 – North Thatcham to Thatcham Town Centre via Park Lane

Location Recommended improvements ( subject t o f urther st udy, f easibility an d c onsultation) • Review, and if required, redesign pedestrian refuge/s to ensure there is suitable usable width for all users. Heath Lane / • Floral Way / Improve crossings as part of future junction redesign to safely accommodate people cycling and people walking (Floral Way, Heath Lane and Park Lane Park Lane are all identified as local cycle routes on the proposed cycle network plan). Consideration should be given to reducing crossing roundabout distances on each arm, providing raised table crossings, or parallel crossings to give priority to people cycling and walking, plus installing tactile paving. • Widen footways where feasible. Note that in many places there is limited scope to significantly widen footways (or construct them where currently absent) within the highway boundary whilst retaining space for two-way traffic. Achieving more substantial footway widening (or footways on both sides of the carriageway) throughout would be likely to require one-way operation for motor vehicles or land in private Park Lane ownership, for example. (entire length) • Subject to the outcome of any monitoring of traffic speeds, consider whether further measures are required to ensure adherence to the speed limit. Consider a 20mph speed limit to support a safer walking environment with low vehicle speeds. • Review wide side road junction layouts to identify whether pedestrian crossing distances can be reduced for pedestrians by amending kerblines, particularly at Parkside Road, Sagecroft Road, Park Avenue and The Waverleys • Re-site / redesign street furniture which currently reduces usable footway widths. • Provide improved east-west crossings for people walking in the vicinity of Sagecroft Road and Park Avenue. These could take the form of raised tables, or potentially a zebra crossing, if surveys indicate that traffic flows are higher. • Consider installing continuous footways across lightly-trafficked side roads to give greater pedestrian priority. Park Lane • Park Lane / Sagecroft Road junction: Redesign side road junction to provide the pedestrian crossing (and dropped kerbs) closer to the desire (Parkside Road line on the west and south arms and provide dropped kerbs on the north arm. to Bath Road) • Park Avenue and Parkside Road side road junctions: Install tactile paving. • Further surveys required to confirm whether footway parking is a regular occurrence and whether measures are required to prevent footway obstruction. • Bath Road / Park Lane junction: Introduce a pedestrian crossing phase on the southern arm and identify opportunities to re-site Bath Road signal crossings closer to the north-south pedestrian desire line as part of future upgrade. • Identify opportunities to widen footways on the High Street and Park Lane through kerb realignment / carriageway narrowing. Substantial footway widening on the High Street may require the loss of some on-street parking bays. • Consolidate and relocate street furniture to maximise unobstructed footway widths for comfortable pedestrian movement. Park Lane • High Street / Park Lane junction: Identify opportunities to redesign junction with shorter crossing distances provided on the pedestrian desire (South of A4) line, potentially provided on raised tables to calm traffic speeds. Install tactile paving. and High Street • Broadway / High Street junction: Identify opportunities to redesign junction with shorter crossing distances provided on the pedestrian desire line. • Identify opportunities for additional planting within highway land, potentially including street trees in locations which would not hinder pedestrian or vehicle movement.

-14- Walking Route Audit Route W5 – Dunstan Park to Park Lane

Summary of existing situation Plan of key issues S h ared-use p a th ( a lignment of R i ghts of W a y • Route connecting Dunstan Park area to THAT/8/1 & THAT/8/4): 3m-wide traffic-free path, Thatcham town centre via Park Lane. Most of designated for use by people cycling and walking. the route is traffic-free route and designated Some sections with limited natural surveillance. for use by people cycling and walking. Isolated damage to footpath and minor littering observed. Barriers at route section start and end • Traffic-free sections have limited natural points, and on both approaches to Cowslip surveillance (overlooking). Some minor Crescent, may cause difficulties or prevent access for some legitimate path users (including people littering and path defects identified. using some cycle designs). • Barriers at each access point to the traffic- free path may prevent access or cause difficulties for some legitimate path users. • Footways on Park Avenue generally 1.5m-2m wide, with some adjacent sections of highway verge. Foxglove Way: Tactile paving • Existing footways near the Thatcham Park 1 missing on crossing of Foxglove Primary School access could be improved to Way. No formal priority for crossing better cater for pedestrian desire lines. pedestrian / cycle movements on • No priority for pedestrians crossing Foxglove Way. Thatcham Park Primary School primary school access. Crossing of Cowslip Crescent: • Two wide side road crossings without tactile Raised-table provided to enable paving on Park Avenue. level crossing and reduce vehicle 2 speeds, although without tactile paving or formal priority for crossing pedestrian / cycle movements.

T h atcham P a rk P r imary S c h ool a c cess: Park Avenue: Footways generally Some evidence of footway damage outside 1.5m-2m wide, largely Thatcham Park Primary School. flanked by sections of Footways connecting the western end of Park highway verge. Two Avenue to Thatcham Park Primary School and the wide side roads which traffic-free path to Dunstan Park (Right of Way lengthen pedestrian THAT/8/4) could be improved to better cater for crossing distances and pedestrian desire lines. No priority for pedestrians without priority for crossing the primary school access. crossing pedestrians), neither of which have tactile paving.

-15- Walking Route Audits Route W5 – Dunstan Park to Park Lane

Location Recommended improvements ( subject t o f urther st udy, f easibility an d c onsultation) • Review access barriers, and if required redesign, to ensure path can be easily accessed by all legitimate users (people walking and people cycling). • On Foxglove Way, consider constructing raised table crossing, to enable level pedestrian crossing and give greater priority for pedestrians crossing Dunstan Park traffic- between footways. Provide tactile paving. free path • On Cowslip Crescent, give greater priority for crossing pedestrians and cyclists through give-way carriageway markings, denoting priority for people (public right of way walking and cycling. Provide tactile paving. reference THAT/8/1 & • Street cleansing and maintenance works required in some locations. THAT/8/4) Note: This section of traffic-free path also forms part of the proposed combined cycle network for Thatcham. The government guidance in Local Transport Note 1/20 states that where cycle routes use paths through housing estates away from streets, physically separated spaces should usually be provided for people walking and people cycling. Such an approach would be beneficial for this route. • Develop scheme to widen footways using sections of adjacent highway verge. • Consider constructing additional section of footway, using Council-owned land fronted by Thatcham Park Primary School, to better cater for pedestrian movements between the traffic-free path and the northern footway on Park Avenue. • Construct additional crossing/s on Park Avenue in significant locations for people walking (such as in the vicinity of Thatcham Park Primary School / Park Avenue The Henrys side road junction). This could take the form of a raised table, or potentially a zebra crossing, based on traffic surveys. • Review side road junction layouts to identify whether pedestrian crossing distances can be reduced for pedestrians by amending kerblines (The Henrys; Thatcham Park Primary School). Install tactile paving at both side road junctions. • Carry out maintenance/resurfacing works to address areas in poor condition. • Consider the introduction of a reduced area-wide 20mph speed limit and associated traffic calming measures.

-16- Walking Route Audit Route W6 – Northfield Road to Park Lane

Summary of existing context and key issues Plan of existing situation • Sagecroft Road, Shakespeare Road Masefield Road provide important east- Sagecroft Road: west walking routes and access to Footways generally 1.5-2m wide, although with pinch points (less than 1.5m) in the Whitelands Park Primary School. vicinity of Eliot Close, Dryden Close and between Northway and Northfield Road. • Footways are generally around 1.5m wide, Several instances of footway parking observed which significantly reduce usable although with some pinch points in the footway widths. Some evidence of footway damage. vicinity of Eliot Close, Dryden Close and Several wide side road junctions, which lengthen crossing distances for people between Northway and Northfield Road. walking, and several places where dropped kerbs and/or tactile paving are missing • Instances of vehicles parked partly on the at side road crossings. No priority for pedestrians crossing side roads. footway, reducing or obstructing the space for people walking. • Some locations where footways could be redesigned to better cater for pedestrian desire lines. • Several wide side road junctions, which lengthen pedestrian crossing distances. • Several side roads where tactile paving and/or dropped kerbs are missing. • No priority for pedestrians crossing Dunstan Park1 to Park Lane Northfield Road in the vicinity of Sagecroft Road.

2 Sagecroft Road and Masefield Road: Three locations where footways could be redesigned or Northfield Road / Sagecroft Road constructed to better cater junction: No formal provision for Shakespeare Road and Masefield Road: Footways estimated to be 1.5-2m for pedestrian desire lines. pedestrians to cross Northfield Road. wide, with some narrow sections on Masefield Road. Some evidence of This is likely to be an important location footway damage. for pedestrian crossing movements to access the shop and reach Whitecroft Footway parking observed which significantly reduces usable footway Park Primary School. widths. Several wide side road junctions which lengthen pedestrian crossing distances and several crossings of side roads where tactile paving and/or dropped kerbs are not provided. -17- Walking Route Audits Route W6 – Northfield Road to Park Lane

Recommended improvements Location ( subject t o f urther st udy, f easibility an d c onsultation) • Review side road junction layouts with the objective of reducing pedestrian crossing distances by amending kerblines. Provide dropped kerbs with tactile paving at each crossing. Consider potential for introducing continuous footways across lightly-trafficked side roads to give greater pedestrian priority. • Identify measures to prevent footways being obstructed by parked vehicles. This could include formalising on-carriageway parking on Sagecroft Road with bays delineated by white road markings, and/or awareness campaigns with residents. • There is considered to be limited scope to widen footways in some sections whilst retaining carriageway space for vehicle movement and parking. • Widen footways where feasible, and targeting potential improvements where footways are narrowest, such as between Whitecroft Park Primary School and Northfield Road. Note that in many places there is limited scope to significantly widen footways within the highway boundary whilst retaining Sagecroft Road space for traffic and accommodating on-carriageway parking. • Redesign the Masefield Road and Chesterton Road side road junctions to provide footways and pedestrian crossings on desire line (parallel to the Sagecroft Road carriageway). • Consider enhanced crossing infrastructure on Sagecroft Road to cater for north-south journeys, such as at the Shakespeare Road and Masefield Road side road junctions). These could take the form of raised tables or potentially a zebra crossing, if surveys indicate that traffic flows are higher. • Consider the introduction of a area-wide 20mph speed limit, potentially with traffic calming measures, to support a safer walking environment with low vehicle speeds. • Carry out maintenance/resurfacing works to address sections in poor condition. • Review each side road junction layout to identify whether pedestrian crossing distances can be reduced by amending kerblines. Provide dropped kerbs with tactile paving at each crossing. Consider potential for introducing continuous footways across lightly-trafficked side roads to give greater pedestrian priority. • In many places there is limited scope to significantly widen footways within the highway boundary whilst retaining space for traffic and accommodating on-carriageway parking. • Identify measures to prevent footways being obstructed by parked vehicles. This could include formalising on-carriageway parking with bays Masefield Road delineated by white road markings, and/or awareness campaigns with residents. & Shakespeare • Carry out maintenance/resurfacing works to address sections in poor condition. Road • Redesign Masefield Road / Shelley Road junction to provide footways and pedestrian crossings on desire line (parallel to the Masefield Road carriageway). • Construct a footway on the eastern side of Masefield Road where currently missing, alongside the open space (west of numbers 5 to 17), with dropped kerbs and tactile paving. • Consider the introduction of a area-wide 20mph speed limit, potentially with traffic calming measures, to support a safer walking environment with low vehicle speeds. Northfield Road / • Provide improved east-west and north-south crossings for people walking. These could take the form of raised tables, or potentially a zebra crossing, if Sagecroft Road surveys indicate that traffic flows are higher. junction

-18- Walking Route Audit Route W7 – Thatcham Station To Thatcham Town Centre

Summary of existing context and key Plan of key issues Station Road (The Moors to Broadway): Footways S t ation R oad ( S t oney La ne t o T h e issues generally around 2m wide, although pinch points near Moors): Footway widths generally the Old Chequers public house. Wide side roads around 2m, although with pinch • Direct route from Thatcham town increase pedestrian crossing distances (Hollywell Court points (1.5m wide) on both footways. centre to Kennet School and and Ferndale Court). Tactile paving missing where Shared-use path on northern side of The Broadway: Missing Thatcham railway station walking routes cross Ferndale Court and Hollywell Court Station Road has insufficient space section of footway at the and at Station Road / Nideggen Close mini-roundabout. for people cycling and walking. southern end of The 4 • Much of route has high traffic Usable footway widths reduced by Broadway gyratory street furniture in the vicinity of the volumes and there are no signal or between Station Road and Station Road / The Moors junction. zebra crossings north of Wheelers Church Gate and people Several wide side roads, which Green Way. This means that crossing walking are required to lengthen pedestrian crossing between eastern and western into the central open distances, and side road crossings footways on Station Road can be space. Tactile paving without tactile paving. associated with some delay. missing where footway 3 • Several locations where footways are terminates. Formal Station Road: Pedestrian refuge relatively narrow (less than 1.5m wide). crossings are provided S t ation R oad / T he M oors mi ni- away from pedestrian roundabouts: Pedestrian refuges may may not be wide enough for all In some places paths are designated users. for shared use, although with desire lines at junction of not be wide enough for all users. The Broadway and Station Missing tactile paving. Traffic levels insufficient space to comfortably Road where crossing on The Moors are likely to delay accommodate people cycling and provision is absent. people crossing the road. walking. • Station Road (Piper’s Way to Urquhart Several wide side road junctions Road) Wider shared-use path for people which lengthen pedestrian crossing Station Road: Shared-use path on east side of the carriageway narrows to around cycling and walking on eastern side of distances, 2m between Oak Tree Road and Stoney Lane, with insufficient space to carriageway. Road signage reduces usable • Crossing locations without tactile comfortably accommodate people cycling and walking and. Usable path width footway width in one location. Footway to is reduced in the vicinity of Wheelers Green Way due to road signage, a telegraph paving 2 the west of Station Road is generally 2m • Two locations where infrastructure pole and traffic signals. wide. Pedestrian crossings at both could better cater for pedestrian Some junctions have gentle corner radii, which lengthen pedestrian crossing roundabouts located off the pedestrian desire lines (at the southern end of distances and may lead to increased vehicle turning speeds, bringing vehicles desire line. Gentle junction radii may lead The Broadway and Station Road / The into potential conflict with pedestrians. North-south crossing of Wheelers Green to increased vehicle turning speeds Moors junction) Lane is located off the pedestrian desire line. Tactile paving missing on one of two crossings of Stoney Lane and at the access to Burdwood Centre car park. At present there are a limited number of places with dropped kerbs to cross Station Road itself. Dropped kerbs are missing at: Wheelers Green Way, Longcroft Road, Oak Tree Road, Turners Drive and Stoney Lane. 1

S t ation R oad south of P i per’s W a y: Footway widths generally 1.5m-2m, with pedestrians in close proximity to high traffic volumes. Pedestrian refuge may not be wide enough to accommodate all users. -19- Walking Route Audit Route W7 – Thatcham Railway Station To Thatcham Town Centre

Location Recommended improvements ( subject t o f urther st udy, f easibility an d c onsultation) • The cycle route audit also carried out for Station Road identified a requirement to provide fully segregated infrastructure for people cycling and walking, such as with different levels or a kerb, to reduce potential conflict. The highway width may mean that priority working for motor vehicles, or land acquisition, may be required to achieve continuous cycle tracks of an appropriate standard south of Pipers Way and north of Station Road (Thatcham Oak Tree Road. Railway Station to • Between Pipers Way and Oak Tree Road the upgraded provision should provide priority for people cycling and walking across intervening side Stoney Lane) roads. • Review wide side road junction layouts on western side of Station Road to identify whether pedestrian crossing distances can be reduced for pedestrians by amending kerblines. Consider installing continuous footways across side roads to give greater pedestrian priority.

Station Road / Pipers • Improve crossings as part of future junction redesign to safely accommodate cycling and walking journeys. Consideration should be given to Way roundabout and reducing crossing distances on each arm, providing raised table crossings, and parallel crossings to give priority to people cycling and walking, Station Road / Urquhart plus installing tactile paving. Road roundabout

Station Road (Urquhart • Widen narrow sections of western footway through kerb realignment where feasible, taking account of the recommendations for the eastern Road to Oak Tree Road) side of the carriageway (see above)

• Re-site or redesign street furniture near Wheeler’s Green Way which currently reduces usable footway widths. • Review, and if required, redesign the pedestrian refuge west of the Burdwood Centre to ensure there is suitable usable width for all users. Station Road (Oak Tree • Road to Stoney Lane) Identify additional locations for zebra or signal crossings on Station Road. This could include the Stoney Lane area to cater for journeys to Kennet School and Leisure Centre. • Install tactile paving and dropped kerbs where absent.

-20- Walking Route Audit Route W7 – Thatcham Railway Station To Thatcham Town Centre

Location Recommended improvements ( subject t o f urther st udy, f easibility an d c onsultation)

Station Road (Stoney • Develop scheme to widen footways using available adjacent highway verges and/or through kerb realignment. This would be likely to require Lane to Neville Drive) the loss of some on-street parking.

• In many places there is limited scope to significantly widen footways within the highway boundary whilst retaining two traffic lanes. More substantial footway widening would only be possible with one-way operation for motor vehicles or by acquiring land in private ownership, for Station Road (Neville example and is considered unfeasible. Drive to The Moors) • Review side road junction layouts to identify whether pedestrian crossing distances can be reduced for pedestrians by amending kerblines. Consider installing continuous footways across side roads to give greater pedestrian priority. • Install tactile paving where absent.

• Improve crossings to safely accommodate east-west and north-south cycling and walking journeys. Consideration should be given to providing Station Road / The raised table crossings, and parallel crossings to give priority to people cycling and walking, plus comprehensively installing tactile paving. Moors junction Ensure that any refuges included in the layout have sufficient space to accommodate all users

• Develop scheme to widen narrow sections of footway on Station Road. Note that substantial widening is unlikely to be possible whilst retaining two traffic lanes. Station Road (The Moors • Review side road junction layouts to identify whether pedestrian crossing distances can be reduced for pedestrians by amending kerblines. to The Broadway) Consider installing continuous footways across side roads to give greater pedestrian priority. • Install tactile paving where absent.

• Redesign the southern end of The Broadway to provide a continuous footway between Station Road and Church Gate and pedestrian crossings across the Station Road and Church Gate arms. These could take the form of raised tables. The Broadway • Consider installing continuous footways across side roads and accesses to give greater pedestrian priority. • Install tactile paving where absent.

-21- WBC/PP&C/JK/0521

LCWIP 50