Northampton County Council NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
JUNE 2019 PUBLIC Northampton County Council
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
TYPE OF DOCUMENT (VERSION) PUBLIC
PROJECT NO. 70021598
DATE: JUNE 2019
WSP The Mailbox Level 2 100 Wharfside Street, Birmingham B1 1RT Phone: +44 121 352 4700
WSP.com
PUBLIC QUALITY CONTROL
Issue/revision First issue Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3
Remarks
Date 17/06/2019
Prepared by Andrew Shepherd
Signature
Checked by Andrew Palmer
Signature
Authorised by Andrew Palmer
Signature
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1 1.2 OPTIONS 2 1.3 PROPOSED SCHEME 3
2 2017 CONSULTATION 5
2.2 PUBLICITY 5 2.3 EVENTS 5 2.4 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 6 2.5 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS 6
3 DESIGN EVOLUTION 8
4 2019 CONSULTATION 10
4.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION APPROACH 10 4.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION EVENTS 10 4.3 LEAFLET TO RESIDENTS 12 4.4 LETTERS TO COUNCILLORS AND PARISH / TOWN COUNCILS 13 4.5 PROJECT WEBSITE 14 4.6 PRESENTATION TO COUNCILLORS 14 4.7 WASPRA 14
5 CONCLUSIONS 15
APPENDICES
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Appendix A – General Alignment Drawing
Appendix B – 2017 Questionnaire
Appendix C – 2017 Consultation Report
Appendix D – 2019 Information Display Boards
Appendix E – 2019 Press Release
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1.1. This Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) has been prepared in support of a planning application submitted by Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) (the ‘Applicant’) to construct the Northampton North-West Relief Road (NWRR) between Sandy Lane and Dallington Grange Kings Heath development, hereafter referred to as the ‘Proposed Scheme’. This SCI replaces the Memo originally submitted with the planning application dated 6th June 2019. 1.1.2. The vision for the scheme is: To contribute to making Northamptonshire a location of choice to work, live, learn and invest through the competitive ability to provide fast and efficient movement of people and goods. Improving journey time reliability and accessibility in Northampton will support economic and housing growth, by enabling people to get to work and services more efficiently within timescales of greater confidence. This will support businesses to flourish to make Northamptonshire an exemplar for industries. 1.1.3. Scheme Specific Objectives are: § O1 - To support free flow traffic movements on key local routes in North West Northampton during off peak periods and minimise delay during peak periods. § O2 - To increase journey time reliability and minimise travel costs on key strategic routes in North West Northampton. § O3 – To unlock housing development at Dallington Grange. § O4 - To support the delivery and purchase of planned housing development sites in North West Northampton to support economic growth. § O5 - To improve access to employment sites for residents in North West Northampton. § O6 - To reduce the number and severity of accidents in North West Northampton, particularly in hot spot areas including the A508. § O7 - To support the reduction of emissions and better air quality in the vicinity of AQMAs in Northampton. 1.1.4. Following a long history dating back to the 1980s, an assessment of options, and extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public the NWRR design has developed to completion of a preliminary design submitted for planning permission. 1.1.5. This SCI summarises the public consultation undertaken to date and the conclusions drawn from this process to shape the design of the Proposed Scheme.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 1 of 15 Figure 1: Proposed Route option 1.2 OPTIONS 1.2.1. An Options Appraisal Report (OAR) followed a process of assessing options against the scheme objectives to: § established that an intervention should be implemented in the area where the greatest impact will be achieved in North West Northampton. § generate extensive options for interventions in Northampton across a range of modes § complete an initial sift of the long list of the options against the scheme specific objectives to discard those options which do not meet the key objectives and do not fit with existing local, regional and national strategies, as well as wider government priorities. 1.2.2. The resulting shortlist of options are described as follows: § Option 1 (demand management measures on identified public transport corridors) would have support air quality improvements and journey time reliability for public transport. Stakeholder support, including operator support, for this option was a key uncertainty. This option was likely to have a medium Value for Money (VfM). Option 1 had minor barriers to its practical feasibility in terms of the small amount of necessary land take; however key risks included maintenance of the infrastructure and the resource required to manage and maintain operations. The capital cost for Option 1 was unknown, however this option did not have any committed funding.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 2 of 15 § Option 2 (North West Relief Road) fully addressed the identified problems, with the intervention supporting the development of housing and wider support to the growth of employment sites. The NWRR would also provide greater journey time reliability and reduce traffic flows in conservation areas such as Chapel Brampton and Church Brampton. The intervention would likely provide a positive air quality due to additional capacity reducing stop/start movements. However, the option would likely have a negative impact on the local environment as a result of land requirements. The NWRR would support economic growth with a high VfM and the potential for outputs to support job creation and the delivery of 6,600 dwellings across three Sustainable Urban Expansions. The option would be a medium-term intervention with various barriers such as environmental constraints. The option would have excellent quality of supporting evidence with the intervention first introduced in the late 1980s. Although the option represented the highest cost, funding arrangements to deliver the scheme were allocated. § Option 3 (re-examination of all 40 mph speed limits within the built-up area) would likely have a minor impact on addressing the problems. The focus of this intervention would benefit safety and accessibility for cyclists and pedestrians; and would support the reduction in stop/start movements. Key uncertainties for the option included stakeholder support and the enforcement measure for reducing speed limits. Option 3 would likely have a medium VfM, but only provides weak economic growth. The capacity of the existing network is capped and therefore has a limited opportunity to provide economic growth and may create some safety issues. Option 3 would involve a lengthy study but would be a short-term intervention in terms of construction on site. The option had minor barriers to its practical feasibility due to the small amount of necessary land take. Similar interventions elsewhere were in the region of £2 million in terms of area wide sign-only schemes, however the option does not have any committed funding. § Option 4 (introduction of additional 20 mph zones) would have had a minor impact on addressing the problems but would benefit safety of cyclists and pedestrians as well as the reduction of stop/start movements. Key uncertainties for Option 4 included stakeholder support and the enforcement measure for reducing speed limits. The option would have a medium VfM, with weak economic growth. Option 4 had minor barriers to its practical feasibility because of the small amount of land take required. Similar interventions elsewhere were in the region of £2 million in terms of area wide sign-only schemes, however the option did not have any committed funding. 1.2.3. The only option that truly delivered against objectives was the preferred option taken forward from the OAR - Option 2 NWRR. 1.3 PROPOSED SCHEME 1.3.1. The Proposed Scheme comprises a new relief road measuring approximately 1 mile in length. To the north, the new relief road will connect into a new roundabout at the Sandy Lane junction with the A5199 Northampton Road before connecting into a further new roundabout at the Brampton Lane junction with A5199 Welford Road. To the south, the new relief road will connect into the Dallington Grange Roundabout, a new roundabout east of Grange Farm which will provide access to the proposed Dallington Grange residential development which includes a link to the A428 at New Sandy Lane.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 3 of 15 1.3.2. The Proposed Scheme will include the following engineering components: § Single two-lane carriageway (plus shared cycle/footway to the west side of the road) connecting the Dallington Grange Roundabout to the A5199 at Sandy Lane; § Railway overbridge over the Rugby to Milton Keynes railway line; § A new roundabout at the Sandy Lane junction with A5199 Northampton Road including PRoW crossing provisions; § Single two-lane carriageway (plus street lighting) connecting the new Sandy Lane Roundabout and Brampton Lane; § A new roundabout at the existing Brampton Lane, A5199 Welford Road and Northampton Road Junction, including PRoW crossing provisions including the diverted Public Footpath CC6 and National Cycle Route 6; § Modifications to the existing A5199 Northampton Road from Sandy Lane to Brampton Lane to provide a traffic free route for non-motorised users; and § Flood and drainage provisions. 1.3.3. General Alignment Drawing can be viewed in Appendix A.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 4 of 15 2 2017 CONSULTATION
2.1.1. The scheme has been under consideration for many years and was developed in the early1990s. A preferred route was agreed at that time but was subsequently dropped. 2.1.2. The objective of this consultation was to seek views and feedback from the public, statutory and non-statutory consultees on the current proposal, which is a variation of the 1990s route. 2.1.3. As previously developed, the road was expected to join the A5199 Welford Road east of Boughton Crossing near the Windhover, however the development of the Brampton View Nursing Home has meant that the route was forced to change and is now likely to join the A5199 west of Boughton Crossing and maintain a route west of Brampton Brook. 2.1.4. A single road option was presented, as the route is largely governed by constraints and the fact that the first section of the NWRR east of New Sandy Lane has been constructed as part of the Harlestone Manor development. Its extension to the Dallington Grange development will also be provided by developers. The precise alignment both horizontally and vertically was not yet determined; similarly, the location and form of junctions were in the early stages of development. 2.1.5. The views gathered from the 2017 consultation were intended to be used by NCC to shape the project, seek high level support and prioritise it amongst other emerging major highway projects. In turn, NCC need the resolution of the Council Cabinet to continue to fund the development stages of these projects. 2.2 PUBLICITY 2.2.1. Advance notice of the dates of the consultation and the exhibitions was given on NCC’s website and also communicated to parish councils along the routes so that they could publicise them. When the consultation launched a press release was issued, and the issue was covered by both local press and radio. Information was also communicated via our consultation register. 2.2.2. Direct notification went to parish councils, previous consultation responders and all registered land owners along the routes. (i.e. those where contact details were held by the Land Registry). There were also press releases, traditional media articles and social media messages.
2.3 EVENTS The consultation events included: § Burd Room, Kingsthorpe, Mon 3 July 2017 § Boughton Village Hall, Weds 5 July 2017 § Harlestone Village Institute, Thurs 6 July 2017 § Pastures Community Centre, Kingsthorpe Sat 8 July 2017 § Moulton Community Centre, Fri 14 July 2017 § Pitsford Village Hall, Sat 15 July 2017 2.3.1. At least four representatives were present from NCC at all times. The events were open from 9am- 7pm on each day.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 5 of 15 2.3.2. In comparison with similar previous consultation exercises there was good attendance at all venues. The total number of recorded attendees to the events was 755, excluding those who did not sign in when arriving at the venue. 2.3.3. Following the exhibitions, the boards were displayed at Kingsthorpe library for three weeks. 2.3.4. A questionnaire was available for interested parties to give their views. Links were available from the NCC website to enable the questionnaire to be completed online. Paper copies were made available at the exhibitions or posted out to those who requested a copy. The questionnaire is contained in Appendix B. 2.3.5. Based on the response of the questionnaire 64% of respondents out of a total of 878 supported the need for the NWRR. 2.3.6. However, based on the written responses following the consultation, the main concerns were: § The impact on Harlestone Firs which is well used by walkers and equestrians, and the potential adverse impact to some equestrian businesses. § The impact on the flood risk caused by building a road within the River Nene flood plain. § The impact on the local road network, for example at the busy junction at the Windhover. § Noise and visual impact on local residents in Kingsthorpe due to the road embankment location and height above ground level. § The potentially significant traffic impacts in and around Kingsthorpe in the period between the completion of the NWRR and the Northern Orbital Route i.e. the roads should be completed together. 2.3.7. This important stakeholder feedback has resulted in the further iterations of the scheme design taking account of all of these perceived concerns and mitigate where possible. 2.4 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 2.4.1. In July 2011, consultation took place with key stakeholders including the Environment Agency and Network Rail in separate meetings with NCC. Following these meetings, issues regarding the River Nene floodplain and Northampton Loop railway line were addressed and have been taken forward into the design process to ensure mitigation measures are in place. 2.4.2. In summary, Network Rail stated that they would not support a level crossing and would only support an under-option if there were compelling reasons for not passing over. Engagement with the Environment Agency scoped that encroachment into the floodplain is only permitted for ‘essential infrastructure’. NCC confirmed that the road is considered essential infrastructure. The Environment Agency stated that an over bridge structure would be preferable due to flood risk; and also stated that mitigation measures are necessary for the scheme. It was clear however, from this engagement with the key statutory stakeholder that there are no show stoppers to the delivery of the scheme. 2.5 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS 2.5.1. A list of the main stakeholder groups and a summary of their contribution / specific interests to the project are outlined below in Error! Reference source not found. 1 below.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 6 of 15 Table 1: Stakeholder Groups Summary of Interests
STAKEHOLDERS SUMMARY OF INTERESTS
Department for Transport Will be interested in how the scheme will deliver additional capacity to the network and (DfT) help improve and support the efficient movement of people and goods in light of new developments in Northampton.
Directly affected Interested in the land take and engineering requirements of the Relief Road and how this landowners will affect them directly.
Emergency Services Interested in how the scheme will impact upon their service provision, accessibility and (Police/Fire/Health) permeability.
Environment Agency Interested in the environmental legislation relevant to construction, air quality, noise and floodplain issues.
Highways England Interested in the impact of the scheme on the trunk road network, and junctions on the network.
Historic England Interested in limiting adverse impacts of the scheme protecting the historic environment.
Housing Developer of Require the NWRR to accommodate the Dallington Grange SUE by providing suitable Dallington Grange access to/from the site and additional highway capacity to support the development.
Housing Developers of Require the NWRR to accommodate the housing growth and support the additional traffic SUEs in Northampton generated in Northampton.
Indirectly affected Interested in the land take and engineering requirements of the Relief Road and how this landowners will affect them indirectly.
Media Groups All issues relating to the Relief Road may be of public interest.
Natural England Interested in the natural environment. To ensure that areas with environmental designations are conserved, enhanced and managed.
Network Rail Interested in how the Relief Road will cross the Northampton Loop railway line and the design of the scheme will affect the railway line.
Northamptonshire County NCC will have heavily vested interests in the delivery of the NWRR as it will have a major Council (NCC) contribution towards the delivery of developments within their local plans.
Residents/public Interested in issues surrounding all aspects of the scheme, such as noise pollution, visual impact, traffic implications, traffic management, construction issues, planning issues, environmental issues and design.
Services providers Water and powerlines may potentially be affected by the routing of the relief road. (Anglian Water, BT Openreach, etc)
SEMLEP Interested in the detailed plans, development of the full business case and submission, funding and planning.
Transport groups (bus Interested in issues surrounding transport companies, such as route changes and journey companies, freight times. associations)
West Northamptonshire Will want to understand how the NWRR will affect the distribution of traffic on the network Councils (Daventry District and how it will contribute to them delivering developments within their plans. Council, Northampton Borough Council, South Northamptonshire Council) 2.5.2. A copy of the 2017 Consultation Report can be viewed in Appendix C.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 7 of 15 3 DESIGN EVOLUTION
3.1.1. This section summarises the design decisions towards the selection of the optimum solution presented in this planning application. The various constraints and steps taken are explained to demonstrate why the proposal is best solution for the preferred option emerging from the options appraisal process described previously. 3.1.2. The public exhibition feedback from 2017 highlighted a split of opinion in relation to the NWRR. Many responders raised concerns about delivering the NWRR in advance of North Northampton Orbital Route (NNOR) and not providing infrastructure which has capacity for future growth. Others raised concerns about the environmental impact resulting from the road and the associated developments. 3.1.3. Before the road design work commenced it was felt important to revisit the scheme objectives and NCC confirmed that, whilst the purpose of the scheme was predominantly to support the local housing growth, there was also an intention to have an asset fit for the future. At the time, the future of the NNOR was unknown and in planning terms, NNOR is not included within the Core Strategy for delivery before 2031 but is listed as ‘key infrastructure’ in the Northamptonshire Transport Plan 2012. The design therefore commenced based on providing a link to the housing site, but ensuring the design allowed for reasonable and affordable and futureproofing. 3.1.4. Key environmental constraints included the visual impact of a new road in the River Nene valley, the additional noise this would generate as well as the impact upon the function of the floodplain and local ecology. Environmental Surveys continued through 2017 and 2018 to further inform these impacts and to ensure that the right design option was selected and necessary mitigation built in. Various options were considered for the road including routes under the railway to reduce the visual impact of the scheme. However, these ‘under’ options were discounted due to the costs and engineering risks of working in deep excavations in the floodplain and the risks to the railway. 3.1.5. Throughout 2017 and 2018, traffic modelling was undertaken to inform the scheme design. This modelling highlighted the difference in flow with and without the NNOR and reinforced the importance to futureproof the infrastructure. The flows with NNOR in place indicated that a dual carriageway may become necessary in the future. As such, a dual carriageway option was developed, and cost estimates produced to establish whether this could be delivered from the outset. 3.1.6. The cost estimates demonstrate the dual carriageway was not deliverable within the budget constraints and so a single carriageway option was developed which can be upgraded in the future. This included an easy to widen alignment, structures which lend themselves to future widening and ensuring enough land is available should a dual carriageway become necessary later. 3.1.7. In addition to the review of dual and single carriageways, the impact on the existing road network has been carefully considered. The traffic modelling showed that the existing river bridge on the A5199 Northampton Road would not be suitable for the predicted traffic flows after opening of the NWRR and following completion of local developments. A new link has therefore been included from the Junction of the NWRR with Northampton Road and Sandy Lane to the Welford Road / Brampton Lane Junction. The provision of this link also moved the increased traffic away from a residential property and provided the opportunity for a non-traffic link along the old road, improving connectivity for walkers, cyclists and horse riders.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 8 of 15 3.1.8. Further to providing needed support for the housing growth in the area, the NWRR provides significant benefit to journeys across Northampton, reducing traffic on the A508 and Mill Lane and other routes within the town. This not only provides significant economic benefits but also environmental benefits such as improved air quality in those areas. Other routes through villages to the north of the town such as the route through the Bramptons on Harlestone Lane will experience significant reductions in traffic. 3.1.9. Despite this wider benefit, there are local negative impacts from the scheme and developments. Increases in traffic on the Northampton Road and Brampton Lane are expected as the developments generate new traffic and the new infrastructure draws existing traffic from those other previously mentioned routes. The overall design of the scheme therefore needs to be mindful of balancing the wider benefits with the local impacts. Therefore, the provision of higher capacity in the short term would not be the optimal solution. This further supported the decision to deliver a single carriageway solution and restricting capacity at the proposed new roundabout junctions. 3.1.10. Using this balanced approach, the design presented to planning incorporates the following features: A route with a bridge over the railway to ensure a low risk delivery within budget and programme. The greater visual impacts will be mitigated as far as possible by minimising embankment heights and including landscaping features; § A single carriageway NWRR which is specifically designed for future upgrading to a dual carriageway if the NNOR proceeds; § The road will be designed for 60mph speeds but with safe use of departures from standards to reduce the embankment height; § New roundabout junctions at Sandy Lane and Brampton Lane will be connected by a new river bridge and causeway link. The capacity of these junctions will balance the wide benefits with the local impacts.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 9 of 15 4 2019 CONSULTATION
4.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION APPROACH 4.1.1. Consultation with both statutory and non-statutory consultees has been undertaken during the EIA to formally agree methodological approaches for technical studies and to further identify additional sensitivities or concerns associated with the Proposed Scheme. 4.1.2. The following consultation bodies were consulted as part of the assessment: § Environment Agency; § Natural England; § Network Rail; § Forestry Commission; § English Heritage; § Archaeological advisor to the planning authority; and § Northampton Borough Council. 4.1.3. Observations and comments made by consultees are discussed where deemed appropriate within the relevant chapters of this ES. 4.2 PUBLIC INFORMATION EVENTS 4.2.1. Following on from the events held in 2017, the 2019 events focused on explaining the rational of the chosen option and design. The events provided the opportunity for members of the public or other interested groups to view the plans for the NWRR, find out more information about the scheme and to pose any questions or concerns that they have. 4.2.2. Two public information events were held in June 2019. These took place: § Dunston Community Centre, Pendle Road, Duston NN5 6DT Tuesday, 11th June 2019 – 8.30am – 8.00pm § The Pastures Community Centre, Welford Road, Kingsthorpe NN2 8PN Saturday, 15th June 2019 – 8.30am – 8.00pm 4.2.3. The events were held at the above locations which are near to the route corridor of the NWRR. These took the form of ‘drop-in’ sessions (requiring no advanced invitation or RSVP) so interested persons could turn up to view the plans and speak to the project team. The events were held from 8.30am until 8.00pm in order to maximise potential attendance. One event was held at the weekend allowing people to attend who might be constrained by work / family commitments during the week. 4.2.4. Display boards were produced, providing information about the Proposed Scheme. These were displayed at the public events and included the following information: § Project background and context; § General layout explained; § Transportation assessment work undertaken;
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 10 of 15 § The design principles; § Environmental assessment work undertaken; § The construction phase; and § The next steps and further information. 4.2.5. The Saturday event was the most popular and was attended by 297 people. The Tuesday event was attended by 55. 4.2.6. A copy of the display boards can be viewed in Appendix D. 4.2.7. The following methods were used to advertise the public events: Table 2: Details of engagement with the local community
METHOD OF ENGAGEMENT AIM FURTHER DETAILS Leaflet to residence To raise awareness of the information Over 7000 Distributed to households events taking place and businesses in the area around the NWRR corridor
Project webpage To provide a widely accessible means Hosted on the NCC website of obtaining information about the Proposed Scheme Media coverage To raise awareness of the public Press release information events taking place. (See Appendix E)
Public Information Events Two events were hosted locally with Two drop-in events took place during the aim of providing information to the public consultation phase attendees, as well as explaining the planning process and how the public can formally comment Formal invitations to Councillors, Invitation letters were posted and A list of invitees is available upon Parish Councils and NCC / NBC emailed to Parish / Town Councils request Officers and various Councillors and Officers Social Media The events were advertised on NCC’s Social media is favoured to target official twitter page younger generations and keep the public updated
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 11 of 15 4.3 LEAFLET TO RESIDENTS 4.3.1. An NCC branded leaflet was distributed to households and businesses in the vicinity of the Proposed Scheme. The leaflet (shown here on the right) was distributed to residence by a marketing delivery company (see below for the distribution area). The leaflet contained details to inform the residents of the following: § The aim to submit a planning application end May 2019; § What the aims of the scheme are; § The details of the public information events; § NCC website address. 4.3.2. The distribution area for this leaflet is shown in Figure 2. 4.3.3. As the map shows, distribution covers the areas in the immediate vicinity of the route corridor. Over 7000 leaflets were sent out week commencing 3rd June 2019. Figure 2: Distribution area for leaflet
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 12 of 15 4.4 LETTERS TO COUNCILLORS AND PARISH / TOWN COUNCILS 4.4.1. Letters and emails were sent to Councillors and Parish / Town Councils whose authority would most likely be impacted by the Proposed Scheme. An example letter can be viewed below in Figure 3. Figure 3: Example Letter
4.4.2. The following Parish / Town Councils were sent invitations to the public events: § Boughton Parish; § Church with Chapel Brampton Parish;
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 13 of 15 § Pitsford Parish; and § Redenhall with Harleston Town. 4.4.3. A list of Councillors directly invited is available upon request. 4.5 PROJECT WEBSITE 4.5.1. A dedicated web page has been set up on the NCC website where information on the scheme is provided and can be downloaded by members of the public. The web page includes the following information: § Description of the scheme; § Explains the likely scheme cost and how it will be funded; § Provided the outline Business Case to download as pdf; § Advertised the public information events and provides the event display boards to download as pdf; § Provides links to the 2017 consultation material. 4.5.2. The web page will be used to keep the public updated on any developments in delivering the Proposed Scheme. 4.5.3. The web page can be accessed at the link below. https://www3.northamptonshire.gov.uk/councilservices/northamptonshire-highways/major-highway- projects/Pages/northampton-north-west-relief-road.aspx 4.6 PRESENTATION TO COUNCILLORS 4.6.1. Northampton Borough Councillors were invited to a presentation of the Proposed Scheme on 10th June, The Guildhall, Northampton. The public event boards were displayed and explained to those who attended. It gave Councillors the opportunity to see the information before the public and ask any questions of the project team. 4.7 WASPRA 4.7.1. The Whitehills and Spring Park Resident’s Association (WASPRA) are a local resident group who have significant interested in the Proposed Scheme. Representatives from WASPRA were invited to a meeting with the Proposed Scheme leads at NCC’s offices. The meeting took place 13th June 2013. 4.7.2. WASPRA had a presence at the second public event held at the Pastures Community Centre.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 14 of 15 5 CONCLUSIONS
5.1.1. The formal consultation process for the Proposed Scheme began back in 2017 following feasibility and optioneering exercises. Public events took place and attendees were asked to fill out questionnaires asking whether they supported the Proposed Scheme. 5.1.2. 64% of the 878 attendees stated direct support for the development of the NWRR. Following this conclusion, NCC moved to develop the scheme while considering the constraints identified during the feasibility / optioneering stages and public consultation. 5.1.3. The design evolved into the Proposed Scheme which was presented to the public at the 2019 information events. The application has now been submitted (ref: 19/00045/CCDFUL) and the application documents can be viewed on the Council’s planning website. 5.1.4. Advertising for both the 2017 and 2019 events was extensive utilising a variety of different methods which are explained in this report. 5.1.5. Now the application has been submitted, there is potential for further meetings and presentations to take place with Parish Councils, resident groups and statutory and non-statutory stakeholders. The formal consultation response received during the planning process will be assessed and acted upon where appropriate. 5.1.6. Any formal responses made by the Applicant in responses to consultation comments will be uploaded to the Council’s planning website.
.
NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70021598 June 2019 Northampton County Council Page 15 of 15 GENERAL ALIGNMENT DRAWING
Public NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
GOLF COURSE
Brampton Grange
NWRR-WSP-SGN-0000-DR-CH-00004 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller 81.7m of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may Track lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Track SANDY LANE
GOLF COURSE Northamptonshire County Council: Licence No. 100019331. Published 2018. 82.3m
Foot Bridge NORTHAMPTON ROAD NORTHAMPTON
Track
78.3m
Spring SANDY LANE ROUNDABOUT
BRAMPTON HEATH Tank A5199 NORTHAMPTON ROAD GOLF COURSE
71.0m
Track BRAMPTON HEATH GOLF CENTRE Drain
MP
Drain NWRR-WSP-SGN-0000-DR-CH-00003
0.0 0.0
80.8m
NORTH WEST RELIEF GP
BM 68.60m
ROAD MAINLINE 1450.01450.0 GRANGE
SL
1400.01400.0 Track FARM RIVER NENE
FB
1350.01350.0
50.0 CROSSING 50.0 NWRR-WSP-SGN-0000-DR-CH-00003 1300.01300.0
MP 68.5 79.9m
1250.01250.0
Golf Course
1200.01200.0
Pond
FLOOD RELIEF CULVERT 3 1150.0 1150.0
AND DRAINAGE CULVERT 1100.0 1100.0 RIVER NENE FB
1050.0 1050.0 100.0 FLOOD RELIEF CULVERT 2 BRAMPTON BECK BRAMPTON 100.0
1000.01000.0
81.4m
950.0 950.0 Issues
Drain
Track FLOOD STORAGE
AREA D 900.0900.0
Pond NWRR-WSP-SGN-0000-DR-CH-00005 850.0850.0
800.0800.0 150.0
RUGBY TO MILTON KEYNES RAIL LINE 150.0 Drain 750.0750.0 CAUSEWAY LINK
700.0700.0
RAILWAY OVERBRIDGE
650.0650.0
200.0 200.0
600.0600.0
77.1m NWRR-WSP-SGN-0000-DR-CH-00001
Drain
550.0550.0 Path (um) Path
Issues
RIVER NENE RIVER
500.0500.0
FLOOD RELIEF 250.0 250.0
450.0
Track 450.0 CULVERT 1 DALLINGTON GRANGE ROUNDABOUT RIVER NENE 400.0400.0 AND DEVLOPMENT ROADS Drain BRAMPTON LANE ROUNDABOUT
Drain
NWRR-WSP-SGN-0000-DR-CH-00001 350.0 350.0 HIGHWAY
300.0 Catch Points 300.0
BALANCING PONDS 300.0 BRAMPTON VALLEY WAY 300.0 250.0 250.0
200.0 200.0
150.0 150.0 FLOOD RELIEF CULVERT 4
Drain 100.0 100.0 Track Windhover EXISTING CAUSEWAY STOPPED 50.0 50.0 MP 3.5
0.0 0.0 (PH) UP. ACCESS MAINTAINED FOR NON-MOTORISED USERS SP Track BRAMPTON BECK NATIONAL CYCLE ROUTE 6 Tel Ex
NWRR-WSP-SGN-0000-DR-CH-00002 Collects CULVERT Drain Mast
RIVER NENE El Sub Sta BRAMPTON LANE
Track FLOOD ROUTING CHANNEL
Peoples, Stephen Park MP 3.25 BM 72.16m Car
419 , by El Sub Sta A5199 WELFORD ROAD
405
MP 68.25
FLOOD STORAGE 393 WELFORD ROAD WELFORD
AREA A 402
381
31 May 2019 16:01:16 DO NOT SCALE
75.5m 355 390
8 Meadow View
Posts 369
, printed on 7
TCB 1
Shelter 10 357
GARSDALE
GARSDALE 28
27 THE AVENUE 12 BORROW PIT 1 19
1
FLOOD STORAGE 14 35
9 15 10 11 125 P01 20/05/2019 SP ISSUE FOR PLANNING SF AP
AREA C 15
Drain
13
20
2
1 REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION CHK APP BM 69.38m 22 113
68.0m 3 23 29
6 FAIRMEAD RISE DRAWING STATUS:
SM
LB
137 8 34 B - PARTIAL SIGN OFF
FLOOD STORAGE WENSLEYDALE
El Sub 107 24 ARNDALE Sta AREA B SHERWOOD
BORROW PIT 2 LC
1 2
1
CEDRUS CT Track
12
Dismantled Railway Dismantled 13 AVENUE
SL 24
MARTINDALE 101
18
10 9 75 6
37 35
95 147
7 28 CEDRUS COURT
12
32 14
FB COVERDALE 33
65 6 85
18
1 Track
87
2 315 12 26 BORROW PIT 3 HARVEST WAY 155
El Sub Sta
14 20 8 5 1
Weir 386
1
311 80.5m 82
7
5 Track
SHERWOOD AVENUE SHERWOOD 165
53
GVC 1
WELFORD ROAD WELFORD 11 96 10 15
2 167
372 13
64.0m 25 98 112
FB 11 CLIENT: 116
24 108
26 41
1 7 33
FYLINGDALE
68 7
CROXDALE 104
28 120 20 AVENUE SHERWOOD
HARROW WAY HARROW
BM 64.11m 34 32 15 1
1 WESTERDALE 11
COPSE CLOSE 21
Track 370
36 30 64
SHERWOOD AVENUE SHERWOOD
CLOSE 36 156
6 28 42
40 38 368
7 42 179
52 54
19
1 158 21
60 KEY: 54
Pond HARROW WAY HARROW 1 197
130 Track 1
29 2 LC TCB 37
4 SHERWOOD
GLAISDALE 16
27 Highfield SITE BOUNDARY Childrens 95 144
Centre
41 SITE/PROJECT: 312 8 SHERWOOD AVENUE SHERWOOD Sub Sta HARROW WAY
El 17
MP 68 BM 89.30m AVENUE
6 6
80
KENTSTONE CLOSE
16 14
14 300
83.0m 138
15 292 12
12
11 205 EMBANKMENT (SLOPE EQUAL TO
CLOSE
70 168
11 10 189
ACRE LANE 2
68 272 86 1:3) 81 86.9m 260
288 NORTHAMPTON NORTH WEST RELIEF ROAD
8 298
277 207
10 273 278
284 211 Highfield 178
School 259 282 VERGE AREAS (INCLUDES SLOPES 76 34 ACRE LANE 248
92.9m LB
60 25 EQUAL TO OR SHALLOWER THAN
188
90.0m 14 245 75 209
213 1 236 1:7) TITLE:
205 3 BM 83.44m 233 ACRE LANE
84.4m
DELTA WAY BM 88.58m
1 MILE FAIR
COVERT CLOSE COVERT
219 52 18 221
12 224
2
11 CYCLE / FOOTWAY
50 14
193
7 94.5m
7 15
9
6 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
6 KENTSTONE CLOSE KENTSTONE
8 46 212
5 183 ROAD PAVEMENT 1 82 5
65
DELTA WAY DELTA
6
Drain Drain 42
CATTON 20 181
CRES KENTSTONE CLOSE 4
16 Path
Playground 2 47 BM 95.61m 51
1 2 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD SCALE @ A1: CHECKED: APPROVED:
15 175
16 CATTON
29 53 55
156
149
44 INFRASTRUCTURE
Dismantled Railway Dismantled GRASSCROFT 51
12 147 1:2500 SF AP 2 Track
55 CRES
72 49 CLOSE STUBBLE 65 6
El
22 Sub Sta 21 15 PROJECT NO: DESIGNED: DRAWN: DATE: 2 43
24
11
16 LIGHTING COLUMN (SEE NOTE 1) 54
KENTSTONE CLOSE 20 50 145
24 43 70021598 AD SP May 19
38 23 1 25
30
146 14
9 DRAWING No: REV: 45
Recreation Ground
FALLOW WALK
1 32
87.1m 96.1m
46 Scale 1:2500 8
21
35
Posts 8
70 33 NWRR-WSP-SGN-0000-DR-CH-00006 P01 284 62
40 135
Drain 31
27 1 3 LANE PLOUGH
15 24
76 El 12 LARWOOD CLOSE
\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\700215XX\70021598 - NORTHAMPTON NW RELIEF ROAD\E MODELS AND DRAWINGS\HIGHWAYS\DRAWINGS\DRAWINGS\01 GA SGN\NWRR-WSP-SGN-0000-DR-CH-00006.DWG 50m 0 50m 100m 150m 200m 250m
23 40 Sub 14 STUBBLE
58 The Windmill SHEPHERD CLOSE DRIVE LEYLAND CLOSE (PH)
15 11
Sta 2
134 41 30 7 4
8 c
25 42 8 WSP UK Ltd 25
STUBBLE CLOSE 1 12 21 68
Sub Sta 16 File name 56 48 125 2017 QUESTIONNAIRE
Public North-west Relief Road (NWRR) & Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR)
You can have your say on Northamptonshire County Council plans for two new roads in Northampton.
1. Do you support the need for the NWRR? *
Yes
No
Don't know
2. Do you support the need for the NNOR? *
Yes
No
Don't know
3. Which NNOR route option do you prefer? *
Option 7
Option 8
Neither
4. Which NNOR Spur option do you prefer? *
Spur A
Spur B
Neither
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 2017 CONSULTATION REPORT
Public Combined Consultation July 2017 Feedback Report
Northampton North-West Relief Road and Northampton Northern Orbital Route
October 2017 QM
Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks First draft Final
Date 17 October 2017 20 December 2017
Prepared by S Challenor S Challenor
Signature S Challenor S Challenor
Checked by J Wyllie J Wyllie
Signature J Wyllie J Wyllie
Authorised by J Wyllie J Wyllie
Signature J Wyllie J Wyllie
Project number 70014040 70014040
File reference ------
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 2 Contents
Page
1 Introduction 4 1.1 Schemes Background 4 1.2 Consultation Objective 5 2 Consultation Arrangements 7 2.1 Consultation Publicity 7 2.2 Consultation Material 8 2.3 Consultation Events 8 2.4 Questionnaires 9 2.5 Written Responses 9 2.6 Campaign Groups And Petitions 9 2.7 Press Coverage 9 3 Consultation Responses 10 3.1 Effectiveness Of The Consultation 10 3.2 Questionnaire Results 12 3.3 Summary Of Written Responses And Questionnaire Comments 20 3.4 Individual Respondents – Common Themes 25 3.5 Individual Respondents – Nnor Route Options 31 3.6 Individual Respondents - Spur Road 32 3.7 Summary Of Suggested Nnor Alternative Route Options 33 4 Conclusions 36 4.1 General 36 4.2 NWRR Specific 37 4.3 NNOR Specific 37 5 Appendices 38 Appendix A – Consultation Questionnaire Appendix B – Consultation Tracker Appendix C – Key Stakeholder Comments
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 3 1 Introduction
1.1 SCHEMES BACKGROUND
1.1.1 Northampton Northwest Relief Road (NWRR) The Northampton North-West Relief Road (NWRR) will link the A428 Harlestone Road with the A5199 Welford Road. The section from the A428 to just south of the railway line will be constructed by the developers of Dallington Grange, and indeed the first part of this section has already been constructed as part of the Harlestone Manor development. Northamptonshire County Council will be responsible for building the section of road across the railway line to reach the A5199 Welford Road.
The scheme was initially developed in the early 1990s. A preferred route was agreed at that time, but this was subsequently dropped. That is why we need to consult on the route again.
1.1.2 Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) While other new roads, such as the NWRR, will relieve traffic from some parts of north-west Northampton, they will not provide a complete ring road around the north of the town. The county council has identified the need for such a road, both to deal with current traffic problems and to provide the capacity needed to accommodate future development.
While a preferred route has still to be determined, the proposed new road will link the A5199 and Northampton North West Relief Road between Kingsthorpe and Chapel Brampton with the A43 north of Moulton. The new road will also connect with the Moulton Park industrial estate.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 4 1.2 CONSULTATION OBJECTIVE
1.2.1 Northampton Northwest Relief Road (NWRR) The scheme has been under consideration for many years and was developed in the early 1990s. A preferred route was agreed at that time, but was subsequently dropped, and there is currently no approved route.
The objective of this consultation was to seek views and feedback from the public, statutory and non-statutory consultees on the current proposal, which is a variation of the 1990s route. As previously developed, the road was expected to join the A5199 Welford Road east of Boughton Crossing near the Windhover, however the development of the Brampton View Nursing Home has meant that the route was forced to change and is now likely to join the A5199 west of Boughton Crossing and maintain a route west of Brampton Brook.
A single road option was presented, as the route is largely governed by constraints and the fact that the first section of the NWRR east of New Sandy Lane has been constructed as part of the Harlestone Manor development and its extension to the Dallington Grange development will also be provided by developers. The precise alignment both horizontally and vertically has not yet been determined; similarly the location and form of junctions are in the early stages of development.
1.2.2 Northampton Northern Orbital Route The first public consultation for this scheme was held in Spring 2016. Four potential routes were presented at that stage and they can be viewed here. Basic level background data was developed to inform these options. The aim at that stage was to stimulate discussions with stakeholders to understand the importance of local constraints.
The objective of this second consultation was to seek the views of statutory and non- statutory consultees and the public on the need for the scheme, their views of two main alignment route corridors (Options 7 and 8) and two spur road corridor options (Spur A and Spur B).
The two route corridor alignment options are refinements based on Option 1 and Option 4 which were the most supported options from the first consultation. All elements of the two options avoid the designated extent of Boughton Park (grade 2 listed historic parkland), as impacts on the park were a serious concern for many at the first consultation. The options were also refined by basing the alignments on higher resolution mapping so features such as properties could be avoided. Indicative junctions were also shown. At this early stage, the vertical alignment, embankments, cuttings and other road side features have not been designed so the alignments are drawn as simple two dimensional lines.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 5 1.2.3 Summary These views are intended to be used by Northamptonshire Highways to shape the project, seek high level support and prioritise it amongst other emerging major highway projects. In turn, Northamptonshire County Council need the resolution of the Council Cabinet to continue to fund the development stages of these projects.
The need for further consultation prior to a planning application for NWRR or the announcement of a preferred route for NNOR is acknowledged.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 6 2 Consultation Arrangements
The combined consultation was opened on Monday 19 June 2017 for a period of seven weeks. The consultation officially closed on Friday 4 August 2017.
The consultation was originally intended to start earlier in 2017 but due to local and general elections it was moved back as we are unable to consult during these periods.
2.1 CONSULTATION PUBLICITY Advance notice of the dates of the consultation and the exhibitions was given on our website and also communicated to parish councils along the routes so that they could publicise them.
When the consultation launched a press release was issued, and the issue was covered by both local press and radio. Information was also communicated via our consultation register. Direct notification went to parish councils, previous consultation responders and all registered land owners along the routes. (i.e. those where contact details were held by the Land Registry).
There were also press releases, traditional media articles and social media messages. The consultation promotion included:
· Monday 19 June 2017 – A link to consultation information was shared on NCC Facebook page · Monday 19 June 2017 – NCC tweeted “County Council seeks views on proposed roads north of Northampton” · Monday 19 June 2017 – Coverage of the consultation in Northamptonshire Chronicle and Echo from our press release – https://tinyurl.com/NorthantsChron · Thursday 29 June 2017 – BBC Northampton interview was aired. · Monday 17 July 2017 – Anglia TV covered the consultation · Thursday 3 August 2017 – NCC tweeted “Take part here – final chance to have your say” · @nnhighway tweeted on the lead up to consultation and throughout period which were retweeted by various people throughout. NCC web pages – Updated frequently:
· Northamptonshire County Council – https://tinyurl.com/kwagtdn · Northamptonshire County Council Cabinet Paper – https://tinyurl.com/CabinetPaper · Northampton Chamber – https://tinyurl.com/NorthantsChamber
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 7 Below shows some of the coverage on the Parish Councils websites:
· Walgrave – http://bit.ly/2kS110P · Boughton – http://bit.ly/2yncnwN & http://bit.ly/2ypjKE6 · Church with Chapel Brampton – http://bit.ly/2yM02W2 · Maidwell with Draughton – http://bit.ly/2wYj2fp · Kinlingsbury – http://bit.ly/2ysJ8Lh · South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership – http://bit.ly/2hJr0CS
2.2 CONSULTATION MATERIAL The consultation materials can be seen at the following links to the Northamptonshire County Council website (NWRR and NNOR). The website also includes background information on the development of the schemes prior to the current consultation.
2.3 CONSULTATION EVENTS Six consultation events were held in venues that were chosen in relation to proximity to the NWRR and NNOR. These were:-
Liburd Room, Kingsthorpe Boughton Village Hall Harlestone Village Institute Mon 3 July 2017 Weds 5 July 2017 Thurs 6 July 2017
Pastures Community Moulton Community Centre Pitsford Village Hall Centre, Kingsthorpe Fri 14 July 2017 Sat 15 July 2017 Sat 8 July 2017
At least four representatives were present from Northamptonshire County Council at all times. The events were open from 9am-7pm on each day.
In comparison with similar previous consultation exercises there was good attendance at all venues. The total number of recorded attendees to the events was 755, excluding those who did not sign in when arriving at the venue.
Following the exhibitions, the boards were displayed at Kingsthorpe library for three weeks.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 8 2.4 QUESTIONNAIRES A questionnaire was available for interested parties to give their views. Links were available from the Northamptonshire County Council website to enable the questionnaire to be completed online. Paper copies were made available at the exhibitions or posted out to those who requested a copy. The questionnaire is contained in Appendix A.
2.5 WRITTEN RESPONSES We requested that written responses be returned to Northamptonshire County Council, Brixworth depot or to email address [email protected].
2.6 CAMPAIGN GROUPS AND PETITIONS Towards the final weeks of the consultation a Northern Orbital Route Facebook Page and KeepNorthantsGreen Twitter Page were created by members of the public. A community awareness video was also produced and published on YouTube. These helped generate a late spike in consultation feedback and continue to be a focal point for local concerns.
The owners of Sedgebrook Stud, Chapel Brampton have petitioned for a route which does not go through their land. They collected 252 signatures of support in ten days.
Pitsford Parish Council held their own consultation event to encourage members of the parish to get involved and submit their views.
2.7 PRESS COVERAGE There were five articles in the Northampton Chronicle and Echo during the consultation period. Two articles were to publicise the events and three were with regards to local concerns with the NNOR.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 9 3 Consultation Responses
3.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONSULTATION The 2017 consultation has generated significantly more responses than the NNOR consultation held in 2016. However, it is always worth reviewing what has worked well and what has not.
3.1.1 Effectiveness of the publicity For future Northamptonshire County Council consultations consideration could be given to taking more steps to reach those possibly affected and others who could have an opinion. Additional measures could include:-
· High frequency publicity during the consultation period through all social media channels. · Publicity Posters in prominent public places.
3.1.2 Effectiveness of the Consultation Events The consultation events were held in accessible village halls and community centres, within easy reach of those living in the districts which the schemes would cross. The number of visitors per venue is shown in Table 3.1-1 below.
Venue Attendees* Liburd Room, Kingsthorpe 49 Boughton Village Hall 140 Harlestone Village Institute 91 Pastures Community Centre, Kingsthorpe 242 Moulton Community Centre 113 Pitsford Village Hall 120 Total 755 *excluding those who did not sign in
Table 3.1-1
The benefit of these locations was that there was sufficient space to accommodate the numbers of visitors who chose to attend. The attendees had the opportunity to discuss matters with the representatives from Northamptonshire County Council in attendance.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 10 The disadvantage of the venues used was that they had relatively low natural foot-fall from the general public, i.e. those who may be unaware that the events were taking place. Venues such as local supermarkets, the village centres or public houses have higher natural footfall but would not as easily accommodate the consultation material and staffing by Northamptonshire County Council representatives.
3.1.3 Effectiveness of the Questionnaire A total of 878 questionnaires were completed. 58% were completed online while 42% were paper copy returns. There was a minority of hard copy questionnaires that were not sufficiently complete and we tried to contact respondents where they gave details. Unfortunately some respondents did not reply or there was insufficient details to contact them so we were not able to include them in the questionnaire results. However they were added to our Consultation Tracker.
The volume of online entries peaked during the last week with 27% of the total responses received in that period. This could be due to local publicity by Pitsford Parish Council and Brampton Lane residents, combined with those who attended the consultation events finally submitting their responses.
From the tables in the next report section it is evident straight away that the number of responses received from the Pitsford and Kingsthorpe areas is significantly greater compared to the other areas; The questionnaire response from Moulton seems low compared to the other villages, even though the event in Moulton was reasonably well attended.
The response from Kingsthorpe is considered low, given the proximity to NWRR, the population of that district and the numbers who attended the event at the Pastures Centre.
The total paper copy questionnaire responses amounted to 365, of which Pitsford Parish Council returned around 200 questionnaires which had been altered to allow more NNOR route option preferences and the ability to give reason for their choice after every question. This level of response from Pitsford is understandably higher than the other areas since the NNOR route options presented in the consultation are closer to Pitsford than other village populations. Pitsford Parish Council publicised the events and encouraged the village to get involved in the process, hence the higher response rate.
The questionnaire was intentionally short so respondents were not deterred from completing it. The questionnaire also captured a minimum level of personal data to enable us to contact respondents (if they wish) in the future.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 11 If a similar level of promotion had happened in other parishes to that undertaken by Pitsford Parish Council, a better result in terms of the volume of survey results would have been obtained. For future consultation stages we could consider asking some more questions on equality, respondent’s interest in the scheme and their views on the effectiveness of the consultation. This would allow greater validation of the results.
3.1.4 Effectiveness of the written feedback We received a large quantity of letter and email responses during the consultation. The total number of these responses was 281. These have all been read and summarised into the Consultation Tracker (see Appendix B).
Capturing this amount of information in to a form which is useful for informing decisions on the scheme development is challenging and has taken time. However from the volume and variety of responses we consider that this has been an effective means of feedback.
3.2 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS The questionnaire was formed of five questions designed to ask respondents for their opinions on the schemes.
The following figures show the question results quoted as a percentage of the total number of respondents (878) unless stated otherwise. All the responses were received before the scheduled due date for survey completion.
3.2.1 Do you support the need for the NWRR?
Don't know 8%
No Yes 28% 64%
100% of the respondents answered this question. Figure 3.2-1 Do you need the support the need for the NWRR?
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 12 During the first six weeks of the consultation period 46% of the total responses were submitted. At this stage a strong support for the need for the NWRR was observed (74%).
Then during the last two weeks of the consultation, more divided opinions were received, bringing the support for the need for NWRR down to the final result of 64%.
From respondents who entered an address or postcode, Table 3.2-1 shows high support for the NWRR from Pitsford, Kingsthorpe, Moulton, Northampton, Chapel Brampton, Holcot and Duston.
The majority of Harlestone respondents did not support the need for NWRR.
Only 9% of total responses said they don’t know.
Q1. Do you support the need Yes No Don't know Grand for the NWRR? No. % No. % No. % Total Pitsford 127 71 30 17 23 13 180 Kingsthorpe 116 74 33 21 7 4 156 Boughton 45 59 23 30 8 11 76 Moulton 24 63 10 26 4 11 38 Northampton (excluding Kingsthorpe, 23 64 12 33 1 3 36 Duston, New Duston, Upton) Chapel Brampton 22 65 9 26 3 9 34 Harlestone 5 25 13 65 2 10 20 Holcot 8 80 0 2 20 10 Brixworth 4 44 5 56 0 9 Duston 6 67 3 33 0 9 Walgrave 6 100 0 0 6 Ravensthorpe 2 50 2 50 0 4 New Duston 1 33 1 33 1 33 3 Dallington 1 100 0 0 1 Upton 1 100 0 0 1 Church Brampton 1 100 0 0 1 Hannington 1 100 0 0 1 Other Northamptonshire 17 65 8 31 1 4 26 Other 4 50 2 25 2 25 8 Grand Total 414 67 151 24 54 9 619 Table 3.2-1
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 13 3.2.2 Do you support the need for the NNOR?
Don't know 8% Figure 3.2-2 Do you support the No Yes 29% 63% need for the NNOR?
100% of the respondents answered this question. There was a very similar level of overall support for the need for NNOR compared to NWRR.
From respondents who entered an address or postcode, Table 3.2-2 shows the support for the need of a NNOR was high from Pitsford, Kingsthorpe, Moulton, Boughton, Northampton, Chapel Brampton, Holcot, Walgrave and ‘Other Northamptonshire’. The majority in Harlestone do not support the need for the NNOR and the respondents from Ravensthorpe were split 50/50.
Yes No Don't know Q2. Do you support the Grand Total need for the NNOR? No. % No. % No. % Pitsford 118 66 44 24 18 10 180 Kingsthorpe 126 81 24 15 6 4 156 Boughton 45 59 26 34 5 7 76 Moulton 22 58 14 37 2 5 38 Northampton (excluding Kingsthorpe, Duston, New Duston, 22 61 13 36 1 3 36 Upton) Chapel Brampton 21 62 9 26 4 12 34 Harlestone 5 25 12 60 3 15 20 Holcot 10 100 0 0 10 Brixworth 5 56 4 44 0 9 Duston 5 56 4 44 0 9 Walgrave 6 100 0 0 6 Ravensthorpe 2 50 2 50 0 4 New Duston 1 33 1 33 1 33 3 Dallington 1 100 0 0 1 Upton 1 100 0 0 1 Church Brampton 1 100 0 0 1 Hannington 1 100 0 0 1 Other Northamptonshire 16 62 8 31 2 8 26 Other 4 50 2 25 2 25 8 Grand Total 412 67 163 26 44 7 619 Table 3.2-2
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 14 3.2.3 Which NNOR route option do you prefer?
Option 7 14%
Neither Figure 3.2-3 Which NNOR route 49% Option option do you prefer? 8 37%
100% of the respondents answered this question.
The options presented during the consultation were Options 7 & 8. However, as seen from Figure 3.2-3, 49% preferred neither of these options.
The responses received towards the end of the consultation period, from Pitsford in particular were strongly ‘Neither’, swinging the final results for this question.
The Pitsford questionnaire expanded on this question, allowing respondents to identify options from the previous consultation rather than just stating neither if they did not prefer Option 7 or Option 8. Some respondents who submitted online questionnaires also chose to identify different route options preferences by making comments in the comments box. See Section 3.5 for further details.
From respondents who entered an address or postcode, Table 3.2-3 shows NNOR route option preference by parish/district.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 15 Q3. Which NNOR route Option 7 Option 8 Neither Grand option do you prefer? No. % No. % No. % Total Pitsford 22 12 7 4 151 84 180 Kingsthorpe 30 19 90 58 36 23 156 Boughton 6 8 50 66 20 26 76 Moulton 2 5 25 66 11 29 38 Northampton (excluding Kingsthorpe, 3 8 18 50 15 42 36 Duston, New Duston, Upton) Chapel Brampton 3 9 8 24 23 68 34 Other Northamptonshire 3 12 12 46 11 42 26 Harlestone 3 15 4 20 13 65 20 Holcot 8 80 1 10 1 10 10 Duston 2 22 2 22 5 56 9 Other 2 22 2 22 5 56 9 Brixworth 0 4 50 4 50 8 Walgrave 4 67 1 17 1 17 6 Ravensthorpe 1 25 0 3 75 4 New Duston 0 2 67 1 33 3 Dallington 0 1 100 0 1 Hannington 0 1 100 0 1 Upton 0 1 100 0 1 Church Brampton 1 100 0 0 1 Grand Total 90 15 229 37 300 48 619 Table 3.2-3
Holcot and Walgrave gave a preference of Option 7. Boughton, Moulton and new Duston answered Option 8. Pitsford, Chapel Brampton, Harlestone and Ravensthorpe didn’t want either of the two options provided.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 16 3.2.4 Which NNOR Spur option do you prefer?
Spur A Don't think it's 21% needed 23%
Neither Spur B 25% 31%
Figure 3.2-4 Which NNOR Spur option do you prefer?
100% of the respondents answered this question.
As seen from the Figure 3.2-4 the results are close on this particular question. Spur A has the least support.
In total 48% of respondents thought that the spur road was either not needed or they did not prefer one of the options presented.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 17 Don’t think Q4 Which NNOR Spur option Spur A Spur B Neither Grand it’s needed do you prefer? Total No. % No. % No. % No. % Pitsford 73 41 32 18 32 18 43 24 180 Kingsthorpe 26 17 80 51 28 18 22 14 156 Boughton 1 1 37 49 17 22 21 28 76 Moulton 7 18 7 18 12 32 12 32 38 Northampton (excluding Kingsthorpe, 5 14 13 36 10 28 8 22 36 Duston, New Duston, Upton) Chapel Brampton 6 18 11 32 15 44 2 6 34 Other Northamptonshire 6 23 8 31 5 19 7 27 26 Harlestone 2 10 4 20 9 45 5 25 20 Holcot 2 20 5 50 3 30 0 10 Brixworth 1 11 1 11 3 33 4 44 9 Duston 1 11 2 22 5 56 1 11 9 Other 3 38 0 3 38 2 25 8 Walgrave 1 17 2 33 3 50 0 6 Ravensthorpe 0 0 3 75 1 25 4 New Duston 1 33 1 33 1 33 0 3 Dallington 0 0 0 1 100 1 Upton 0 0 1 100 0 1 Church Brampton 1 100 0 0 0 1 Hannington 0 1 100 0 0 1 Grand Total 136 22 204 33 150 24 129 21 619 Table 3.2-4
From respondents who entered an address or postcode, Table 3.2-4 shows in each parish or district there are split opinions about the location of the Spur road and whether it is even needed.
Even across the villages close to the spur road options there isn’t a majority preference on option. There were a lot of comment about needed a second consultation on just the spur roads.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 18 3.2.5 Are you happy with us contacting you in the future with updates and progress?
No 19%
Yes 81%
Figure 3.2-5 Are you happy with us contacting you in the future with updates and progress?
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 19 3.3 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN RESPONSES AND QUESTIONNAIRE COMMENTS A summary of the written responses from Key Stakeholders is in Appendix C. These include:-
· A letter of support from Michael Ellis MP for NWRR, with concerns over NNOR.
· A letter of support from Cllr Judith Sheppard, with some concerns to be addressed on local issues. No response from County Councillors representing the other two divisions which NWRR crosses.
· One comment of support from Northampton Borough Councillor Jamie Lane.
· Three comments of support from Daventry District Councillors.
· No comments from Harlestone, or Church with Chapel Brampton Parish Councils (which are crossed by NWRR).
· Concerns on route selection and local issues from the parishes of Moulton, Pitsford and Moulton (parishes which are crossed by NNOR).
· Three comments of support from the parishes of Upton, Hannington and Holcot (parishes which are not crossed by the new routes).
3.3.1 District Councillors, Borough Councillors and Parish Councils In total 12 district councillors, borough councillors or parish councils shared their opinions about the schemes.
With regards to NNOR route option, these local authority representatives did not definitively support any particular solution, see Figure 3.3-1 Preferred NNOR route optionbelow. NNOR Option 7 and Option 8 had support split either way. However, Option 7, Spur A had no support, while Option 8 spur options had equal support.
No comment , 2 Option 7, Don't Spur B, 3 support, 1 Figure 3.3-1 Preferred NNOR route Other, 1 Option 7, option Neither Option 8, Option 8, Spur, 1 Spur B, 2 Spur A, 2
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 20 3.3.2 Statutory Bodies The responses received from the statutory bodies include Daventry District and Northampton Borough Council, The Environmental Agency, Natural England, Historic England (see Appendix C). These bodies provided responses on their concerns, impacts they consider the schemes could induce and general observations. However, none of these bodies provided comments on a preferred route option. The following paragraphs aim to summarise the responses provided by these statutory bodies.
Daventry District Council feels that there is a lack of detail provided in the consultation and therefore, unable to come to a conclusion on a preferred route option. They have requested that more information needs to be made available on how the road would respond to local topography. They also reiterated that a further consultation should be undertaken, including Option 5A.
Northampton Borough Council strongly supports the need for a road to the north west of Northampton but wasn’t able to give a preference without having further information regarding the full benefits and impacts (including landscape impact and strategic views, designs of new roads and junctions and the cost of different route options). They believe that a more successful solution is to build a new road between the NWRR and the A43 (Northampton to Kettering), completing the strategic route from M1/A4500 to A43, i.e to construct NNOR at the same time as NWRR. They believe that NNOR should enable enhanced public transport services along with an improved cycle network. Additional comments included that NNOR should be a designated clearway (so parked vehicles don’t impede traffic flows) and that noise and air quality impacts need to be assessed in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The Environment Agency didn’t comment on a preferred route option but stated that their interest in the schemes relates to their environmental sustainability, potential implications for the water and natural environment, ensuring best practice is followed in relation to waste generation and fluvial risk issues.
Natural England mentioned that both the proposed route options triggered the Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) for Sites of Specific Scientific Interests (SSSIs) for nationally protected sites and advises an assessment of potential impacts to the Pitsford Water SSSI needs to be undertaken. They would welcome the enhancement of existing habitat and to see plans that seek to achieve an increase in biodiversity.
Historic England didn’t give a preferred route choice. Even without a formal assessment, on the basis of proposed route maps Historic England identified a series of heritage assets
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 21 which may potentially be impacted. They recognised the need for careful assessments in relation to understanding significance and impact on archaeological features. The body advised that the remains of the important Neolithic causewayed enclosure in the Dallington Grange development area should be retained in situ and its immediate setting is treated with sensitivity.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 22 3.3.3 Non-Statutory Bodies
Option 8, Neither Spur, 1
Option 8, No comment , 3 Spur A, 1
Option 8, Spur B, 1 Neither option, 1
Figure 3.3-2 Preferred NNOR Route by Non-Statutory Bodies
As represented in Figure 3.3-2, the non-statutory bodies who responded do not conclusively support any specific NNOR route option. Out of the seven responses received, three made no comment on NNOR route choice but made additional comments outlining their concerns.
The varying concerns included that the plans were not comprehensive enough to enable them to comment at this stage, the roads should be dual carriageway standard and ecological concerns on the NNOR route through Pitsford Quarry.
Other comments included that Spur A would separate Boughton Park from some associated landscape features and that there was a need for safe cycling routes.
It is also worth mentioning that some strong supportive comments were also received, where respondents recognised the traffic problems and supports the need for a complete orbital route.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 23 3.3.4 Local Businesses
Option 8, Spur A, 2
No comment , 4
Option 8, Spur B, 2
Figure 3.3-3 Responses from local businesses
The NNOR route preferences expressed by local businesses who responded to the consultation are shown in Figure 3.3-3. Similar to the other respondent groups, this group does not conclusively support any particular NNOR option.
The respondents raised specific issues concerning their businesses.
Moulton College is a key stakeholder, both NNOR route options cross large parts of the college land. They recognise that both the options would have major impacts on the college estate, so the decision on the preferred option and mitigation works would require careful consideration. The college stated that it makes a major contribution locally on education, economy, sport and the local community as well as the environment.
Comments from other local businesses include concerns on impacts on their particular businesses associated with the visual, noise and pollution implications, increased traffic, ecology, land ownership, archaeological, heritage and agricultural land use issues.
Some respondents were observed to have picked an option that is further from their land interests or suggesting alternative options for the routes whilst others wished to be notified should a specific route be progressed.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 24 3.4 INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS – COMMON THEMES We have read and summarised all of the written responses into a Consultation Tracker (See Appendix B) and also read all of the questionnaire comments. The key themes raised are summarised as follows:-
3.4.1 Strategic Themes Many respondents were concerned with the impact on their lives created by traffic problems in Northampton and the surrounding villages.
There are concerns on how the growth of Northampton is controlled, the loss of countryside, increased strain on local services, development infilling and the impact on the rural way of life. In particular there are fears that the provision of NNOR will encourage inappropriate development rather than enhance traffic network and prosperity of the town.
Around ten respondents commented that sustainable travel modes need to be promoted and that these road improvements could offer the opportunity to improve provisions. For example NNOR could reduce traffic on nearby country lanes which could encourage their use by cyclists.
There was a small number of objections (i.e. fewer than ten) to building new roads as a way of providing for Northamptonshire’s travel needs. Alternative solutions suggested included promotion of cycling and walking for short trips and the need to concentrate on improving the town centre.
Individual respondents and key stakeholders are keen to see the cost to benefit of the schemes.
3.4.2 Local Themes - Boughton Park Boughton Park is a Grade 2 listed parkland and also falls within the Boughton Conservation Area. Around ten respondents stated specifically that they were happy to see that that the two current route options do not cross Boughton Park. This may have been a reason for some of the others who preferred Options 7 or Option 8 but chose not to qualify their choice in the questionnaire comments box.
However the northern part of the listed parkland does not have public access. Parts of this land have also been previously quarried as part of the Pitsford Quarry. A number of respondents are challenging the decision to avoid Boughton Park at the expense of passing the route through Pitsford Quarry and being so close to Pitsford Village.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 25 3.4.3 Pitsford Quarry The present extent of Pitsford Quarry is a local nature reserve. The quarry is not currently being worked and the public are permitted to access all areas. Large areas of the site are permanently given over to planted woodland. This makes it a well-used community asset for walkers and those enjoying the countryside.
The site is classified as a Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site (RIGS).
There are published records of important plant and bryophyte species present in the quarry. One of which (Ceratodon Conicus) is on the red listed of critically endangered bryophytes. It has been claimed that on the basis of this species alone there is a case for the quarry becoming a protected nature reserve.
3.4.4 River Nene and Brampton Valley From the proposed roundabout at A5199 Welford Road the route crosses the Brampton Valley, rising up to the A508 Harborough Road. The route crosses the Northampton Lamport Railway and close to properties at Humphrey Farm, Sedgebrook Lodge Farm, Covey Farm and Hassett Fencing. There are a number of paddocks with stables which are crossed by the two NNOR options presented at the exhibitions, including Sedgebrook Stud.
Access to the properties and paddocks at Sedgebrook Lodge Farm is mainly from Brampton Lane, though some have access rights to the track to Little Dukes Clump for access onto the A508 Harborough Road. The route options have the potential to affect these accesses.
The route of the NNOR through the Brampton Valley has the potential to affect the suitability of remaining fields and paddocks to support their current usage. In some cases businesses could be negatively affected.
The flooding of the River Nene / Brampton Nene was raised as an issue by a number of respondents. NWRR and NNOR will have to be designed to ensure that flood risk is not adversely affected. Some respondents referenced the 1998 Northampton Flood event when 2,000 properties were flooded in the town.
3.4.5 Equestrian Facilities Throughout the Brampton Valley there are equestrian paddocks and stables. A number of businesses rely on their usage such as livery stables at Brampton Grange, Brampton Mill Equestrian Centre and Sedgebrook Stud. Severance of fields and the proximity to a new road have been raised as potential impacts on these businesses. The Welford Road and
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 26 Sandy Lane are well used by horse riders to access bridleways and permitted access routes locally. Harlestone Firs is well used by equestrians. Features such as the new NWRR junction on the Welford Road (at the northern end of NWRR) is a major concern for equestrians.
3.4.6 Walking and Cycling Concerns have been raised on the severance of existing off road routes, particularly those which link Kings Heath with Harlestone Firs.
A number of respondents are interested in how walking and cycling could be promoted on both the new routes that the roads will create and how existing roads severed by NWRR and NNOR will be improved to encourage cycling when general traffic has been dramatically decreased.
3.4.7 Bus Routing Moulton College is served by a large number of buses to bring students to the college. There would be benefits of routing these buses along NNOR rather than through the villages.
3.4.8 Boughton Lane Pocket Park The presence of the Boughton Lane Pocket Park was missed off the consultation boards. South Court Environmental have highlighted that they have been managing this park for 20 years. If NNOR Spur B is developed it has the potential to cross the pocket park, affecting the total size of the park and the means of public access.
3.4.9 Traffic in the Villages
Moulton and Boughton Respondents living in Moulton and Boughton would like less traffic to travel through the villages to Moulton Park, Moulton College and rat running to avoid congested main routes generally. However the residents rely on good transport links, community services are shared between the two villages so residents would like connectivity to be maintained.
Holcot Residents of Holcot suffer from rat running traffic avoiding the A43 passing through their village. They are concerned that a new junction from NNOR to the Holcot Road would encourage more traffic through their village.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 27 Pitsford Residents of Pitsford highlighted their concerns that accessing the village from A5199 Harborough Road is difficult at present. The proximity of a new junction to NNOR could be an opportunity to improve the existing access.
The road through the village is narrow in places and some respondents find the current level of through traffic hazardous.
The Moulton Road to the south of the village is severed by the current NNOR options. Opinion was split between those who thought that Moulton Road should be connected to NNOR and those that thought that is should be stopped up to the south of the village.
Church Brampton and Chapel Brampton Residents of Church Brampton and Chapel Brampton suffer from rat running through their villages. They fear that NWRR in the short term will encourage a large increase in traffic using the A5199 towards the A14. They request traffic mitigation measures through Chapel Brampton whilst funding for NNOR is secured.
Brixworth We have respondents from Brixworth who believe that the two schemes will affect traffic flows through their village and that they should have been contacted directly during the consultation publicity.
3.4.10 Traffic in Northampton
Traffic in Kingsthorpe Respondents in Kingsthorpe are concerned that the completion of the NWRR and housing developments such as Buckton Fields will worsen traffic congestion in Kingsthorpe.
There were numerous specific current traffic issues identified which impacted on residents’ daily lives.
New Duston and Upton We have respondents from New Duston and Upton who believe that they should have been contacted directly during the consultation publicity. For these parts of Northampton the completion of the link from New Sandy Lane to the A4500 is seen as an important element so all the wider traffic benefits of the schemes can be realised.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 28 3.4.11 Process Themes There have been concerns raised on how the schemes are being developed and promoted:-
· Has enough effort been made to reach all those possibly affected or interested in the schemes? · How have the route options been sifted and how will preferred options be decided upon? · Will the public’s concerns be addressed? · How will these major investments be justified?
3.4.12 Programme Themes There are frustrations on how long it is taking to provide an effective arterial route around Northampton, as this was something that was first conceived in the 1960’s. There are fears that if the route is not competed soon, then an arterial route would have to go further out from the town (to the north of the Church Brampton and Pitsford Water).
A number of comments state that the NWRR and NNOR must be delivered together, as respondents were concerned that NWRR alone could exacerbate traffic problems in Kingsthorpe and Boughton. In addition it was noted that New Sandy Lane needs be completed round to the A4500.
3.4.13 NWRR Comments NWRR received far fewer scheme specific comments than NNOR. The main concerns were:-
· Impact on Harlestone Firs which is well used by walkers and equestrians. How will users access Harlestone Firs when the NWRR is built? Some equestrian businesses could be adversely affected. · The impact on the flood risk caused by building a road within the River Nene flood plain. · Impact on the local road network, such as the busy junction at The Windhover. · Noise and visual impact on local residents in Kingsthorpe due to the road embankment location and height above ground level. · There could be significant traffic impacts in and around Kingsthorpe in the period between the completion of NWRR and NNOR i.e. the roads should be completed together.
3.4.14 NNOR Standard of Provision Comments Some believe that a dual carriageway standard route is required. For a dual carriageway solution, we had respondents that believed that key junctions (such as the junction of NNOR with the A508 Harborough Road) should be grade separated to maximise the capacity and reduce delays on the two routes.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 29 We have a number of respondents who would object to a single carriageway solution but would support a dual carriageway provision. In addition to the additional capacity, respondents believe that a single carriageway route could quickly become a distributor road for infill development whereas a more strategic dual carriageway solution would have fewer junctions so provide fewer opportunities for developments to branch off it.
Some village residents are concerned that the NNOR could generate more traffic through the villages so would prefer that existing roads were not connected to NNOR. On the other hand, others believe that multiple accesses to villages needs to be maintained.
3.4.15 Other Comments from Respondents There were numerous other comments raised that did not directly relate to the two schemes (see consultation tracker in Appendix B).
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 30 3.5 INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS – NNOR ROUTE OPTIONS The NNOR route was the main topic brought up by respondents. Understandably each respondent in the areas potentially affected has different views for what they feel is important for their quality of life and the area they live in.
Pitsford Parish Council distributed their own version of the questionnaire giving comment boxes to allow respondents to qualify their responses. They returned a batch of around 200 of these. In particular this allowed the Pitsford respondents to identify NNOR options from the previous consultation which they would prefer over those presented at the 2017 exhibitions.
We have tallied the previous options identified as ‘preferred’ by the Pitsford respondents, plus others who identified a previous option in their response comments box. As this was not an option for all respondents this only gives an indication of the possible support for these alternatives, See Table 3.5-1.
Option Number of Responses (2016 options) Option 1 81
Option 2 3
Option 3 83
Option 4 2
Option 5/5B/5C 19
Table 3.5-1
A number of reasons were given for these alternative route preferences:-
· Suggestions that the route should be placed equally between Boughton and Pitsford. · Attaching a higher environmental value to the retention of the quarry (public amenity,landscape buffer, biodiversity) compared to the arable land usage of the northern section of Boughton Park. In addition it has been highlighted that the northern section of Boughton Park that is arable land has been quarried in previous generations. · Providing a shorter NNOR so the scheme could be delivered at a lower cost. · Providing NNOR closer to the current extent of Northampton to reduce the opportunity for development infill and would encourage more traffic from the congested areas within the town to use it.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 31 A number of residents of outlying properties and landowners in the possibly affected areas in the Brampton and Nene Valley and those in the historic extent of Boughton Park have also provided their views on route selection. We will need to confirm all those with land interests in these areas have either expressed their views or are aware of the ongoing scheme development.
3.6 INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS - SPUR ROAD The provision, location and nature of the spur road will be contentious. A number of respondents cannot see the benefit to providing the spur road to Moulton Park at all.
Residents of Boughton and Moulton rely on having a convenient link between the two villages for access to the schools and local services. There are suggestions that the link between the two villages (Moulton Lane/ Boughton Road) should be kept separate from the spur road by bridging the spur road over/under the local road.
The Spur roads pass through or nearby historical assets and a historic landscape which is considered to have visual and ecological value.
Some believe the spur road is essential to provide for trips in and out of Moulton Park, others believe that it would actually increase traffic problems in the town.
There are landowners, residents and parties with land interests in the area who have commissioned professionals to provide feedback on their behalf. A number of alternative spur options have been suggested. It has also been suggested that a weight limit should be applied to the spur road.
There remains interest in Option 5 which was presented as a discounted option at this consultation. Some believe that there is merit to retaining this as an alternative to the spur road to serve trips into Moulton Park.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 32 3.7 SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED NNOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTE OPTIONS A number of respondents who live close to the route options have made suggestions to vary the route within the general NNOR route corridor.
3.7.1 Brampton Valley Five alternative routes were suggested through the Brampton Valley. These were suggested to reduce the impact on land interests (Figure 3.7-1)
Figure 3.7-1
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 33 3.7.2 Pitsford and Boughton Route Corridor For the Pitsford and Boughton route corridor, a number of respondents commented that they want Option 1 and Option 3 from the previous consultation to be investigated further, for the reasons given in section 3.5 above.
A refinement on Option 1 (orange route in Figure 3.7-2) has been requested which would be in cutting to minimise noise and visual impact.
Option 3 is down in the bottom of the valley where some respondents said it would have natural noise and visual benefits and would follow the lay of the land. It was also pointed out that this would be equidistant between the villages of Boughton and Pitsford.
Figure 3.7-2
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 34 3.7.3 Alternative Spur Road Options In addition to the reconsideration of discounted Option 5, two alternative spur options have been suggested for the spur into Moulton Park (Figure 3.7-3)
The orange route is intended to minimise the impact on the landscape and heritage of the Moulton Valley.
The brown route is intended to integrate with future land development.
Figure 3.7-3
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 35 4 Conclusions
4.1 GENERAL The positive message is that a significant percentage of respondents recognised the need for the schemes to address traffic issues around north Northampton. However a number of strategic concerns were raised on the growth of Northamptonshire and the impact this will have on local communities and services.
Conclusion 1 A clear strategic case is needed to demonstrate how these schemes fit into the wider transport and development plans for Northampton and the surrounding districts.
Complaints have been received on how widely the consultation was publicised.
Conclusion 2 For future Northamptonshire Highways consultations, considerations could be given to taking more steps in reaching those possibly affected and others who could have an opinion.
The Questionnaire and feedback channels were effective, reflected in the relatively high response rate. Pitsford Village’s extremely high response rate affected the results, but this is understandable since the NNOR route options presented were closer to Pitsford than other populations.
Conclusion 3 Given the scale and complexity of these projects, for later consultations we should consider gathering more data via the questionnaires. If we are able to classify the results by the respondents’ interest in the scheme, their demographic and diversity of views, and understand how effective they think the consultation was, we would be able to draw better conclusions from the questionnaire results.
There is a bank of local knowledge in the parishes on the current traffic problems. There are fears on how the traffic impacts on these schemes will be managed.
Conclusion 4 More work required to understand traffic problems in Northampton and the surrounding villages in greater detail.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 36 4.2 NWRR SPECIFIC There is a fear that the main purpose of NWRR is to facilitate development growth and it will actually add to current traffic problems, for example in Kingsthorpe. A number of respondents are calling for both NWRR and NNOR to be delivered at the same time.
There were very few suggestions in favour of alternative NWRR route corridors.
Conclusion 5 The respondent feedback on NWRR raised no new scheme specific issue or support for alternative route corridors, though the importance of demonstrating a strong traffic case is now very clear. The local impacts on flood risk, noise, visual impact, accessibility will need to be assessed during the preliminary design process. The impact on the local road network will need detailed study and has the potential to increase the eventual scheme scope of work.
In addition to the above, further work to secure funding commitments, coordination with Darlington Grange and a follow up public consultation will be required prior to the submitting a planning application.
4.3 NNOR SPECIFIC Many local concerns were raised on the routing of the NNOR and the spur road options. There are also those who seriously questioned the need for the spur road.
Conclusion 6 The case for the scheme and the case for the spur road will need to be further developed so they can be integrated into the appropriate local plans and appropriate funding opportunities sought.
To address the routing concerns, sub-route options and junction layouts including elements of 3D design should be prepared. This will enable an appraisal of the sub-route options to compare their local impacts. For example the impact of a route through Boughton Quarry needs to be compared to a route through Boughton Park.
Key statutory consultee consultation will be required to inform sub-route options appraisal, for example with Historic England, Natural England and Environment Agency.
It will not be possible to address all of local issues identified by consultees to the satisfaction of those who are either directly affected or those who have strongly expressed their opinions on route selection.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 37 5 Appendices
APPENDIX A – CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX B – CONSULTATION TRACKER
APPENDIX C – KEY STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 - Page 38 Appendix A
CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 North-west Relief Road (NWRR) & Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR)
You can have your say on Northamptonshire County Council plans for two new roads in Northampton.
1. Do you support the need for the NWRR? *
Yes
No
Don't know
2. Do you support the need for the NNOR? *
Yes
No
Don't know
3. Which NNOR route option do you prefer? *
Option 7
Option 8
Neither
4. Which NNOR Spur option do you prefer? *
Spur A
Spur B
Neither
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 Don't think it's needed
5. Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns?
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 6. Are you happy with us contacting you in the future with updates and progress? *
Yes
No
7. If you are happy to, please provide your name, address and an email address so that we can keep you up to date on progress.
Name*
Address 1
Address 2
City/Town
Post Code
Email Address*
This information is confidential and we will not share with any third parties.
*your name and email address are mandatory fields.
Please return completed questionnaires to Northamptonshire Highways at: Northern Orbital Consultation, Northamptonshire Highways, Highway Depot, Harborough Road, Brixworth Northampton NN6 9BX
Or email to [email protected].
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 Appendix B
CONSULTATION TRACKER
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1
Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0001 04/07/2017 Local Resident Email Thanks for the update [email protected] POST0002 04/07/2017 Boughton Parish Council PDF Boughton _ British History Online Boughton POST0003 04/07/2017 Boughton Parish Council PDF Boughton Village Design Statement Boughton POST0004 12/07/2017 Local Resident Email It seems there are only exhibitions in those are actually bordering the proposed routes. The effect on nearby communities such as Brixworth will however be considerable. Have you considered this? [email protected] POST0005 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire questionnaire incorrectly filled out POST0006 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire questionnaire incorrectly filled out POST0007 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire questionnaire incorrectly filled out POST0008 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire questionnaire incorrectly filled out POST0009 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire questionnaire incorrectly filled out POST0010 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire questionnaire incorrectly filled out POST0011 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire Can we be forced to do this are there any compulsory purchase POST0012 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire Will it actually happen? Has funding been approved? POST0013 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire Why is it not to be dual carriageway? Where is provision for cycle track? What method will be used to cross the Brampton Valley Way? What provision will be made for Brampton Valley Way to cross new road safely and without flooding? POST0014 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire Will there be an underpass or bridge over the railway along the track to Wilson Farm and Harlestone Firs for walkers and cycling?
POST0015 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire Where will 32M come from? I hope our council tax will NOT jump up. - POST0016 12/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire Provide a NORTH WEST RELIEF ROAD map that is readable size. For Visually impaired POST0017 13/07/2017 Local Resident Email Clarified question 4 for the questionnaire [email protected] POST0018 18/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire Clarified questions not filled out previously for the questionnaire POST0019 19/07/2017 Consultation Future dualling. What about the section of NWRR which has already been built and the section which is to be built by developers.
POST0020 19/07/2017 Consultation Upton & Duston Parish meetings. The wider impacts on them (Sandy Lane for example) need to be discussed. Need to send a representative to the Parish meeting. [email protected] POST0021 19/07/2017 Consultation Pitsford PC: Send out A1 Plans to Maureen (Clerk of PC) POST0022 19/07/2017 Consultation Stub road off A4500 near Sandy Lane. What is the purpose of this road? Could it link to NWRR? POST0023 19/07/2017 Consultation Copies of display boards required for residents associations. POST0024 19/07/2017 Consultation Ravensthorpe PC - Clarification of traffic flow predictions on Ravensthorpe to Spratton Road. Unclear why modelling showing flows increases when connecting roads show decrease? POST0025 19/07/2017 Consultation Can the road come further south at Pitsford through Quarry if quarry ceases use? POST0026 19/07/2017 Consultation Will there be local mitigations/routing restrictions @ Boughton once NWRR open to stop the rat run to Moulton Park - Traffic Calming - Local access only - Weight restriction and enforce these POST0027 19/07/2017 Consultation Actual and Projected - traffic flows @ Chapel Brampton now and post NWRR. Parish have had traffic counts recently - will challenge.
POST0028 19/07/2017 Northampton Borough Consultation Traffic info board - Average speed graph, why does the option 8 PM peak show slower speeds than without option? (Planning Policy & Heritage officer) POST0029 19/07/2017 Persimmon Homes Consultation WSP designing their section of NWRR card passed to Conrad. Can we keep liaising with them for any changes so they correctly design (Dallington Grange) their roundabout? POST0030 19/07/2017 Consultation Attendance at Duston Parish Council meeting required by Chris Wragg or similar POST0031 19/07/2017 Consultation Upton Parish Planning Committee tonight POST0032 19/07/2017 Consultation Concern that residents near Sandy Lane, affected by traffic increases are not included on current consultation POST0033 19/07/2017 Consultation Concern about air quality POST0034 19/07/2017 Consultation Duston Parish - Nina Villa (clerk), Upton Parish - Jill Wells (clerk) POST0035 19/07/2017 Hannington Parish Council Consultation Both options @ A3 - Before 24th July POST0036 19/07/2017 Consultation Provisions for crossing NWRR for pedestrian access to Harlestone Firs from Lodge Farm Industrial Estate Duston - where/type & signage
POST0037 19/07/2017 Consultation Why are the proposed developments at university site not included on traffic estimates for Kingsthorpe? POST0038 19/07/2017 Consultation Can you please forward full scale Maps of the Build POST0039 19/07/2017 Consultation Send contact details for Patrick Cross to Cllr Jane Birch POST0040 19/07/2017 Consultation NWRR - Why are we providing a relief road rather than a bypass? Could a wider bypass, possibly linking closer to M1 Jn, running to the north of the Bramptons. POST0041 19/07/2017 Consultation Owner of Grange Farm Cottage. Land at Chapel Brampton between river and railway, Boughton Mill - Brampton Hall. Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0042 20/07/2017 Local Resident Email We have owned our land for 27yrs. Mainly for our horses. Before my father died, 25yrs ago he obtained planning permission and Chapel personally designed and built our stable block. We also grow all the fruit and veg we need for each year on it too. Some of our horses Brampton are too old to move. We are a haven for wildlife. This land has great emotional attachment to us. We have fought hard to keep it. Two years ago we completely renewed the roof and last year a good part of the post and rail fencing was also renewed. Please could an alternative route either below Sedgebrook Lodge which would only go through farm land and lower ground would have reduced noise impact. Or above us and join onto the Pitsford Road which is already a very fast and busy road. Please consider other routes, this route will devastate us and all concerned with our lives and our animals. [email protected] POST0043 20/07/2017 Local Resident Email Please could you let me have a brief timeline of likely adoption and timeline of the NNOR? [email protected] POST0044 20/07/2017 Local Resident Email Please find attached a scanned copy of my completed questionnaire as requested. Northampton [email protected] POST0045 20/07/2017 Non-Statutory Body Email & PDF Feedback is mainly applicable to NNOR; aspects such as traffic levels at the roundabout junction where NWRR & NNOR join, the design Option 8 with Spur B Concerns of pollution Northampton & placement of the road furniture and signage apply to NWRR. Recognises demand for route and is broadly supportive. Suggests and Lamport additional exit to Brampton Lane for A508 roundabout. Concern of increase in traffic on A5199 river bridge and Boughton crossing as collection and delivery of railway vehicles. Alternative route as shown in PDF - benefits include, no immediate need to alter telegraph system, no issues with signal sight, no modification to signals. Only addition would be underside lighting to overbridge (presence of foot and vehicle crossing). NLR is keen to advise and assist throughout all phases. Concerns regarding construction phase and effect on operation of railway. [email protected] POST0046 20/07/2017 Parish Council Email Duston and Upton Parishes omitted from the consultation process despite being identified as the most heavily used areas; concern Upton raised over pollution and the sculpture of the road and the proximity to the most vulnerable members of society e.g. the young and elderly; The Sandy Lane Relief Road is felt to be insufficient to carry the traffic and dualling may be more appropriate. [email protected] POST0047 20/07/2017 Local Resident Email Support Option 7 but strongly object the proposed junction on Moulton to Holcot Road. Reject the results of your modelling as I believe Option 7 Rejects modelling believes Holcot this junction will encourage more traffic in Holcot. Vehicles will use short cut through Holcot to access Moulton Park and Moulton junction will encourage College if this junction is provided. I would urge a review of the data input on your modelling. traffic in Holcot [email protected] POST0048 20/07/2017 Business Email The impact on Brampton Grange is primarily a wedding venue which is often booked because of the views and tranquil space. Proposed Impact of Brampton Grange Brampton NNOR our final scenic view will disappear and increased noise and pollution which would not be conducive to a successful wedding Business Grange venue. More than 20 acres of our land are leased by a livery yard, should the proposed NNOR go ahead the likelihood of having a successful livery yard would substantially decrease (noise, pollution, the closure of local bridleways and now a potentially a roundabout to navigate). Should the livery yard close our business would be negatively impacted. NNOR is on Brampton Grange land. I would appreciate the opportunity to show you these concerns and to be able to talk them through in person. [email protected] POST0049 20/07/2017 Questionnaire Email Filled out questionnaire [email protected] POST0050 20/07/2017 Questionnaire Email Filled out questionnaire [email protected] POST0051 20/07/2017 Questionnaire Email Filled out questionnaire [email protected] POST0052 20/07/2017 Parish Council Email Meeting on 4th July. Concerns on A428 and requests that consideration to extend 40mph zone from West Haddon to Harlestone Consider Extending 40mph West Haddon zone to West Haddon to Harlestone [email protected] POST0053 20/07/2017 Rector of Pitsford with Email Take the route some distance further north beyond Brixworth and to connect with the A43, Option 5 would be far less damaging to Option 5 is preferred, Brixworth Boughton. Rural Dean of environment and historical and ecological sites. Of options provided option 8 is the best. Both spurs damaging to historic landscape, option 8 of the 2 options Brixworth Spur A is most destructive. Predict traffic will at least double in Boughton and suggests traffic calming - significant concerns about traffic. provided, neither spurs Speeding in village and drivers taking risks. Cut off Boughton from through traffic. [email protected] POST0054 20/07/2017 Local Resident Email Further traffic light systems will be put into place on either option? Roads are being changed for getting traffic flowing better, however, What traffic light systems Kingsthorpe without traffic lights, how do residents further away from the proposed roads access them. At the moment Birch Barn Way is used as a will be put in place for rat run. These relief roads indicate same problem will happen on the Welford Road. No thought given to how Whitehills will safely turn other road trying to get right across either option, or join the flow of traffic to our left. This has been a problem for several years and I can only see it getting onto NNOR? worse without more thought from the planners. [email protected] POST0055 20/07/2017 Local Resident Email The below came up “page not found” http://www3.northamptonshire.gov.uk/councilservices/northamptonshire-highways/major- highway-projects/Pages/northampton-northern-orbital.aspx [email protected] POST0056 20/07/2017 Local Resident Email Concern is that a junction on the Holcot/Moulton Road of the proposed route of the NNOR will provide an incentive for traffic to travel Rat running through Holcot Holcot from the NNOR to the A43 via Holcot and Walgrave and vice-versa. Object to any junction or interchange link on proposed routes 7 & 8 between NNOR and A43. that will provide access from the NNOR to the Mouton/Holcot Rd Holcot junction [email protected] POST0057 20/07/2017 Local Resident Email & Letter Road should be designed to same specification as New Sandy Lane, not inferior to it. Option 8 as it avoids The College Tracks however Option 8 as long as it has Kingsthorpe the option that least impacts the wildlife and environment should be the option to go for. Felt neither Spur is needed but if one is the least impact on wildlife chosen then Spur B for the following reasons: shorter, better links to Moulton Park, less sections of the road to be closed, better serve and environment. Spur B if the new housing developments, doesn't clash with local planning policies of Northants Vales National Character Area profile like Spur A one has to be built does. [email protected] Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0058 20/07/2017 Non-Statutory Body Email Pleased constraints map includes Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) but would point out that some LWS are missing, for example Hog Hole Spinney just north of Moulton Village which route 7 clips to southern edge of. I also wanted to check that you had the full boundaries of the LWS for your internal analysis. If not then the boundaries and citations for all LWS can be sourced from the NBRC (Northants Biodiversity Records Centre) - http://www.northantsbrc.org.uk/ [email protected] POST0059 20/07/2017 Local Resident Email This solution best resolves current traffic issues around the north of Northampton and the surrounding villages. At a previous Spur B is preferred consultation, 64% of respondents felt that a new road to the north of Northampton would help solve these traffic problems. Spur B represents a shorter route from Northampton to the prospective orbital road. Spur A has the potential to impinge upon the setting of the listed buildings at Bunkers Hill Farm. [email protected] POST0060 20/07/2017 Local Resident Email & PDF Resident and land owner for 50 years. Author for 2 Boughton Park books. Option 8 for following reasons: Further away from Boughton Option 8. Spur B but only if Multiple concerns about Commend for taking notice Moulton Park and its follies; not cut the College in half; does not destroy Moulton and Pitsford road; however do not close Boughton Fair lane. items are addressed (see spurs, including impacts on of the public opinion during Concerns and objections to both Spurs however if the need for a spur is proven Spur B should be chosen (provided the issues itemised PDF) heritage and landscape. last consultation process in the PDF are addressed). Considers that toad between Moulton and Boughton should not be closed but no connections to Spur road. [email protected] POST0061 21/07/2017 Local Resident Letter Utmost disappointment, been in property for 20 years and have a livery yard - this will affect numerous people who utilise the property Multiple people use his Chapel and affect part of my income. Loss of Access road onto Pitsford Lane; alternative route be a major safety risk. Loss of earnings - from premises and would be Brampton livery, storage, future developments (additional buildings already granted planning permission which the road currently goes through), greatly affected, use of land; loss of land; significant devaluation of property and land; impact of noise pollution and light pollution due to it becoming major access to M1; stress and upset to surrounding dwellings; cost of financial and human terms associated with building up business; health to human and animals (carbon and nitrogen levels); desecration of rural Nene valley way; property is now unsaleable; effect on majestic 450 year old oak tree; historical value to land; drastic effect on flora and fauna, wildlife (planted bird/butterfly friendly foliage for reducing natural wildlife and owls nesting etc. Angry and dismayed no approach or discussion with people directly affected in advance of NNOR maps being drawn up.
POST0062 21/07/2017 Local resident Consultation On Behalf of Walgrave Parish Council POST0063 21/07/2017 Local Resident Land would be cut in half - stables on one side grazing on the other side. Surrounding farmland fields are arable so much less Cuts land in half Northampton devastating. Built stables, fencing and grassland. Swallows, robins, badgers, pheasants, partridges, kestrels, stouts, weasels. Farm land and produce fruit and veg. enclosed map with alternative routes, also in the process of obtaining signatures to support alternative route. POST0064 21/07/2017 Local resident Single carriageway winding through housing estates will be totally unsatisfactory solution. Dual with grade junctions for A508 and Option 3 Congestion, capacity Welford Road. Cannot accept that Boughton Park should be sacrosanct besides the need of the future of Northampton. Considers that route 7 is most preferred but should 'bite the bullet' and go through Boughton Park in the dip between Boughton and Pitsford. Northern route to too far north. Should use Boughton Park, a roundabout at A508 will be a disaster. Church Brampton will still have 2,000 vehicles per hour. NCC, Northampton Borough and DDC need to understand the seriousness, if a proper solution is not found soon the road will have to go north of Brixworth and Holcot. POST0065 21/07/2017 Local Resident Petition Petition objecting NNOR through Sedgebrook Stud. 2 alternative route proposed (part one) Northampton POST0066 24/07/2017 Environment Agency - Email Would be possible to get a copy of the route options as a shapefile (shp. shx. dbf. and sbn) to inform internal discussions only? Planning Specialist [email protected] POST0067 26/07/2017 Local resident Questionnaire questionnaire incorrectly filled out
[email protected] POST0068 26/07/2017 Local resident Questionnaire questionnaire incorrectly filled out POST0069 26/07/2017 Local resident Questionnaire questionnaire incorrectly filled out POST0070 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Option 8, least impact on villages. Why a Spur road? Travel from Boughton through Moulton and other than rush hour the road is Option 8, no Spur road Spur is anti-social and Boughton generally not busy. Cutting off the Boughton to Moulton road will be anti-social and not good for community links. Disrupts community links [email protected] POST0071 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email & PDF Both options result in unacceptable noise and pollution to Pitsford. Option 7 marginally preferred. Detrimental effect of Pitsford which is Option 5 Wildlife, noise and pollution Pitsford Conservation area. Will increase traffic through Pitsford. If either option is pursued there should be no through road. Virgin Countryside, in Pitsford area between Pitsford, Moulton and Holcot is rich in wildlife. Newts in Pitsford quarry. No doubt housing estate will spring up all over. Option 5 better for Pitsford and Countryside using existing roads. Address public transport take a more general and fundamental view on traffic flows. [email protected] POST0072 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Opting 8 and Spur B. less disruptive to existing communities and historical sites. Our chief concern is if NWRR is built before the NNOR a Option 8 and Spur B increased traffic between Northampton dramatic impact on Welford Road, Brampton Lane and Harborough Road North as these roads will take traffic avoiding the town centre. the 2 roads being built Favour both roads being built simultaneously, even if delay NWRR. Weight limits or traffic calming in Church Brampton and Boughton and on Sandy Lane and Brampton Lane. [email protected] POST0073 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Questionnaire with email containing question 5. Objecting to Both options. Recommends widening of existing roads. Suggests moving Neither option Heritage and environment Pitsford further south and NCC should consider revisiting other options such as 5b. [email protected] Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0074 26/07/2017 Boughton Parish Council Email Option 8 & pleased to note their comments put forward following the 1st consultation, in most part, been considered. If Spur is proven Option 8. Spur B but only if Concerned about road Boughton Spur B is preferred (Spur A is unacceptable). Multiple important open spaces in Boughton. St John the Baptist stands is a Scheduled it is proven to be needed. closures between Boughton Historic Monument. Raft of legislation protects the Church, both secular and ecclesiastical and separate planning system and a separate and Moulton. Consistory Court for this. Also spring nearby. Concerned about road closures between Boughton and Moulton. Insufficient info and topo info. [email protected] POST0075 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Evident traffic modelling is only as good as the assumptions that underlie it and the data it is based upon. Not based on any data on Neither Spur is acceptable. Severe impact on natural Northampton origin and destination surveys. Need to be looking at how other modes of transport - public transport, cycling and walking - can and historic environment, contribute to reducing congestion. System of integrated, segregated, cycle and walking routes; real time information on the bus routes, non-motorised users. notably the X7. Proposed routes will have significant adverse impacts (listed in document). Severe impact on the natural and historic environment issues to address should include (listed in document) and hence significant mitigation and protection measures will be needed. Provision for walkers, cyclists and horse riders, including recreation. Neither of the two NNOR Spur options is acceptable. [email protected] POST0076 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Urge you to seriously reconsider the proposed roundabout interchange on the NNOR where it crosses the C91 Holcot to Moulton Road. Support NNOR A junction at Holcot Holcot Remove this junction from your proposal with the advantage of a cost saving and an improvement to the traffic flow on the NNOR. Moulton will only increase traffic. Road should also address unacceptable traffic levels in adjacent rural communities. [email protected] POST0077 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Reject both option 7 and 8. Pitsford would become a ‘rat run’ for traffic. 2. Pitsford is a noted area for walking, cycling and leisure Option 5b (but against concerned losing our Pitsford activities, and a major road in the area would not support this outdoor ‘ambience. Noise, pollution, smell, destruction of countryside, entire plan) beautiful village with the impact on flora fora, light pollution. Do not Block off Moulton road end of Pitsford. Impact on Colleges. Quarry has to be preserved. prospect of it being Moulton land gifted to people of Northamptonshire - right to build. ‘swallowed up’ in developments of infill housing [email protected] POST0078 26/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire Questionnaire to upload to survey monkey [email protected] POST0079 26/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire Questionnaire to upload to survey monkey [email protected] POST0080 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Support the NNOR, preference is for option 7. Strongly object to any junction between the NNOR and the Holcot Moulton road. Will Option 7 A junction at Holcot Holcot encourage rat running. Feels strongly that a flyover bridge for the Holcot Sywell Road is required. Moulton will only increase traffic. Road should also address unacceptable traffic levels in adjacent rural communities. [email protected] POST0081 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Option 8 has advantages over option 7. NWRR severe traffic issues with gap between projects. Traffic modelling doesn't give accurate Option 8 and Spur B (if it NWRR and NNOR must be picture. Must not close local roads. Route option formulated after previous consultation so must have consultation again on Spur roads. has to be done) built together Need for a spur road at all? Spur A particularly destructive. No info on landscaping and lighting. Do we need a road at all? [email protected] POST0082 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Preference if we must have a road, would be Orbital option 8 and Spur option B. Serious reservations about the flawed consultation: so- Option 8 and Spur B (if it NWRR and NNOR must be Boughton called “route five” was consulted on in 2016. This is absolutely not the case. No information on whether road will be illuminated and has to be done) built together landscaped. Traffic modelling misleading. Nonsense to close roads but no interconnection. Route option formulated after previous consultation so must consult again on Spur roads. Do we even need a Spur? Must be consulted on this again. Both roads must be built at the same time. [email protected] POST0083 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Preference if we must have a road, would be Orbital option 8 and Spur option B. Serious reservations about the flawed consultation : so- Option 8 and Spur B (if it NWRR and NNOR must be Boughton called “route five” was consulted on in 2016. This is absolutely not the case. No information on whether road will be illuminated and has to be done) built together landscaped. Traffic modelling misleading. Nonsense to close roads but no interconnection. Route option formulated after previous consultation so must consult again on Spur roads. Do we even need a Spur? Must be consulted on this again. Both roads must be built at the same time. [email protected] POST0084 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Potentially discourage cycling, inevitably there will be more traffic. Cycling/commuting by bike needs safe routes for people to use and Discourage cycling safe places to cross busy roads - would use of existing roads for cyclists be a way of achieving this? [email protected] POST0085 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Support the NNOR, preference is for option 7. Strongly object to any junction between the NNOR and the Holcot Moulton road. Will Option 7 A junction at Holcot encourage rat running. Feels strongly that a flyover bridge for the Holcot Sywell Road is required. Moulton will only increase traffic. Road should also address unacceptable traffic levels in adjacent rural communities. [email protected] Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0086 26/07/2017 Local Resident Email Paramount that the key cycling routes out of the north of Northampton are not blocked or impeded. Concern is the impact of the new Option 8A Cycling facilities must allow Northampton road on important cycling routes into the countryside north. Key routes are outlined in document. Route Option 8 seems slightly access to low-traffic routes. preferable because it may have less impact on the Moulton-Pitsford Road. 8A is preferable because it may have less impact on route (2) above, and also because Option 8B involves using Boughton Lane, which is currently dangerous and unsuitable for cyclists. Underpasses or bridges should be built to enable cyclists to use existing routes. Given that most cyclists are trying to get out into the countryside and away from traffic cycling facilities along them, this is less desirable than the existing, low-traffic routes. [email protected] POST0087 26/07/2017 Parish Council Letter See POST0074 POST0088 26/07/2017 Local Resident Letter See POST0060 POST0089 26/07/2017 Local Resident Letter See POST0057 POST0090 27/07/2017 Local Resident Letter Most obvious problem is the Moulton/Holcot/Walgrave road - rat run. Concerned about impact of NNOR. Would support this road Support NNOR Traffic in and out of Holcot Holcot crossing NNOR by way of bridge with separate junction for Moulton College. POST0091 27/07/2017 Local Resident Letter A copy I sent to the Chronicle & Echo which sums up my view on inadequacy of options. A copy I have sent to Chris Heaton-Harris MP - Single carriageway with Pitsford roads will be ineffective and expensive. Provide a long term solution which is not reliant on developers’ contributions. roundabouts and through hosing and too far north - inadequate. POST0092 27/07/2017 Local Resident Letter Addressed to Chronicle & Echo. Wholly inadequate in terms of coping with the volume of traffic and providing a satisfactory route to Single carriageway with Pitsford divert traffic from the villages. 50 cars queuing to cross Welford Road and up to 2000 cars per hour through Church Brampton at peak roundabouts and through hours - strong evidence that graded junctions are required. Take route through dip between Boughton and Pitsford - future of hosing and too far north - Northampton more important than going through Boughton Park. Until adequate funding is available should not even start. If can inadequate. provide dual round Geddington then find finance locally or from government sources. A proper, long term solution to Northants problems is required. POST0093 27/07/2017 Local Resident Letter Last chance saloon - otherwise in 20 yrs. time we will need a more expensive route north of Brixworth. Don't realise the heavy Single carriageway with Pitsford commercial traffic going to use NWRR through housing. MP's to intervene and help towards a proper long term solution. It cost the roundabouts and through companies on Moulton Park an extra £1M p.a. in 1970's to take their vehicles south to the A45 in order to go north onto M1. housing and too far north - inadequate. POST0094 27/07/2017 Non-Statutory Body Letter North, East and West of Northampton Borough has unacceptably high levels of traffic including heavy good vehicles. 10,000 more Support NNOR Want Dual carriageway, Northamtpon houses (albeit needed) will mean 20,000 more cars competing for road space. Most actions to mitigate will only have minimal impact. want as one project. More heavy good vehicles using rural roads and rat runs and peak time - children endangerment. Air quality poor and worsening. Strongly support, treated as one project not 2, must be dual carriageway with slip roads. a NNOR will reduce congestion on A45 south POST0095 27/07/2017 Local Resident Letter Supportive of a scheme west-east as it will relieve pressure on local roads. However current proposals will not meet long term No appropriate option Increase traffic on local Pitsford requirements. Routes illogical as avoids use of dual around Moulton Park. Traffic will continue to use that rather than a northern route. provided roads and introduce driving Large loop around green land will make difficult to protect land from development... Should be planned as dual, traffic lights no good. hazards, urban creep, dual Pitsford Becomes an island. Why doesn't Pitsford have a roundabout for NNOR like all the others? Traffic coming south on A508 will get carriageway, noise. suck at proposed roundabout and drivers will use Pitsford as a rat run. Sat Navs will direct drivers to use Pitsford as a shorter route or to avoid congestion. Pitsford High street very narrow and dangerous. Action taken to discourage traffic. Moulton College has a good reputation and well regarded sports facilities - would be harmed by driving a road straight through it. Measures planned to limit impacts (noise and appearance). POST0096 28/07/2017 Local Resident Questionnaire Questionnaire incorrectly filled out POST0097 02/08/2017 Environment Agency - Email and PDF PDF enclosing a response for the environment agency Planning Specialist POST0098 03/07/2017 Historic England - Historic PDF PDF enclosing a response from Historic England concerning NWRR Environment Planning Advisor POST0099 03/07/2017 Historic England - Historic PDF PDF enclosing a response from Historic England concerning NNOR Environment Planning Advisor POST0100 07/08/2017 Planning & Biodiversity Email Current Evidence Base and its Constraints Plans, etc. are still not comprehensive enough. Currently available historical information for Officer, the Wildlife Trust instance you have not included the category of Local Geological Sites (LGS), for example - and Protected and Notable Species sightings, etc. You must also give due attention to the presence of both the Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area (NIA) zone and also the existing, established, hierarchy of Green Infrastructure (GI) Corridor routes too. We would very much appreciate all future opportunities to be kept informed and in-the-loop - including the chance for similar future occasions of consultation and requests for review of material and feedback. As this same scheme evolves and progresses towards its eventual submission for Planning Permission
POST0101 18/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Object to road. Quite environment. Road should run further south, along river between villages. Route further south Noise and Pollution Pitsford POST0102 18/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Object to routes. Too close. Noise and pollution. Speeding and heavy traffic. Option 3 Option 3 Noise and Pollution Pitsford POST0103 18/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Object to routes. Am told parts are dual, lots of Noise, limit footpaths in area. Option 2 or 3 Option 2 or 3 Nosie Pitsford Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0104 18/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Weight given to Boughton park is a mistake. Emissions, noise and light pollution. Environmental cost. Rat runs. Greatest impact. Option Option 1 revived Pitsford 1 revived. In cutting. Compromise between Boughton and Pitsford POST0105 18/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Objection to routes. Increased traffic and pollution. Air quality for specific persons. Air pollution devastation for Pitsford son's lung disease POST0106 18/08/2017 Local Resident Letter See POST0061 - Planning permission for new buildings see attachment. Various concerns on Chapel property and business Brampton POST0107 18/08/2017 Local Resident Letter To be undertaken along with A43, roundabout for Holcot will increase traffic. Cyclist and walkers from Pitsford reservoir. Increased traffic in Hannington Hannington POST0108 18/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Will not achieve relief between Brixworth and Kingsthorpe. Heavy speeding traffic in Pitsford. Direct link to major roads around Moulton Heavy traffic Pitsford Park. T-Junction with A508 is dangerous. POST0109 18/08/2017 Charity Letter Option 8 as furthest north. Spur B must be chosen as Spur A separates Boughton Park and its associated follies which Heritage England Option 8, Spur B (if proven Divide outlying follies and Mention Specifically about the interconnection (see Response) to be entirely necessary) associated structures
POST0110 18/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers traffic , dualled, no Hannington from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. Holcot/Moulton junction POST0111 18/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers Traffic , dualled, no Hannington from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. Option 8 will only serve to create more development Holcot/Moulton junction
POST0112 18/08/2017 Local Resident and land Letter Survey response. Attached letter about meeting with MP about safety concerns of Boughton Lane. Accident records and map. Option 8. Option 8, Spur B or neither. Dualled. 90 Degree bend on Holly Boughton owner Only Single carriageway? Scheme built with future dualling in mind. Land owners down spectacle lane open to discussions. Biggest Lodge Drive. Multiple concern is 90 degree bend currently at bottom of the back drive from Holly Lodge. 7 fatalities in 10 yrs. deaths in the past 10 years.
POST0113 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers traffic , dualled, no Hannington from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. Option 8 will only serve to create more development Holcot/Moulton junction
POST0114 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers traffic , dualled, no Hannington from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. Option 8 will only serve to create more development Holcot/Moulton junction
POST0115 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers traffic , dualled, no Hannington from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. Option 8 will only serve to create more development Holcot/Moulton junction
POST0116 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers Support NNOR traffic , dualled, no Hannington from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. Option 8 will only serve to create more development. If junction at Holcot/Moulton junction Holcot/Moulton is unavoidable can traffic calming measures be put in place in Holcot, Hannington and Walgrave?
POST0117 21/08/2017 Hannington Parish Council Letter Answers to questionnaire - however may require response. The parish Council in Principal support NNOR however they have serious Support NNOR traffic , dualled, no Hannington reservations. No plans for dualling on A43 from Moulton to Kettering. NNOR and NWRR to be built concurrently and both dual. No Holcot/Moulton junction planning granted until all 3 major road scheme are completed. Junction at Holcot/Moulton Road will create rat run in Holcot and further. If built as dual all junctions need to be up and over roundabouts. Questions over modelling used - did it factor in development. were studies carried out on the impact to local amenities - i.e. equestrian, cycling and walking
POST0118 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers traffic , dualled, no Hannington from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. Option 8 will only serve to create more development Holcot/Moulton junction
POST0119 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers traffic , dualled, no Hannington from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. Option 8 will only serve to create more development Holcot/Moulton junction
POST0120 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hand written questionnaire - uploaded onto survey monkey Option 7 Spur B Hannington POST0121 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hand written questionnaire - uploaded onto survey monkey Option 7 Spur B Hannington POST0122 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Object to options 7 and 8. They are furthest away from Northants and least direct effecting Pitsford and Chapel Brampton. Noise and Noise and Pollution Chapel pollution increases. Option 7 reconsidered to continue through Boughton Park beyond Fox Covert. Or DDC option 5. Proposed Brampton roundabout at A508 will make difficult for Pitsford and Brampton Lane junction more difficult than they currently are? Compensate resident and minimise noise? Enforce a cutting into the landscape so not to spoil countryside. POST0123 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Generally supportive. Integrated with a wider strategy for traffic in the vicinity of Hannington. Should be dualled. Futile if A43 remain Dualled no footpaths in Hannington Hannington undualled from Sywell. Should not be exits or turnings from the new road that allows traffic to use unsuitable roads. have to walk on road Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0124 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Route 5b - Far better. Option 7 and 8 are not good options. Spoil swathes of countryside, look at option 5b again. Past President of the Wealth of Knowledge about Pitsford Northamptonshire Natural History Society, quarry is local nature reserve RIGS (government scheme. Astronomical observatory at quarry, its classifications Drummonds, deleterious effect to night shy. HGV's will rat run through Pitsford at peak times, Welford road junction see attachment. and potential red listed For any route, plant road margin of 10m, 5m high mound of earth. Planted trees and hedges. Enclosed is list of red listed species. species documents in surveys. Very useful
POST0125 21/08/2017 Northamptonshire Letter Option 8 is best route and will cause least damage to landscape of Boughton Park and associated buildings. Neither spur A or B to be Option 8 Spur will damage materially Northampton Gardens Trust constructed due to material and environmental damage. and environmentally
POST0126 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Proposals flawed for 2 main reasons - single carriageway given that there are plans for 6500 homes Overstone, 4000-5000 at Moulton Traffic , dualled, no Hannington Height, 3500 Wellingborough - second is no presumption of the A43 dualled in the same time. No dualling between Moulton and Holcot/Moulton junction Kettering proposed, built in conjunction with A43 dualling, must be dual, not junction at Holcot/Moulton Road, Hannington popular for cyclist, equestrian and walkers, option 8 will only serve to create redevelopment
POST0127 21/08/2017 Land Owners Letter See response for Alteration to Spur A. Refers to Jonathan Jeyes Response POST0128 Boughton POST0128 21/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Owns Holly Lodge and approximately 60acres of land around Holly Lodge (with wider family). Option 8 - does not bisect Moulton College Option 8, variation to spur Spur B would have Boughton less disruptive. Dual carriageway. Spur road - neither alternative route - attachment. Spur B will cause vibration, Nosie and pollution. A damaging impact of Grade Wherever the road crosses Boughton Road it needs to be via a bridge to keep traffic separate, weight restriction to 7.5t. . Happy to II listed Holly Lodge discuss further. POST0129 21/08/2017 Business Letter Amendments to Spur A - See attached. Red House Roundabout already suffers delay at peak times. The alternative southern route for Variation to Spur A the spur is in control of a single developer (Gallagher Estates - previously made submission to DDC highlighting opportunity for development in this location. POST0130 22/08/2017 Parish Council Letter Reject both option 7 and 8 close proximity to village. Option 1 least worst with proviso the route goes further south and good distance Object to both options. Increase traffic through Pitsford from Long Clump and is contained in cutting. Then it should join and continue along Moulton/Pitsford Road from Spectacle Lane noted Option 1 with alteration Pitsford, close proximity to as Option 7. Spur A being the least worst. Suggested routes are not the most economic. Questions why option 5 wasn't consulted on. and spur A (see village and quarry. Boughton Park (not public) is of benefit to few but impact of avoiding it is detrimental to many. Has been previously heavily quarried and attachment) returned to arable land. Land surrounding Long Clump has been sold away from Boughton Park. Parkland is restored quarried land. Local nature reserve, RIGS, plant and Bryophyte (red listed species) 7 species or bats, great crested newts, great Diving Beetle and harvest mouse. Reasons for objects - close proximity to the astronomical observatory, close proximity to village, increased traffic through Pitsford. Solution to controlling traffic in and out of the Village.
POST0131 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Petition objecting NNOR through Sedgebrook Stud. 2 alternative route proposed (part two) 252 responses in total (Part 1 + Part 2) Northampton
POST0132 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Concerned option 5 was discounted, option 3 good alternative but discounted because splits Boughton Park. Flying up to behind Options 3 to 7 are my Concerned about going Pitsford Moulton College clearly indicated that there is another agenda to encourage development. Was told she could revisit old options in preferred options through quarry. Agricultural decision making, and told in 2016 poor result from Pitsford. Was told not many of Boughton villagers were interested but a hard-core part of park has previously group strongly against passing through Boughton park. Option 3 to 7 are my preferred options, but with measures to reduce noise and been quarried. environmental impact, south of Sedgebrook farm. Boughton Park ownership only extends to the lakes. Land above this has been heavily quarried. Ironstone railway ran from this quarry to NLR. Only used as arable land owned by Moulton College. The Grotto is little more than a stone covered spring. No reason to consider saving the Grotto.
POST0133 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter See POST0071 POST0134 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter 7 & 8 are most unacceptable for those in Pitsford. Deliberately drawn away for Boughton leaving us with noisy road. Make more sense if Object to both options. Left with noise if stays so Pitsford line went through Boughton park. Authorities compulsory purchase the park it would be split by the road and part of it could be made Option 1 with alteration far north. more available to public for leisure and wildlife and spur A (see attachment) POST0135 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Cannot understand why it has to run so far north. Route the road between Boughton and Pitsford. Option 2 or 3, less pollutants and Option 2 or 3 Threatens southern reaches Pitsford noise of Pitsford POST0136 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Wish to endorse comments and report made by Mr Peter Kremples. Prefer option 8 and Spur A with Spur C shown as an alternative. option 8 and Spur a (Spur C Spur B goes through field. Moulton Spur B would cut through my field making it impossible to access the pump house and cut of my water supply. 2 electricity poles in the alternative) field. A letter from Mr Davies (agricultural agent) to follow. POST0137 22/08/2017 Non-Statutory Body Letter Fully accepted NNOR is needed. Option 8 Spur B is preferable as it would/should form more effective barrier preventing Moulton Option 8 and Spur B Infill of developments expanding westwards towards Boughton Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0138 22/08/2017 Borough Council - Letter Strongly supported, road should complete the strategic route from M1/A4500 to A43 as soon as possible. Improved cycle and public Support NNOR Air quality and noise and Northampton Northants transport network and reducing noise and pollution. Not possible to give preference without landscape impacts, strategic views, designs pollution. of new roads and junctions, cost of different route options. NWRR realignment has positive impact due to A5199 Welford road junction. Traffic increases and decreases impacts to be modelled as part of the Air Quality assessment within the Environmental Impact Assessment. Spurs must be clear routes, noise and air quality, dust and waste generation, single or dualled.
POST0139 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter To build (phase 1, NWRR) in the short term will aggregate and worsen traffic volumes. Hope nothing happens until an absolute any construction of first Chapel commitment that the whole planned schemes will be completed very quickly over the coming years. phase should be Brampton complimented with traffic calming, weight restrictions etc. POST0140 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter No provision for A43 dualling from Moulton to Kettering. Continued rat running through village. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must Support NNOR traffic , dualled, Hannington be dualled. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. Option 8 will only serve to create more development POST0141 22/08/2017 WW Planning Report Routes selected upon little clear or certain knowledge of environmental constraints. Especially concerned about Spur B - devastating No Spur Spurs will have devastating impact on landscape, ecology, heritage and archaeology along Spectacle Lane. NPF requires plans only be prepared when sufficient impact of Moulton Mill, evidence is known about implications of the development on features of heritage, landscape and ecological significance - this seems to Spectacle Lane and history have not been done. Full landscape and visual impact assessment, ecological evaluation, assessment on underlying archaeology (field in that area. patterns and controlling and connecting water in connection with Moulton Mill, detailed assessment and modelling of existing water flows and implication of proposed routes. Spur B should not be progressed. see response for Reasons that no alternative spur in that general area is proposed - landscape, ecology and archaeology, culture and heritage,
POST0142 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Spur B - drastically impacts us, mistake. Option 8 is preferred. Spur not necessary - some positive to spur A and no negatives, no Option 8. Spur A or Spur C a lot of historic value the Moulton positives to spur B and multiple negatives. See response for detailed list of impacts, ecologic/environmental impacts, bat report. would be second (see Spur B would destroy Moulton Mill over 1000+ years of existence. Landscape engineering. Not much benefit in any spur, if spur A is not used then Spur C. response) Spur A is preferred however Spur C would be second choice. POST0143 22/08/2017 Business Letter Comprehensive list of opportunities and constrains for option 7 and 8 and spur roads. Option 8 and Spur A. further consideration - Option 8 and Spur A comprehensive list of Northampton detailed design safety audit alignment, future proofing against traffic growth and development, ground conditions, noise/air quality, constraints visual impacts, ecology, unidentified utilities, Land Ownership, Archaeology and heritage and agricultural land use.
POST0144 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter See POST0091 POST0145 22/08/2017 Non-Statutory Body Email See POST0094 - included is a questionnaire which has been up loaded [email protected] POST0146 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email See POST0077 [email protected] POST0147 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Option 8 is preferable. Spur B. built together with NWRR Option 8 and Spur B Built at same time NWRR Boughton [email protected] POST0148 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Accept need for NNOR but object to junction on Moulton-Holcot Road. Support NNOR Traffic issues through Holcot [email protected] POST0149 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email good to see some concrete proposals, both projects should be built concurrently, Option 3 from Windhover to Pitsford Road then Option 3 then Option 1 Will not relieve traffic in Kingsthorpe Option 1 Pitsford Road to A43, A link to Moulton Park west of the Moulton housing is essential, whichever proposal becomes the Kingsthorpe preferred route I do not believe it will solve the traffic congestion on the Kingsthorpe Corridor route at the Cock Hotel. [email protected] POST0150 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email The alignment, between the new railway bridge and Sandy Lane junction as shown takes up a field adjacent to the railway and the Concerned about fields lost Kingsthorpe adjacent field that runs down to the River Nene. Both fields are used by a large number of dog walkers [50+], runners and horse riders. to dog walkers and If the alignment of the road was adjusted to a straight line between the roundabout close to the railway bridge and the A5199, would causeway being to small ask that access is provided from the existing fields to the land isolated by the new alignment. Concerned no works are proposed to once NWRR is built but bridge on A5199 close the junction with the proposed NWRR. NNOR isn't [email protected] POST0151 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Option 8 if there must be one seems to be a better option, no spur road. Option 8 if has to be one. Traffic from spur road Boughton would be unacceptable [email protected] POST0152 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Strongly over the proposed by pass going through chapel Brampton, Brampton, Boughton mill, scary that both my hobby my life and my horses comfort and stability is in danger of being taken away by the noise and development of major roads bringing lorries cars travelling in excess of 70mph through this beautiful part of Northamptonshire. [email protected] POST0153 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Taking a spur into the roundabout where Holly Lodge and Boughton Green Road enter the roundabout before joining the single lane Roundabout where Spur into and out of the second roundabout into Moulton Park can only increase the dreadful rush-hour congestion now experienced by road connects to Boughton anyone working on Moulton Park. Alternative point that side of Moulton Park? Green road [email protected] Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0154 22/08/2017 District Council - Daventry Email Removal of previous options 2/3 is to be welcomed. Option 5A - incorrect assumptions have been made about what it would mean, and Not enough detailed Daventry therefore it is unlikely that the results which are presented are sufficiently meaningful to support the consultation process. Options 7 & information 8 Western Section - significant structure to give it the height to clear NLR and River. No details of this structure are included in the consultation, despite this being required in both of the remaining options presented. Potential to upgrade the quarry access road to use it as part of the NNOR should the northerly route be chosen. Comments on Option 7 & 8 Eastern Section. Option 5A would be effective replacement for a spur. How and to what extent funding may be available for any of the options. Because of the continued lack of detail it has not been possible to undertake a detailed appraisal of the options and hence it cannot come to a conclusion regarding a preferred route. [email protected] POST0155 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email opposed to the construction of the Orbital Route, village is bombarded daily with lorries and cars trying to get to the A14, cannot believe traffic through chapel Chapel it is legal that you propose destroying more and more acres of country side to cover with roads and more housing when making current Brampton Brampton roads wider or changing traffic flow and weight restrictions on smaller roads could help alleviate the traffic, Campaigning businesses to adjust peoples working time could help stagger the peak times, school days being adjusted and better public transport links [email protected] POST0156 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email dual carriageway, Both sections of the road need to be constructed and opened at the same time, Spur A would be bad for Boughton as Spur B is preferred traffic impacts Boughton it would cut off our access to Moulton and the A43, The least harmful spur in terms of access and reduced destruction of historic sites would be spur B and this would probably be the best for Moulton Park motorists. [email protected] POST0157 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Although we prefer Option 7 to Option 8, we wish to object most strongly to any proposed route which goes through Pitsford quarry to Option 7 but object to quarry is important Pitsford avoid Boughton Park. Route south of Sedgebrook Lodge Farm and Dukes Clump and north of Grotto Spinney - would be cheaper, less going through quarry. disruptive. Park is agricultural land and not environmental important. quarry is important, [email protected] POST0158 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Option 8 and spur B would appear to be my preference. It does not seem to directly affect any homes Option 8 and Spur B Boughton [email protected] POST0159 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email While I understand the need for a continuation of the 'Relief road', it is hard not to be doubtful that it will reduce congestion, must be Won't reduce congestion, council surely have an Kingsthorpe dual carriageway, left hand spur to the roundabout at the bottom of Holly lodge road is a ridiculous suggestion resulting in even more spur A is ridiculous, dual obligation to REDUCE the problems in this area carriageway traffic pollution in Kingsthorpe as well as to build houses [email protected] POST0160 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email See POST0112 [email protected] POST0161 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email See POST0122 [email protected] POST0162 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Spur A not be built, proposed roads are in more than one way, loopy. obvious road on the North side of Kingsthorpe to link up directly Not Spur A Northampton with Holly Lodge Drive and Redhouse Road through Moulton Park, outer villages would no longer suffer as rat runs [email protected] POST0163 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email See response for annotated drawing about cycleway proposals [email protected] POST0164 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Orbital option 8. I do not see the need for a spur Road, but if there has to be one, then I would go for Spur option B. Option 8. no need for spur Boughton but if needed then Spur B [email protected] POST0165 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Option 8, avoids Boughton Park and avoids running through the Moulton College campus. We believe that these proposed new roads Option 8 , no spur needed funded my developers Boughton will have to be part funded by developer contributions, spur roads are probably not necessary, do not want Spur A. NWRR and NNOR built together [email protected] POST0166 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Bad traffic problem when the primary school starts and ends the day - Boughton. Large-scale developments should contribute to other Option 8 Landscaping & pollution Boughton infrastructure (i.e. schools) as well as roads. No dead ends. Option 8 issues [email protected] POST0167 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email We support the idea of a NNOR in principle, lanes used as rat runs. A lot of money is being spent on this project and it seems that the Support NNOR Rat running through Holcot. Holcot needs of Holcot village are being ignored [email protected] POST0168 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email I would ask you to consider the needs of leisure and commuting cyclists in your planning. Hardingstone [email protected] POST0169 22/08/2017 Borough Council - Email See POST0138 Northants [email protected] POST0170 22/08/2017 WW Planning Email See POST0141 - this response included Extracts from the NPPF [email protected] POST0171 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email No issues with building NNOR. But no Holcot/Moulton Road junction. will encourage more cars/vans and we would hope not HGV's to No Objections No Holcot/Moulton Road Holcot use this country road instead of continuing and joining the A43 and strongly feel that it will be an accident waiting to happen. No junction junction/roundabout at Holcot/Mouton and build a bridge over the NNOR so it can still be used by locals. [email protected] POST0172 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Option 8, Moulton College already has two entrances on the Moulton Road Option 7 would be congested by vehicles exiting and Option 8 and Spur B (starts Decimating Boughton Pitsford entering the college and cuts the sports ground in two. The best Spur road is the option that starts at Spectacle Lane. at Spectacle Lane) Green with Spur A [email protected] POST0173 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers traffic , dualled, Hannington from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. [email protected] POST0174 22/08/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers traffic , dualled, Hannington from Pitsford reservoir .amenity village. Will increase traffic. [email protected] Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0175 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email No Holcot/Moulton Road junction - increase traffic, rat run, sat Navs might redirect shortest route through Holcot, Holcot/Moulton Road no Holcot/Moulton Road but to bridge over. junction [email protected] POST0176 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Option 7, but opposed any junction at Holcot/Moulton Road. huge increase in traffic over recent years, and a 25% increase since the Option 7 no Holcot/Moulton Road Holcot A43 dualling works started, junction [email protected] POST0177 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email option 8, Spur B, concerned about the proposed spur roads as being necessary as this will cut off Boughton from direct access to Option 8 and Spur B don't cut of Boughton to Moulton Moulton and destroy an area of historic importance (spur road A in particular), Moulton [email protected] POST0178 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Please reconsider the route of this road. I will never be able to return to the area to visit my dad's grave if you do this to an area that Spectacle Lane has holds so much meaning for me, it will be devastating. I can only imagine how horrified local residents must be by the damage this could particular significance for do to the lovely countryside in the area. I hope that there has been substantial development of better public transport links. When I me as I went there to lived in Moulton buses were few and far between. escape feelings of utter despair and hopelessness whilst my father was suffering from illness [email protected] POST0179 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email NWRR no-one in their right mind would build a main road bringing a great amount of traffic to a junction and then leave it to find its Orbital Option 8 and Spur Building NWRR in advance Boughton own way through villages and lanes without building the onward road at the same time. To send a Road over the triangle at Boughton Option B are the least of NNOR is a problem Green would be disrespectful of our history and would harm Boughton Park and its remarkable follies. Orbital Option 8 and Spur Option damaging but they are not B are the least damaging but they are not ideal. ideal. [email protected] POST0180 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email If NWRR and NNOR are built separately that has very severe implications for Brampton Lane and the surrounding villages. Rat run to Both to be built at same Boughton Moulton Park using Moulton Road, don't close Boughton - Moulton Road. time [email protected] POST0181 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Object to options 7 and 8. They are furthest away from Northants and least direct effecting Pitsford and Chapel Brampton. Noise and Noise and Pollution Chapel pollution increases. Option 7 reconsidered to continue through Boughton Park beyond Fox Covert. Or DDC option 5. Proposed Brampton roundabout at A508 will make difficult for Pitsford and Brampton Lane junction more difficult than they currently are. Compensate resident and minimise noise? Enforce a cutting into the landscape so not to spoil countryside. [email protected] POST0182 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email agreement with the 'NNOR' with either Option, but not junction Holcot/Moulton Road, despite the request of the Parish Council for Support NNOR No Holcot/Moulton Road Holcot consideration of traffic calming don't is being done. some sort of bridging needs to be effected over NNOR for Holcot/Moulton Road junction [email protected] POST0183 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Oppose option 7 would crush Moulton village and divide Moulton college. Favours day nursery adversely affected - noise and safety, no option 8 lesser of 2 evils, Traffic calming on Spur Moulton Junction via the Grove, Moulton to have its conversation area enlarged. Option 8 as the lesser evil, again oppose junction via the Grove, Spur A road Prefer to see western Spur (Spur A), oppose Spur B, fatal accidents at 90 degree bend on Boughton Lane. We advocate the use of traffic calming measures along any Spur road. [email protected] POST0184 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email strongly object to the proposed Northern Northampton Orbital road, The Government's policy on air quality is to reduce car journeys, Object to proposed road air quality, cutting Boughton not increase them, cutting up greenbelt land to deliver this project, All options carve up the section between Moulton and Boughton greenbelt, splitting Moulton making the two villages inaccessible to each other, You propose to build single carriageway roads, and then infill with houses, This and Boughton proposal with houses infilling the land between the roads is a quick way for the council to gain huge sums of money [email protected] POST0185 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Option 8 would be the most viable option, severe traffic implications for Brampton Lane if NWRR and NNOR are built separately, The Option 8 and Spur B if it has NWRR and NNOR must be route maps indicate many local roads closed. This must not happen - lead to anti-social problems such as fly tipping, is there a need for a to be done. built together, must not spur road at all? Spur road A is particularly destructive, nothing about landscaping or lighting of the new road, if we must have a road, close Boughton to Moulton Orbital Option 8 and Spur Option B are clearly the least destructive Road. [email protected] POST0186 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Object to the development of such a road, however should an option proceed then option 8, severe traffic implications for Brampton Option 8 and Spur B if it has NWRR and NNOR must be I would also like to question Lane if NWRR and NNOR are built separately, traffic modelling in the consultation does not give an accurate picture as it only takes into to be done. built together, must not the impartiality of KierWSP consideration future developments included in the Joint Core Strategy, The route maps indicate many local roads closed. This must not close Boughton to Moulton conducting the happen, Routes 7 and 8 have been formulated after a previous consultation, therefore the choice of spur road – if any – should be Road. consultation, a company consulted on again after comments have been received following this consultation, not spur A. if we must have a road, Orbital Option 8 who has a vested interest in and Spur Option B are clearly the least destructive the development of housing to fund the cost of an orbital road. [email protected] POST0187 22/08/2017 Parish Council Email Please find attached our original comments which are to be repeated plus the comments below in response to the latest consultation on Spur a - disastrous, spur b - Repeat of 2016 Moulton NNOR, Repeat comments on option 5 (as attached), No consideration given for traffic movements between Boughton and Moulton, direct traffic into Moulton, consultation plus more. Spur A cuts through Boughton Green – dismissing historical significance of the landscape, Spur B will direct traffic through Moulton, funding? Environmental impact not evaluated, Insist that a cost benefit analysis of option 5 compared with options 7 and 8 is carried out, How is road to be funded?, Lack of detail in proposals, Options 7 and 8 do not address problems but open up vast areas for housing development [email protected] Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0188 22/08/2017 Parish Council Email Questionnaire uploaded. See map - northbound/ southbound rat run from Moulton through Holcot and Walgrave to A43 to Kettering. Support NNOR. Less Object to any form of Freedom of information act Holcot Roads within Holcot parish are unsuitable for existing peak traffic and speeds. Response to Q2 - Holcot strongly welcomes plans to intrusive route is preferred junction to Moulton/ Holcot submitted for traffic data. construct NNOR. Q3 - if other, less intrusive options are available i.e. DDC option 5 these would be preferable. Q5 - HOLCOT OBJECTS TO i.e. DDC option 5 road PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT/JUNCTION at C91 MOULTON TO HOLCOT ROAD. Holcot insists on simple bridge i.e. a grade-separated intersection, NO interchange links between the NNOR and C91. Temptation to rat run and sat Navs to send shorter route. Holcot PC has lodged a ‘freedom of information’ request regarding this modelling. Alternative ideas : (1) Idea for access to Moulton College from the NNOR: - option 7: via the ‘signalised junction’, option 8: by a junction on the spur-road where it crosses Pitsford Rd, as on the consultation chart In both cases, most importantly, with access between Holcot Rd and Boughton Fair Lane being blocked-off. (2) Idea for the ‘simple bridge’ where the NNOR will cross Holcot Rd, Moulton: Option 7, this cross-over is very close where there is a natural dip in the topography, and so in the current level of Holcot Rd, Subject to the stream in that dip, smart exploitation of the dip could further reduce any additional costs for the bridge. To minimise the risk of queues, consideration given to providing a segregated filter lane for traffic turning left from the NNOR onto the A43 [email protected] POST0189 04/09/2017 Business Email Boughton Lane Pocket Park (Long Park, Moulton) only discovered consultation in a local newspaper, no-one as contacted us formally, Spur A if required Spur B has devastating NLR have been given special interest unlike Boughton Lane Pocket Park. Spur B destroys this historic boundary, junction will cut off effect access to park, will damage a third of the park. If a spur is required then Spur A is less damaging to the park. [email protected] POST0190 04/09/2017 Local Resident Email Formal Objection - contradictory to ease congestion by increasing and encouraging car usage. Questionable that fund are found for new will not relieve traffic in roads but not for repairing existing roads and implementing other initiatives. Congestion is an issue, but is multi-faceted and addressing town centre, such issues must be part of an effective holistic solution, including: improving public transport, encourage cycling, smart traffic lights, park and ride schemes, incentivising companies to offer staggered working hours, encourage car sharing. Fail to see how will ease congestion in town centre. 5. Congestion is cyclical across the day. Area under question not just that proposed for the new road but that within the road boundaries which will be an easy planning target is used by a wide group of people in a variety of active pursuits. 8. Small and local business will be negatively impacted by the proposals, including livery yards and riding schools, pubs and wedding & conference centres. Northampton and Northamptonshire promotes its parks, walks & trails, historic sites and its churches [email protected] POST0191 22/08/2017 Local Resident Email Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 dualling. Must be dual. No roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist and walkers traffic , dualled, Hannington from Pitsford reservoir. Amenity village. Will increase traffic. Option 8 will only serve to create more development [email protected] POST0192 04/09/2017 Local Resident Email Understand the need for a new road and indeed the requirement to invest in the road structure. Both options affect Pitsford and areas Option 7 further south or noise and pollution, traffic Pitsford of Brampton Lane and Chapel Brampton with an increased level of traffic noise and pollution. Option 7 should be reconsidered bringing option 5 at Pitsford/A508 the road south following the river towards Boughton to a more direct route and having an impact on less residents. Alternatively option 5 could also be re-looked at for the same reasons. Currently the turning out of Pitsford onto the A508 can be dangerous at peak times. I believe with the addition of the proposed roundabout being so close to the turning will only increase the difficulty and danger of pulling out. [email protected] POST0193 04/09/2017 Church with Chapel Email NNOR is far too north. Moulton residents and Moulton business park personnel will use existing roads. Route further south would be traffic increase A5199 to Church with Brampton Parish Council much better. Single carriageway inadequate. Short term NWRR will add strain to Boughton roundabout and increase traffic through A14, single carriageway Chapel Chapel Brampton and Pitsford. Due to developments being built before road infrastructure we support the need to NWRR and NNOR. inadequate Brampton however the NWRR along does not complete the standard ring road, therefore deeply concerned funding for NWRR is largely in place where as funding for NNOR is not. Doesn’t agree with traffic projections and will see large increase in traffic from A5199 towards A14. The parish requests that consideration is given to mitigate the impacts of increase traffic along A5199 whilst funding is secured. [email protected] POST0194 04/09/2017 Natural England Email Impact risk zones and SSSI and been triggered by both routes. Advise an ecological survey is undertaken. Several areas of priority habitat SSSI's, IRZ's, priority along the proposed routes (these can be found on Magic). Seek to achieve a net increase in biodiversity. Linear routes help to provide habitats habitat connectivity throughout the landscape which is beneficial to both people for visual screening/noise reduction and wildlife. A comprehensive list of local groups can be found at Wildlife and Countryside link. Several rights of way in the areas surrounding. Natural England would welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters with you through our Discretionary Advice Service (DAS). [email protected] POST0195 04/09/2017 Local Resident Email We object to the principal of the proposed relief road as we consider the County Council should reconsider the whole proposal and reconsider whole scheme Preserve Boughton park, Boughton focus on measures to reduce car usage. Model of traffic flow data used for the consultations is out of date, inaccurate and misleading. focus on reducing car During peak hours, traffic lights and pedestrian crossings, particularly in Kingsthorpe, slow down traffic flow significantly leading to usage, traffic model congestion. To fund construction more houses will be built. Information boards do not contain details of lighting, in-cuttings, cycleway, incorrect pedestrian access or measures to preserve wildlife corridors. It is essential to preserve Boughton Park - listed. 7 and 8 go through quarry which is dormant [email protected] POST0196 04/09/2017 Business Email Interests in land off Holly Lodge Drive. Outline planning application submitted for 75 dwellings (application reference DA/2016/1144) Not Spur A Not notified about the refused on 6th March 2017. Improvements has been offered for the benefit of existing highway users (awaiting appeal date from consultation even given inspectorate). Spur A would impact proposals which have now been appealed by Gladman. If Spur A is progressed then Gladmans would previous discussions with wish to be notified given the significant interests as outlined above. NH. [email protected] Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0197 05/09/2017 County Councillor Email NWRR is excellent solution, flood plain could be problematic. Boughton Mill, and historic building recorded in The Doomsday Book, is Option 8 and Spur B. Public footpaths redirected, Boughton Moulton Division clearly going to be detrimentally affected and will need careful negotiation with its owner Mr Mace to ensure the least impact. Public support NWRR close to Sedgebrook farm, Footpaths CC4 and CD6 may need to be diverted. Option 8 preferred. Holcot benefited by option 8 as it will remove traffic and reduce flood plain, Boughton rat running but only if done correctly. Connection to A43 beneficial for revenue and provide excellent solution if Moulton heights is Green, historic church land built. Has advantage of not dissecting many farms however Sedgebrook farm is badly affected. Junction with A508 good location. having 100k spend on it by Concerned about disruption to Pitsford quarry newly planted trees. Spur B is preferred as less collateral damage and better location. historic England. How will Spur A is disaster: cuts off Boughton green, cuts off Boughton village, very close to churchyard, first phase of 100k scheme by Historic mitigate against England, cuts very close to Church Furlong, a viable working farm, very close to Bunkers Hill Farm which is listed, severs 'The Spectacle' topography and from all other follies. Delighted spectacle lane has been avoided. Boughton has a newly adopted Village Design Statement that clearly challenges? states in several places land around Boughton Green is held in high archaeological and historic regard and its distinctive character and openness must be protected from development. Very little info on topography and how challenges like flood plain, river Nene crossing, NLR crossing etc. will be mitigated. [email protected] POST0198 05/09/2017 Pitsford Parish PDF Comments were made by Highways were not many responses from Pitsford in the 2016 consultation. Highways did not hold a public Were told they could Pitsford consultation in the village which reduced the opportunity for people to attend, we arranged our own consultation where 150 people respond on previously visited in 2 hours and 68 responses were submitted. Were told that people could respond on previously discounted routes from 2016 if discounted option. Made they objected to the proposed routes 7 & 8. Your response form modified to allow for comments beside each question. Found 2 maps, their own adaptation to one of the old ironstone permissions which includes proof of the field next to the quarry having been quarried despite it being in questionnaire Boughton Parkland. Also, for your interest, ƒ copy of the old mineral permissions showing the original proposed route which appears to follow Option 2. POST0199 05/09/2017 Pitsford Parish PDF Recognise need for solution to traffic problem. But reject both option 7 and 8 due to close proximity to Pitsford. Option 3 was given Reject both options. Concerns about quarry - would welcome Pitsford further consideration but it was agreed option 1 is the least worst with the proviso route was moved south out of quarry away from long red listed species, opportunity to meet with a clump and in cutting to reduce noise and pollution. Current option aren't most economical. Parish seriously questions option 5 from protected species, nature representative of the DDC was not included in any consultation. Boughton park is not public is of benefit to few but avoiding it is detriment to many. Land reserve. Top of Boughton highways department on behind long clump previously quarried as stated by English Heritage (see PDF). Land either side of long clump has been sold off from Park previously quarried, site to illustrate objections Boughton Park. Simon Scott said that the listed status 'isn't as much of a protection as you might have with a listed building but it means traffic increases, too close first-hand anyone who wants to do anything has to justify itself'. The quarry is local nature reserve and RIGS (Regionally Important Geological and to village geomorphological Site) the only one in the county. Red listed plants and bryophyte species, 7 species of bats, great crested newts, great diving beetle and harvest mouse. Council supports suggestions made to improve and extend the species diversity of the area. Reasons for objections: close proximity to Astronomical Observatory and community of Pitsford, increase traffic on A508 and Pitsford. solution to controlling traffic in and out village along Moulton Road will have to be found
POST0200 05/09/2017 Non-Statutory Body PDF Horrified Highways would Route new road through Pitsford Quarry when there are alternatives. Red listed species of Bryophytes - this is Neither option quarry has red listed Northampton the first time in many years it has been found in the UK. Fields to the south, not the same value as the quarry even if it is part of species Boughton park. Astronomical Observatory at The Drummonds POST0201 05/09/2017 Non-Statutory Body PDF Horrified Highways would Route new road through Pitsford Quarry when there alternatives. Red listed species of Bryophytes - this is the Neither option quarry has red listed Northampton first time in many years it has been found in the UK. Fields to the south, not the same value as the quarry even if it is part of Boughton species park. Astronomical Observatory at The Drummonds POST0202 Resequencing POST0203 POST0204 07/09/2017 Business Email Attached is the updated Local Wildlife Sites layer for 2017 (LWS2017). This includes all updates made to LWS as part of the 2016 round Northampton of surveys. I have included MapInfo, MapInfo interchange and shapefile versions [email protected] POST0205 07/09/2017 Website PDF Site Check report - Woodland Grant scheme. Community Woodland Contribution, Approved for New Plants, Expand Lowland Broadleaved Woodland POST0206 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR, no comment on NNOR, option 7 and Spur B. When route is decided Fox Covert trees should be retained for sound and Option 7 and B. Sound and pollution should Questionnaire pollution impact. Congestion on A508 roundabout could encourage new village rat run. be minimised by retaining Fox Covert trees
POST0207 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR, no comment on NNOR, neither option, neither spur. Shame option 3 rejected. Section of road that impacts Boughton Neither option, neither Questionnaire Park is more direct, less costly natural noise reduction for both villages and lies along parish boundary. spur. Option 3 [email protected] POST0208 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Supports NWRR and NNOR, not sure on options, don't think spur is needed. Both roads should be done together otherwise traffic will be Not sure on options Built at same time NWRR Questionnaire worse than ever. Due consideration to be given to conservation and preservation of countryside. POST0209 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR and NNOR, no comment on option or spur. Exhaust fumes in Kingsthorpe are horrendous, if both roads not completed Support NWRR and NNOR Exhaust fumes Questionnaire together will get worse. POST0210 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR and NNOR, either option, Spur B. must both be dualled otherwise slow vehicles will slow traffic. Support NWRR and NNOR. Dual carriageway Questionnaire Spur B POST0211 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR and NNOR, option 7, either spur. Support NWRR and NNOR, Questionnaire option 7, either spur. - Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0212 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Don't support NWRR, Support NNOR, either option, either spur. NWRR should not be built, let Kings Heath development residents use Either Option, Either Spur. Do not build NWRR Questionnaire the Harlestone Road. POST0213 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Don't support NWRR Don't support NWRR Questionnaire POST0214 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR and NNOR, either option, either spur. Both schemes built together. Support NWRR and NNOR Must be built together Questionnaire POST0215 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt No comment on NWRR, support NNOR, Option 8, Spur A. Support NNOR, Option 8, Questionnaire Spur A POST0216 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Don't know for support of NWRR and NNOR. Environmental concern: Do we need these new roads? Do we need these new Questionnaire roads? POST0217 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Neither option, neither spur. From Windhover to Moulton - All via farmland, no housing disruption. Forget 'Boughton Park' ruling. The Neither option, neither First section should all be Questionnaire 'well' is just a muddy puddle and no other features affected. Why does orbital route need to go so close to Northampton? See attached spur. through farmland - see mapping. attachment. POST0218 11/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Don't support NWRR or NNOR as projected. Option 8, Spur B or don't think it's needed. Developments need to be completed at same Don't support either Questionnaire time top prevent major congestion. Closing Moulton-Boughton road disastrous - school traffic will both enter and leave on western side option. Option 8 and spur B increasing traffic. Agree with all comments on local flyer. POST0219 11/09/2017 Flyer Option 8 has advantage of avoiding Boughton Park and Moulton College. NWRR will Split onto A5199 causing severe traffic implications. If must be built, Option 8 Both to be built at same Both roads should be built at the same time or don't open NWRR until NNOR is built. Traffic modelling not give accurate picture. and Spur B time, traffic modelling not Closures on local roads must not happen but no interconnection between NNOR and small local roads to prevent rat running. Spur roads accurate, road closures not should be consulted on again, is there even need for spur road - NCC to provide evidence. Spur A particularly destructive - runs through to happen, no connection Boughton Green, ancient site, divide Boughton and associated follies. No info provided on landscaping and lighting of new road. Do we Moulton-Holcot road need road at all? - NCC and DDC consider halting large-scale developments for a period.
POST0220 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR and NNOR, Option 8, Spur A or Both. Must be Dual carriageway, single inadequate. Tree must be planted each side, Support NWRR and NNOR. Dualled, planted trees both Questionnaire underpass facilities for wildlife. Both Spurs good would relieve congestion in Moulton Park, but spur A if one is to be chosen, road to be Option 8, both spurs sides, lower away for a bit lower away from Pitsford . Trees will help counteract air pollution and help the birds. Pitsford. POST0221 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR (improved access to sixfields & M1) and NNOR. Option 1. Either Spur. Options 7 & 8 too close to Pitsford due to noise Support NWRR and NNOR. Noise and light pollution, Questionnaire and light pollution. Option 1 least worst option but moved further south of quarry - wildlife. Concerned about access to & from Pitsford Option 1 concerned about access to on new road and A508. & from Pitsford onto new road and A508
POST0222 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Doesn't support NWRR and NNOR. Option 3, no preference of Spur. If not necessary to build a dual then would argue not necessary to Don't support NWRR and Adding another roundabout Questionnaire build NWRR at all. A508 already struggling to cope adding another roundabout will cause severe delays. Option 3 most economical and NNOR. Option 3, Spur no on A508 will cause severe least intrusive, least disruption, air and Nosie pollution during construction and once open. Runs through bottom of valley furthest away Preference delays. Run between from Pitsford and Boughton. Should not run through quarry - RIGS site and number of endangered species. Should be flyover over A508 Pitsford and Boughton. with slip roads, to minimise delays and be dualled. How will NNOR be funded? Is it large-scale developers and housing developers to pay Endangered species at for road? More important to conserve quarry (only RIGS in county) which is public than Boughton Park which is closed to public. quarry. Flyover at A508 Avoiding Route 3 to enable more housing development, for financial gain of land owners. with slip roads.
POST0223 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR (should've been done 20-25 yrs. ago). Option 8 Support NWRR, Option 8 Questionnaire [email protected] POST0224 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Supports NWRR and NNOR, Option 1 or 3, either spur. Don't support and object to 7 & 8 as they pass less than 300m from 2 schools and Support NWRR and NNOR. Noise, light and emissions Questionnaire residential dwellings in Pitsford. Noise, light and emission pollution will affect these in serious amounts. Option 1 is least bad but would Option 1 or 3, Either Spur. pollution serious as road is need to be in cutting and must go south of quarry. Why is Boughton considered so important to the point you'd put the new road within 300m for schools and 300m of 2 schools and residential properties? Won't help reduce traffic through Pitsford as drivers will still cut through, a solution to residents. In cutting and traffic in & out on A508 will still need to be found. south of quarry.
POST0225 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR and NNOR, option 1, spur no preference. Increasingly large volumes of traffic, aggravated by large scale developments Support NWRR and NNOR Questionnaire has placed unacceptable load on roads in villages. Historic England description of Boughton Hall (list entry 1001297) "the disused Option 1, no spur mineral railway has been taken as the current northern limit of the park" it would be logical for NNOR to follow closely as possible the preference boundary between the parishes minimising impact of both. [email protected] POST0226 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Could not attend consultation. Cannot see proposed route can even be considered not knowing traffic volumes. Could cause upset to Cannot comment without Signage restricting HGV's in Questionnaire Pitsford with HGV's. Should have signs stating No HGV's. Sorry to be negative but cannot at this time see the need for these routes more traffic information Pitsford, without full info. There are no slip roads which means more traffic through Pitsford. Traffic into Pitsford very bad and school buses and students and cars speeding. Need to know detail on how these roads are in fact going to pan out with slip roads.
POST0227 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Don't support NWRR, no comment on NNOR, Option 1, and Neither Spur - A least bad option. South of quarry so less air, light and noise Don't support NWRR, South of quarry. Air, noise Questionnaire pollution - particularly for me. Should be a sunken road with banks and planting. Moulton Rd still be used as rat run. Option 1, neither spur and light pollution. Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0228 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt 2 x questionnaire copies. Already uploaded one questionnaire from this respondent. Questionnaire [email protected] POST0229 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt No Comment on NWRR, Supports NNOR, Option 1, Spur A. Relieve congestion from West Northants. Serious Concerns DDC Option 5a, Support NNOR, no In cutting, noise and Questionnaire 5b, 5c were not consulted on as most cost effective and least impact on green sites. Option 1 as long as it is further south of Quarry, comment on NWRR, Option pollution, rat runs road in cutting, to reduce noise and pollution. Options 7 & 8 too close to quarry and threaten wildlife and flora fauna. Spur A least worst 1, Spur A option. Concerns about impact on Pitsford from traffic flows slowed by roundabout on A508. Pitsford will be used as rat run to A43. Much of Pitsford does not have footpaths, will be more difficulty accessing and exiting village.
POST0230 13/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Only support NWRR if dual. Only support NNOR if use existing roads where possible. None of the NNOR routes as goes through access Only support NWRR if dual. Goes through land, impacts Discussed with surveyors Questionnaire road, is only exit for horses, cars and from livery yard. Source of income. Cuts through middle of land instead of topside as discussed Only support NNOR if use access to property and last year about it being with surveyors last years. Goes through 2 buildings which have planning. Spur A - more direct. Not happy with survey and way it's been existing roads where livery business. Planning topside of land conducted. Needs looking @ in more details before decisions are made, Route 3 affects less people and accesses. possible. Spur A. Option 3? permission where road is proposed.
POST0231 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Doesn't support NWRR, no comment on NNOR, Option 3, Spur A. NWRR won't make a lot of difference. Shortest route would speed up Don't support NWRR, no NWRR won't make a lot of Questionnaire travel time and reduce pollution. Route 3 furthest from Boughton and Pitsford reducing noise and pollution for both. Spur A shortest comment on NNOR, Option difference. Shortest route route and connects to Moulton Park. Routes 7 & 8 are too far out of town for an orbital route. Will add noise and pollution to Pitsford, 3, Spur A. means less pollution and detrimental to schools and dwellings. speed up travel.
POST0232 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Supports NWRR, original option 3, Spur A. HGV's & personal vehicles need access to N'pton without congestion that currently exists. Supports NWRR, Option 3, Develop and expand Questionnaire Need improved infrastructure but feel we should develop and expand existing roads and not ruin another side of N’pton. Route 3 best Spur A existing roads. Current as least disruption. 7 & 8 go right through partners land and businesses. Appalled at lack of consideration to local community and home option go through land and owners. Appalled at manner survey has been conducted, no consultation with local residents has been undertaken. Proposed route business simply placed on boards. POST0233 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt No comment on support for either scheme (assume need has been clearly established by DDC/NH), from info provided it is impossible No comment of support, no Questionnaire to make a judgement - what is an objective analysis? Is this only about managing traffic? Or is it also about releasing land for comment on option or spur development? Is there a district plan for strategic issues? What choices/options within this? Should option 7/8/4 come close to the village and will noise be tackled? Control air/noise pollution? How will it be controlled? What kind of road - Dual? If so speed limit would impact severity of noise/ pollution. [email protected] POST0234 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Supports need for NWRR (roads are too congested), Option 1, no comment on spur. 7 & 8 come too near village, which will create more Supports NWRR, option 1, Route 7 and 8 come too Questionnaire pollution for community. no comment on spur. near village POST0235 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Don't support NWRR or NNOR, Option 7, not sure on spur. NWRR will increase volume and bring other forms of development. Support Don't support NWRR or Believe spur will be key to Little faith in councils Questionnaire need to reduce traffic, like Moulton - Pitsford, will also remove heavy traffic to and from college. But at what cost? Don't like any of the NNOR, Option 7, not sure movement of traffic, noise motive or honesty options however current routes are the furthest away from Pitsford. I strongly support the argument to protect the quarry. Believe spur on spur. light pollution, traffic will be the key to movement of traffic and strongly request it is furthest away from Pitsford. Support comments noted by Martin continue to use villages, Flanagan. Little faith in councils' motives or honesty, however it is important to protect interests of village. Key issues: noise, light quarry pollution, traffic still using village routes, surrounding areas (quarry). What happens after main roads are built? What further development will be considered? POST0236 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR and NNOR, Option 3, either spur. There is a need to provide ring road around Northants, understand need for NNOR but Support NWRR and NNOR, Not enough thought into Questionnaire not enough thought has gone into the effect on Pitsford. Current options pass too close to Pitsford, detrimental effect on noise and Option 3, Either Spur effect on Pitsford. Noise pollution made worse by prevailing wind. Route further south equidistant between villages. Option 3 meets this, at worst Option 1 and pollution, prevailing would reduce impact if set in cutting. Would enable all tree planting in quarry to be retained providing a buffer. A connection is needed wind. Equidistant between to join Moulton Park. villages. Option 1 in cutting.
POST0237 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt No comments on routes. What incompetent surveyor took YEARS to find the Boughton Estate Boundary? The shocking reverberations of Cannot walk up or down Questionnaire your lengthy incompetence for any northern bypass have caused a purgatory of law breaking driving between 7-9am and 4-8pm. I our footpath as too appealed to you last year for a 40mph speed limit, no reply whatsoever. We chose a peaceful beautiful locations. We are having to leave dangerous it, due to your elongated negotiations. We are unable to walk up or down our footpath, it is too dangerous for ourselves, children and grandchildren. POST0238 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR and NNOR, no comment on option or spur. Finish time 2019 and 2021! What happens in between! Very ambitious. Support NWRR and NNOR. Questionnaire When can it start? Why not have same dates for completing both roads. No comment on option or spur [email protected] POST0239 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR and NNOR, option 8, both spurs. Have ticked option 8 though don't think should be quite so close to Pitsford and should Support NWRR and NNOR, Not so close to Pitsford Questionnaire be lower down. Option 8, Both spurs Northampton Northern Orbital Route (NNOR) and North-West Relief Road (NWRR): Consultation Tracker
Code Date Interest Summary Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Village/ Area Entered POST0240 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt No comment on NWRR or NNOR, Option 8, Spur B. Pollution in Kingsthorpe, increase in vehicles due to housing being built in Option 8, Spur B Pollution, land should not Council have made Questionnaire Kingsthorpe and surrounding areas. Both roads must be built and opened at same time. Also land where roads go through should not be be used as excuse to extraordinary decisions: used as excuse for building. Council in recent times made extraordinary decisions: knocking down Greyfriars Bus Station and replacing develop on. Both roads knocking down Greyfriars with unsuitable area (somebody will lose their life). Selling a statue, loaning £10 million without proper documentation and spending opened at same time. Bus Station (somebody will even more of taxpayers’ money on solicitors fees. Completely changing the Market. Reopening Abington Street - how much did it cost? lose their life). Selling a A complete waste of money. When making important decisions ensure you come to correct route and have made complete hash in the statue. Loaning £10million past. without proper documentation. Changing the Market. Reopening Abington Street -
POST0241 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt NWRR to be built 2 years before NNOR and admitted traffic would be horrendous - whatever are you thinking of? Clearly no one live in Option 8 Spur B but only if Pollution above EU legal Questionnaire area or visits at rush hour. Pollution levels above EU legal levels. Supposed to be working for local taxpayers, who pay your wages. If you you solve pollution and levels in Kingsthorpe really want to solve Kingsthorpe congestion and pollution problems and agree to construct both roads at same time then I choose congestion in Kingsthorpe option 8 and spur B. and both schemes are built at same time
POST0242 14/09/2017 Local Resident Spoilt Support NWRR and NNOR, Option 7, no comment on Spur. Strongly feel that the road should run south of the quarry as is just fields and Support NWRR and NNOR, South of Quarry as just Questionnaire would not enable future development of quarry for housing. Option 7, No comment of fields and to stop Spur development of quarry site.
POST0243 14/09/2017 Developer/ business Business card Business card with contact details POST0244 15/09/2017 Local Resident Letter Hannington will continue to rat run. In conjunction with A43 duelling. Must be dual. Does not want roundabout at Holcot road. Cyclist Village suffers from traffic No pedestrian footpath on Hannington and walkers pass through Hannington to and from Pitsford reservoir. Amenity village. NNOR will increase traffic. Road through and road should be dualled. corner of St. Peters Church Hannington to Holcot via Main St. not suitable for increased traffic. Bend around St Peter Church risk to pedestrians, cyclists, horses and or anywhere else on Main drivers. No footpath to safeguard pedestrians from traffic volumes. Street, Hannington.
POST0245 15/09/2017 Local Resident Email Asked for current traffic volumes on the A5199. I think NCC are using out of date data. [email protected] POST0246 15/09/2017 Parish Council Email Has any traffic analysis been undertaken to show the % of traffic that travels to businesses at Moulton Park? Has any traffic analysis Traffic destinations to Boughton been undertaken showing % of traffic that only travels through Moulton Park and onto other destinations in Northampton and beyond? Moulton Park and other destinations beyond Moulton Park [email protected] POST0247 18/09/2017 Local Resident Letter Spectacle Lodge resident, moving away. Understand discussions have been made in regards to routes, particularly Spur B. Not right to Strongly against Spur B Spectacle Lodge Resident Moulton procrastinate concerning such very important matters (such as people's living standards, the environment, wellbeing and interruption of has moved away. Their business) when one is no longer a member of that community. Feel strongly about routes and spurs and have professionals to shows views, concerns, influence importance of area route B will destroy, therefore need to know all relevant points concerning these issues. Happy to discuss at any etc. time, as will professionals that have put forward reports in last communication. Appendix C
KEY STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 Key Stakeholder Comments
Stakeholder Supported Option Comment MPs
MP Michael Ellis No Comment Support NWRR. Concern about map not reflecting magnitude of development, separate dates for completion of schemes will create increased traffic in Kingsthorpe. Could they be done together? Concerns about roads being too close to residential homes. MP Chris Heaton- No Comment No Comment Harris County Councillors Cllr Judith Option 8, Spur B Holcot benefited by Option 8 as will reduce rat Sheppard No reason given running if done correctly. Connection to A43 Moulton Division beneficial for revenue & provide excellent solution if Moulton heights is built. Concerned about disruption to Quarry newly planted trees. Delighted Spectacle Lane has been avoided. Boughton Green must be protected from development due to its high archaeological and historic regard. Cllr Jane Birch No Comment Copies of display boards required for resident associations.
Stakeholder Supported Option Comment Northampton Borough Councillors Northampton Borough Council, Boothville Ward Cllr Jamie Lane Option 8, Spur A Supports the need of NWRR and NNOR. Make it No reason given all dual carriageways.
Northampton Borough Council, Trinity Ward Cllr Jane Birch No Comment Copies of display boards required for resident associations.
Stakeholder Supported Option Comment
Daventry District Councillors
Cllr Chris Millar Option 7, neither Supports the need of NWRR and NNOR. This Spur needed in place as soon as possible. No reason given Daventry District Council, Spratton Ward
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 Stakeholder Supported Option Comment
Daventry District Councillors
Cllr Barry Frenchman Option 7, Spur B Supports the need of NWRR and NNOR. No reason given Daventry District Council, Yelvertoft Ward Cllr Alan Chantler Option 8, Spur A Supports the need of NWRR and NNOR. No reason given
Stakeholder Supported Option Comment
Parish Councils
Boughton Option 8, Spur B Important open spaces in Boughton. Raft of legislation Parish (only if proven to be protects the Church. Concerned about road closures on Council needed) Moulton Lane. Insufficient information & topographical information.
Pitsford Option 1 (with Why wasn’t Option 5 consulted on? Boughton Park not Parish alteration), Spur A public. Quarry is local nature reserve & RIGS. Red listed Council species. Closed proximity to villages and increased traffic through Pitsford. Moulton Do not support (Spur Last year’s comment repeated. Cost benefit analysis for Parish A – disastrous, Spur option 5, 7 & 8. Both spurs will have bad impact. Council B – direct traffic into Environmental impacts to be evaluated, funding Moulton) information to be provided and a lack of detail in proposals. No consideration for traffic movement Moulton to Boughton. Upton Parish No Comment Duston & Upton Parishes omitted from consultation. Council Concerns over pollution & sculpture of the road & the proximity to most vulnerable members of society. Dualling more appropriate. West Haddon No Comment Concerns on A428 & requests that consideration to Parish extend 40mph zone from West Haddon to Harlestone. Council Hannington Option 7, Spur B Both options to be built concurrently & dual. No planning Parish No reason given until all three major road scheme are completed. Council Junction at Holcot/Moulton Road will create rat run. Questions over modelling. Holcot Parish Option 7 (from Strongly welcomes the plans to construct NNOR. Rat run Council options from the Moulton to Holcot & Walgrave. Roads within Holcot are consultation), Spur B unsuitable for existing traffic & speeds. Holcot welcomes No reason given plans, if other less intrusive options are available. Holcot insists on bridge at Moulton/ Holcot junction. Alternative options suggested.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 Stakeholder Supported Comment Option Statutory Bodies
Daventry District Continued lack of Incorrect assumptions have been made about Option Council detail means not 5a. Significant structure to clear NLR & River. No details possible to come of the structure are included in the consultation. to a conclusion Potential to upgrade quarry access road as part of the regarding a NNOR. Option 5a would be effective replacement for a preferred route spur. Funding available for any of the options?
Northampton Not possible to Strongly supported, road should complete the strategic Borough Council give preference route from M1/A4500 to A43. Improved cycle & public without transport network NWRR realignment has positive landscape impact. Traffic volume impacts must be modelled. Spurs impacts, strategic must be clear routes. views, designs roads & junctions, cost differences
Environment No Comment The main points in this submission relate to: Managing Agency flood risk, Land contamination, & Water quality & Water Framework Directive.
Natural England No Comment Impact risk zones & SSSI. Several areas of priority habitat along the proposed routes. Seek to achieve net increase in biodiversity. Linear routes help to provide habitat connectivity. Several rights of way in the areas surrounding.
Historic England No Comment Remains of Neolithic archaeological monument to be preserved in situ. NNOR - acknowledges & welcomes changes made in respect of Boughton Hall Registered Park & Garden & Boughton Conservation Area. Spur A Fundamental alteration to character of setting.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 Stakeholder Supported Option Comment Non-Statutory Bodies
The Wildlife Trust No Comment Current Evidence Base & Constraints Plans are still not comprehensive enough. Not included Local Geological Sites & Protected & Notable Species sightings. Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area (NIA) zone & Green Infrastructure (GI) Corridor routes too.
Northamptonshire Option 8 (least Option 8 will cause least damage to landscape of Gardens Trust damaging), neither Boughton Park & associated buildings. Neither spur Spur (due to to be construction due to damage materially & material and environmentally. environmental damage)
The Northampton No Comment Northampton Borough has unacceptably high levels Federation of of traffic. More HGV’s using rural roads to rat run at Residents' peak time. Air quality poor. Strongly support, one Associations project not two, must be dualled with slip roads. NNOR will reduce congestion on A45 south.
The Folly Option 8 (as Spur A separates Boughton Park & its associated Fellowship furthest north), Spur follies which Heritage England Mention Specifically B (if proven about the interconnection. necessary)
NNHS Neither Options Horrified routes go through Pitsford Quarry when (Northampton there are alternatives. Red listed species. Fields to Natural History the south, not the same value as quarry even if it is Society) part of Boughton Park. Astronomical Observatory at The Drummonds.
Cycling UK, Option 8 (slightly Paramount that cycling routes out of north of Northampton preferable), Spur A Northampton are not blocked or impeded. Concerned (may have less impact of route on important cycling routes to impact on route 2) countryside. Option 8 because it may have less impact on Moulton-Pitsford road and Spur B includes Boughton Lane which is dangerous and unsuitable for cyclists. Underpasses or bridges.
CPRE West Option 8, Spur B Fully accepted NNOR is needed. It would/should form Northamptonshire (forms effective more effective barrier preventing Moulton expanding barrier preventing westwards towards Boughton. Moulton expanding
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 towards Boughton)
Stakeholder Supported Comment Option Local Businesses
Brampton Grange No Primarily a wedding venue often booked because of views & Wedding Venue & Comment tranquil space. Increased noise & pollution would not be Conference conducive to successful wedding venue. Should NNOR go Centre ahead, likelihood of having a successful livery yard would decrease.
Moulton College No Both options have major impact to college estate. Education, Comment economy, sport & local community severely compromised. Good pedestrian access is an essential requirement.
Pegasus Group No Slight amendment to Spur A would deliver number of Comment benefits. Red House Roundabout already suffers delay at peak times. The alternative southern route for the spur is in control of a single developer (Gallagher Estates).
Peter Brett Option 8, Detailed design safety audit, future proofing against traffic associates Spur A growth & development, noise/air quality, visual impacts, No reason ecology, Land Ownership, Archaeology & heritage & given agricultural land use.
NLR Option 8, Recognises demand for route & broadly supportive. Spur B Additional exit to Brampton Lane for A508 roundabout. No reason Concern of increased traffic on A5199 river bridge & given Boughton crossing as collection & delivery of railway vehicles. Concerns on construction phase and effect on operation of railway. Alternative route.
South Court Spur A (if Boughton Lane Pocket Park has not been contacted formally Environmental required and unlike NLR, have been given special interest. Spur B less destroys this historic boundary. If a spur is required then damaging to Spur A; less damaging to Boughton Lane Pocket Park. the park)
Gladman Not Spur A Interests in land off Holly Lodge Drive. Outline planning developments (would application for 75 dwellings, refused on 6th March 2017. impact Improvements to Holly Lodge Drive offered to benefit improvement existing highway users (awaiting appeal date). Spur A would proposals) impact proposals which have now been appealed. Given the significant interests, Gladman wishes to be notified should Spur A be progressed.
Persimmon No WSP designing their section of NWRR, keep liaising with Homes Comment them for any changes so they correctly design roundabout.
Consultation Feedback Report – July 2017 - Issue 1 2019 PRESS RELEASE
Public PR 10433
15 May 2019
For Immediate Release
NEW DATES: NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD INFORMATION EVENTS
Information events displaying proposals for Northampton’s North-West Relief Road will take place next month.
The Northamptonshire County Council project will link A428 Harlestone Road with the A5199 Welford Road and serve the housing growth proposed west and north of the town.
The scheme also aims to address congestion in parts of the town and reducing rat- runs on local roads. The county council will be responsible for building the section of road across the railway line and across the Nene floodplain connecting the developer's road to the A5199 Welford Road.
Following the public consultation in 2017 and cabinet approval of a preferred route in October 2018, the scheme is currently being progressed as a single carriageway with design features that may allow it to be converted to dual carriageway more easily at a later date.
Current progress includes geotechnical, archaeological and environmental investigations, with preliminary design nearing completion.
A draft business case has recently been submitted to part funder SEMLEP, and the final business case will be submitted in September.
A commitment of up to £4.2m of funding towards the scheme by Northampton Borough Council, together with £1.052m already secured via the Buckton Fields East section 106 agreement, has enabled the county council to progress the preparation work on its section of the scheme to the start of construction.
The information events give people a chance to see how plans for the scheme have developed and ask questions of the project team following the submission of the scheme planning application at the end of May. There will be an opportunity for people to view and comment on the planning application once it is submitted. The detailed design will be progressed over the next year and construction is expected to start in Spring 2020, with an anticipated two-year construction period.
The pre-planning public information event dates and locations:
· Duston Community Centre, Pendle Road, Duston NN5 6DT – Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - 8.30am – 8.00pm · The Pastures Community Centre, Welford Road, Kingsthorpe NN2 8PN– Saturday, June 15, 2019 - 8.30am - 8.00pm
ENDS These events were originally scheduled to take place this month but were postponed to reduce the risk of breaching purdah guidelines. From Liam Beasley, media relations specialist, tel 01604 367324 or 07392 280476;
Attachments
· NEW DATES: NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD INF NEW DATES: NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD INF The Mailbox Level 2 100 Wharfside Street, Birmingham B1 1RT wsp.com
PUBLIC