Page 1 – ’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

Agenda Item: Cabinet 10

Date of Meeting 2 December 2015

Lead Member Peter Finney Officer Local Member Deborah Croney Lead Director Mike Harries

Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and Subject of Report A37 / A354)

Executive Summary At the Cabinet meeting on 18 March 2015 members agreed to commission the council’s strategic partners Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to undertake economic assessment of potential major improvements to the A350 / C13 and A37 / A354 road corridors that could be promoted through the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership (DLEP). This included assessments of the C13 Melbury Abbas Bypass, the A350 Sturminster Marshall, Spetisbury and Charlton Marshall Bypass and the A354 Portland Road Relief Road (Western Relief Road). This report summarises their findings.

These road proposals have been longstanding schemes which despite previous studies and bids to government have not been progressed due to significant environmental and funding constraints which are still present. These schemes have not been seen as Government priorities for funding and therefore had no certainty of delivery. Consequently none of these road schemes are currently included within the three relevant District Local Plans or the Dorset Local Transport Plan (LTP3).

Government funding for transport schemes is now closely aligned to the delivery of economic growth and development whilst still being required to provide good value for money. Economic assessments have identified very high costs for each of the 3 new road schemes and have shown that as a return on investment they are generally poor value for money when a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is applied. Environmental and social costs have not presently been assessed. Page 2 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

Growth Deal 1 funding has been given to transport schemes in Dorset where it has been possible to demonstrate a strong economic case when linked to job and housing growth. The DLEP has recently asked for expressions of interest to be submitted in preparation for a potential round 3 of Growth Deal funding bids to Government. The LEP will prioritise funding for shovel-ready schemes for delivery from 2017. These North-South road schemes were not submitted because the evidence available at the time showed that other schemes had greater economic impact and deliverability. The County Council has submitted expressions of interest for funding for a number of transport schemes in and around Gillingham, Dorchester and Bournemouth airport that meet these LEP requirements.

Alternative solutions which may be at a lower cost or of a wider regional influence to improve North-South links through Dorset could now be investigated and worked up in time for future rounds of government bids.

Dorset County Council have recently been approached by Bath and North East Somerset, and Councils to work collaboratively, together with our respective LEPs , to compile an evidence based prospectus to assist in any future funding bid for a strategic infrastructure improvement between the M4 and the ports of Poole and Portland.

A letter has been sent to the Under Secretary of State Andrew Jones MP seeking to begin this process and the wider debate with regional partners’ proceeds.

Despite concerted efforts, we continue to be unable to secure definitive land owner consent to carry out slope stabilisation on the C13 Dinah’s Hollow. As a result, it is now likely that any construction works will be delayed until 2017.

With the commencement of works at Dinah’s Hollow likely to be delayed into 2017, it is necessary to reconsider in the interim period, whether the proposed slope stabilisation works on the C13 at Dinah’s Hollow should proceed whilst these regional initiatives are being investigated. Cabinet are asked to consider whether we should suspend the Dinah’s Hollow project pending the completion of the collaborative work detailed above being completed.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment: The report focusses on the information from the economic assessment of North-South transport infrastructure and as such does not lead to any immediate outcomes requiring assessment. However, the issues of rurality and poor connectivity have a significant impact, economically for businesses and communities as well as socially. The economic assessment will be one part of the evidence required to demonstrate the need for improvements. Any specific scheme developed in due course will be subject to its own Equality Impact Page 3 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

Assessment.

Use of Evidence: Evidence has been drawn from the LTP3, DLEP, Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and Government funding announcements. In preparing the study report, our partner consultants PB have engaged with senior transport officers from Somerset, Bournemouth and Poole, Highways as well as North Dorset District Council planning and DCC economic development officers. Where specific options and proposals are developed, formal consultation will take place with a wide range of stakeholders.

Budget: All schemes would require external funding in addition to any corporate funding members choose to make available. Developing a business case to secure that external funding would cost £2-3M (2006 prices) with limited realistic chances of success. The scheme cost for the Melbury Abbas Bypass and improvements is £54.3M and for Spetisbury, Sturminster Marshall and Charlton Marshall Bypasses up to £54M (both at 2015 prices). The A354 Portland Road Relief Road scheme costs up to £941.9M (2015 prices) depending on how much of the route is tunnelled.

The budget for the design and construction of the Dinah’s Hollow soil stabilisation maintenance scheme is £4million, to date we have spent £600,000.

Risk Assessment: The risks associated with all three examined road schemes are high. This reflects both high scheme costs, and low scheme deliverability. The cost of developing the business case alone is high and it is unlikely to show a sufficiently compelling economic case to be able to secure external funding. Lower risk alternatives could be more fully investigated through further work.

The risk associated with the deferment of the C13 Slope Stabilisation scheme is low. A copy of the risk assessment is attached in Appendix 1

Other Implications. Sustainability: there is a risk that the new road proposals could encourage increased commuting between Blandford and Poole, leading to an associated increase in carbon emissions.

Recommendation That the Cabinet:

1. Considers the evidence contained within the economic assessments for the three new road schemes and advises how it wishes to proceed in the light of high costs and the correspondingly poor value for money. 2. Advises whether to investigate alternative lower cost options to improve North-South links through Dorset for example by alleviating C13 pinch points and working up the transport Page 4 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

schemes for the Western Dorset Growth Corridor.

3. Agrees to suspend the proposed Dinah’s Hollow Slope Stabilisation scheme until a definitive decision has been reached regarding the funding of a north/south strategic link between the M4 and Poole Port following the collaborative work with Bath and North East Somerset and Wiltshire Councils.

4. Agrees that should the Dinah’s Hollow Slope Stabilisation scheme be suspended, that further mitigation works detailed in paragraph 5.11 should be carried out as soon as practicable.

Reason for Evidence in the form of economic assessments for these long Recommendation standing road schemes has been secured. To ensure these are taken into account when future major scheme funding bids to Government are prepared and whether alternative transport strategies are required in light of the high cost of these road schemes.

Appendices Appendix 1 - C13 Reassessment of Risk of Maintaining Current Traffic Management Arrangements

Background Papers DLEP Strategic Economic Plan Economic Assessments

Report Originators Name: Matthew Piles and Contacts Tel: 01305 221336 Email: [email protected]

Name: Andrew Martin Tel: 01305 228182 Email: [email protected]

Page 5 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

1 Background

1.1 Parsons Brinckerhoff has been commissioned by to undertake a high level economic assessment study of North-South strategic roads through Dorset (A350/C13 and A37/A354). This work has looked at whether, as a result of planned employment and housing growth in Dorset and beyond, an economic case can be made to support the delivery of longstanding new road schemes in these corridors. This includes a C13 Melbury Abbas Bypass, the A350 Sturminster Marshall, Spetisbury and Charlton Marshall Bypass and the A354 Portland Road Relief Road. This is a similar approach undertaken to the A303 corridor by the South West Highways Alliance. The studies use 2010 prices to generate the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) for each scheme in line with DfT guidance. To give a more up-to-date picture, these costs have been factored up to 2015 prices for the purpose of this report.

2 A350/C13 Corridor Economic Assessment

C13 Melbury Abbas Bypass and improvements

2.1 In 2006 the A350 Corridor study undertaken by Dorset County Council considered three bypass options for Melbury Abbas and the promotion of alternative strategic routes including the A37/A303/A358 and the M3/A34 Corridor. The report concluded that increased journey times and distances of alternative routes would result in little effect on drivers already familiar with the A350 route. With regard to the bypass schemes, the report concluded that of all the highway improvement schemes, a bypass combined with on-line improvements at points along the length of the C13 would provide the largest reduction in traffic on the A350 (south of Iwerne Minster) and on the C13 at Melbury Abbas. However, the environmental and cost implications of such an option remain a concern.

2.2 Since the 2006 Corridor Study was undertaken, the Government has committed £2billion to improvements on the A303 and committed to start on three improvement schemes including dualling the A358 between Taunton and Southfields. Further to this, part funding has now been secured for improvements to Yeovil Western Corridor. In addition, improvements have been committed on the M3 (including Junction 9), and the A34 south of Oxford. It is possible that highways improvements on these corridors may increase their attractiveness for long distance strategic journeys to/from Poole thereby reducing strategic (through) traffic on the A350/C13.

2.3 The PB study has assessed the main economic costs and benefits of the proposed Melbury Abbas Bypass and C13 improvements (junction and visibility improvements along its length) and investigated the impact of both planned development in North Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth and planned infrastructure improvements on alternative North-South routes. Moving towards a more evenly balanced residential and employment land offering could increase self containment within each town and help to reduce commuting. A projected growth of 5% in traffic levels as a result of development has been applied to this economic assessment. The study has investigated existing traffic data to establish the following main findings:

Prior to the road closure at Dinah’s Hollow, around 72% of all traffic on the A350/C13 corridor was observed to use the C13. Since the closure came into effect, this dropped to around 54% on the C13. Around 15.4% of traffic on the A350 (prior to the road closure) between Shaftesbury and has the choice to switch to the C13. The survey results show that the majority of traffic is local as just 4.8% of traffic on the A350/C13 corridor between Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury has strategic Page 6 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

North-South origins and destinations. The most popular of which are between Poole and Gloucester, Cheltenham or further north. The bypass at Melbury Abbas would have a length of 0.8 miles and would result in journey time savings of 1.2 minutes for those vehicles already using the C13. It would result in a journey time saving of 4 minutes for those vehicles currently using the A350 which then switched to the C13. The implementation of the bypass scheme would result in up to 9% of A350 traffic switching to the C13.

2.4 Drawing on the above findings, the study presents an estimated Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) for the Melbury Abbas Bypass and C13 improvement scheme both with and without reassignment of strategic traffic to alternative North-South routes (including the A37 / A303 / A358 and M3 / A34 in light of planned improvements). The BCR is calculated on the basis of journey time and accident savings forecasts and needs to achieve a score of 2 or more to be considered a high Value for Money scheme.

2.5 In response to the main objectives, the study has determined that:

The estimated BCR for a scheme without any wider reassignment to alternative routes is between 1.01 and 1.61 representing low to medium value for money, and That the estimated BCR for a scheme with wider reassignment of strategic traffic to alternative routes is 0.88 to 1.39 representing poor to low value for money.

2.6 The cost of the C13 Melbury Abbas Bypass and associated C13 on-line improvements is estimated to be £54.3M (2015 prices). It is estimated that the scheme cost would need to reduce to a maximum of £22M (in 2010 prices and including 44% optimism bias) to represent a BCR of 2 or more in order to give high value for money.

2.7 The study also looked at a further option of undertaking on-line improvements at various points along the length of the C13 without a bypass or any interventions at Melbury. Although we do not currently have accurate scheme costs for this option, a scheme cost of less than £5M would generate a high BCR as a result of anticipated safety improvements. However, in this scenario, improvements in North-South connectivity would not be expected making it harder to attract the external funding to implement the scheme. Therefore it would need to be examined in the context of other similar road safety schemes to determine whether it should be prioritised on safety grounds alone.

A350 Charlton Marshall, Spetisbury & Sturminster Marshall Bypass

2.8 This study has assessed the main economic costs and benefits of two proposed bypass schemes for Charlton Marshall, Spetisbury and Sturminster Marshall, and investigated the impact of infrastructure improvements on wider alternative North- South routes. The first is a longer bypass of all 3 villages; the second is a shorter bypass of Spetisbury and Charlton Marshall only. Once again the planned growth in North Dorset, Poole and Bournemouth has been considered. The Local Plans promote a development strategy to create a more evenly balanced residential and employment land offering which could increase self containment within each town and help to reduce commuting. The study has investigated existing traffic data to establish the following main findings:

The survey results show that just 4.5% of traffic on the A350 corridor between the A31 and the A354 at Blandford Forum has strategic North-South origins and destinations. Page 7 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

The most popular origins and destinations of strategic A350 traffic are between Poole and Gloucester/Cheltenham or further north. A relatively low percentage of traffic on the A35 leaving Poole/Bournemouth (around 1%) currently uses this route to access destinations such as Bristol, Bath, Gloucester and other destinations to the north of Shaftesbury.

2.9 Drawing on the above findings, the study presents an estimated BCR for the two proposed bypass schemes both with and without reassignment of strategic traffic to alternative North-South routes (including the A37 / A303 / A358 and M3 / A34 in light of planned improvements), and with and without a ‘best case’ assumption for the impact of growth of the Port of Poole.

2.10 The high level economic case for the new road in terms of BCR, and excluding environmental and social factors has been assessed. The BCR is calculated on the basis of journey time and accident savings forecasts and a score of 2 or more is required for a scheme to be considered high Value for Money.

2.11 In response to the main objectives, the study has determined that:

The estimated BCR for the longer bypass scheme including optimism bias is between 1.03 and 1.55 representing low to medium value for money. The estimated BCR for the shorter bypass scheme including optimism bias is between 1.22 and 1.72 representing low to medium value for money.

2.12 The total cost of the longer scheme at 2015 prices including optimism bias is £51.020M. The total cost of the shorter at 2015 prices including optimism bias is £54.08M. The price difference is due to different alignments and junction arrangements.

2.13 Overall, the shorter bypass scheme results in slightly higher BCRs than the longer bypass scheme. This is due to the higher journey time and accident savings forecast for the shorter scheme. However, with optimism bias included (as per HM Treasury and DfT Web Tag best practice), the estimated BCR for the shorter scheme represents low to medium Value for Money.

2.14 Sensitivity tests have been undertaken to assess the BCRs in light of forecast growth at the Port of Poole and impacts of wider reassignment as a result of improvements to alternative North-South routes such as A37/A303/A358. These sensitivity tests do not impact significantly on the Value for Money interpretations, with the schemes continuing to represent low to medium Value for Money with the inclusion of optimism bias. Overall, the shorter bypass scheme results in higher BCRs than the longer bypass scheme. This is due to the higher journey time and accident savings forecast for the short scheme, along with its lower cost. However it is unlikely that either scheme would present any wider economic benefit potential above the growth already assumed given the presence of alternative North-South strategic routes to/from Poole, constraints further north on the A350, and the balance of employment and housing planned around the study area.

Summary for the A350 / C13 Corridor

2.15 As a result of these findings for the Melbury Abbas Bypass and Charlton Marshall, Spetisbury & Sturminster Marshall Bypass schemes along the A350/C13 it remains difficult to build an economic case to demonstrate a link between the provision of this scheme and the delivery of jobs and housing growth. Page 8 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

2.16 If the bypass schemes were not delivered it is unlikely that this would limit growth at the Port of Poole given the presence of alternative North-South routes such as the A37/ A303/A358 and the M3/A34. Given that these routes are soon to undergo improvements in quality, larger vehicles from the Port may be attracted to use these routes over the A350/C13 corridor. Growth planned in the local area will be concentrated in Gillingham, Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury and will include a balance of employment and residential encouraging more internal than external trips. It is unlikely that such development would therefore generate significant demand on the A350/C13 corridor.

3 A37 / A354 Corridor Economic Assessment

3.1 Significant growth is planned for Dorchester, Weymouth and Portland. This totals around 4,590 homes (mostly in Weymouth and Dorchester), associated employment, expansion of Portland Port, and large research/visitor attractions in Portland. There are current imbalances between employment and residential development in Dorchester and Weymouth leading to large amounts of commuting. Moving towards a more evenly balanced residential and employment land offering could increase self containment within each town and help to reduce commuting. It could also assist in relieving future constraints on the A354 between Weymouth and Dorchester, and local roads within these towns. The planned growth in employment in Portland may have the potential to draw some of those commuting to Dorchester to Portland instead. Widening travel choice between Dorchester, Weymouth and Portland will therefore be key to unlocking growth within the area.

3.2 In Portland, the planned expansion includes:

Creation of in excess of 3,000 jobs i.e. doubling the existing jobs in Portland; Attracting around 1 million visitors per annum to new attractions (i.e. Jurassica and MEMO); An increase in Port passengers of 36,000 per annum.

3.3 If all the above growth were realised, this would generate significant additional demand on the transport network to Portland. It is possible that many of the new jobs created have the potential to be filled from Weymouth and Portland, thereby addressing local employment needs and limiting external demand.

3.4 The proposed visitor attractions Jurassica and MEMO, along with the Port expansion, are envisaged to be of national and international importance, likely to hold a significant draw externally. The number of forecast additional visitors/passengers averaged over a working year could result in around 4,000 people per day – though it is acknowledged that this number will vary seasonally and by day of the week. There will also be a certain amount of internal demand (i.e. Port passengers visiting the new attractions and/or remaining within Portland, and existing visitors accessing the attractions). However, this, along with internal (Weymouth to Portland) proposed employment trips, is generally in line with the 28% growth in traffic to 2030 (or 4,670 additional two-way daily vehicle trips on Portland Beach Road) that has been assumed within the economic assessment.

3.5 Given that employment trips generated by growth have the potential to be internal to Weymouth and Portland, but that new attractions/passengers are likely to have a wider draw, it would be reasonable to assume that overall the proportional wider draw of Portland may not change significantly to existing patterns. On this basis, 39% of the Page 9 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

additional 4,670 forecast two-way trips could be expected to distribute to the wider road network (i.e. A37, A354, A35). This would result in 1,821 two-way daily trips on the wider network. Assuming a distribution in line with existing traffic counts on these routes, this would result in a 4% increase in traffic on the A35 (east and west), A37 and A354.

3.6 Previous Structure and Local Plans have included an A354 Portland Road relief road also known as the Western Route. There is no current policy or scheme for this route and the Local Transport Plan only commits to reinvestigate it beyond 2026. Recent discussions have revived interest in the route as a way of reducing congestion and unlocking growth in Portland. In 2003 the scheme was estimated to cost £19M. Environmental and ecological advice now requires that in order to overcome the significant landscape impacts this road would have in this very sensitive location, the entire road would have to be hidden in a tunnel. This was not accounted for in the 2003 cost estimate.

3.7 The potential future demand for the A354 Portland Road relief road has been assessed by the consultants. The average is around 1,000 two way vehicles per hour in 2021. This assumes planned growth around Weymouth, Portland and Dorchester is realised.

3.8 The high level economic case for the new road in terms of BCR, and excluding environmental and social factors has been assessed. The BCR is calculated on the basis of journey time and accident savings forecasts and a score of 2 or more is required for a scheme to be considered high Value for Money.

Without a tunnel the cost of the bypass scheme is £37.1M (2015 prices) and the BCR is 2.99. With the required 8km tunnel the cost of the bypass scheme is £941M (2015) and the BCR is 0.12 which is poor Value for Money.

3.9 The maximum scheme cost possible to achieve a BCR of 2.0 (high Value for Money) is £55.6M (2015) which could only be achieved without a tunnel. Given that the estimated costs for a tunnel are around £60M per km, it is unlikely that a tunnel scheme of any length more than a kilometre would result in high Value for Money.

Focus for Improvements

3.10 Given the likely impact of proposed growth in Portland on the local road network, it is recommended that priority is given to maximising existing potential and/or improving transport links (including encouraging sustainable travel links) between Weymouth and Portland, and within Weymouth. If existing congestion and delays on the A354 within Weymouth are not addressed these issues are likely to be exacerbated as a result of growth in traffic and become a barrier to growth in Portland.

3.11 Beyond Weymouth, the wider traffic impact is likely to place pressure on the A354 south of Dorchester and the A35 around Dorchester, which is already identified as an existing constraint on the network. Addressing the apparent employment opportunity in/around Weymouth and improving public transport links between Weymouth and Dorchester may help to mitigate this and address existing levels of commuting by car.

Page 10 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

3.12 Further afield, growth proposed in Portland, Weymouth and Dorchester is forecast to increase traffic on strategic routes by around 4%, which is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the wider road network. However, attracting visitors to nationally and internationally important Port and new attractions is likely to be linked to journey times and ease of access. Improving journey times and transport access to Portland from further afield is therefore an important factor in releasing growth.

Next Steps

3.13 The following next steps are recommended by PB with regard to facilitating planned growth around Weymouth, Portland and Dorchester:

Investigate whether there is a more cost efficient solution than a tunnelled road to either bypass through traffic from Weymouth town centre, and/or improve journey times for through traffic. A signage strategy for Weymouth & Portland could also be considered. Develop solutions to maximise existing potential and/or improve transport links (including encouraging sustainable travel links) between Weymouth and Portland, and within Weymouth. This could include public transport and cycle improvements. Investigate options to improve public transport links/patronage between Weymouth and Dorchester to address existing levels of commuting by car from Weymouth to Dorchester. The opportunity for a Park and Ride south of Dorchester to help reduce traffic demand around the A354 and A35 south of Dorchester, and Dorchester town centre should continue to be pursued. Focus on schemes which improve journey times and transport access to Portland from further afield, in particular on the A35 around Dorchester where existing constraints are apparent.

4 Risk for all schemes

4.1 None of these 3 bypass schemes are currently included as reservations within the relevant Local Plans. Land reservations for each of the road schemes would have to be put into Local Plans when they are next reviewed. All are likely to be reviewed in the next 5 years. The Local Transport Plan would also have to be rewritten to include the schemes. Changing these plans is a lengthy process which requires different stages of consultation and appraisal. In order to be able to find the Local Plans sound at examination, the planning inspector would have to be convinced that all the policies and proposals within that plan are fully funded and deliverable within the plan period.

5 C13 Dinah’s Hollow Slope Stabilisation Scheme

5.1 The C13 at Dinah`s Hollow, was closed in April 2014 following the advice of two civil engineering consultants Brody Forbes and Parsons Brinkerhoff which identified the risk of a landslide burying a light vehicle. The closure presented significant problems for local residents and the travelling public, both within the village itself and also the surrounding highway network.

5.2 The road remained closed whilst site investigations were carried out and a design for the stabilisation of the banks was completed. To carry out the necessary engineering works, access to the slopes on each side of the Hollow would be required and therefore landowner consent was a prime consideration, discussions were therefore initiated as soon as this issue was identified.

Page 11 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

5.4 On 13 May 2015 with the Dinah`s Hollow still closed, Cabinet were presented with a report that recommended that the C13 should be re-opened as a revised timescale for any future works was emerging that was significantly longer than first envisaged with the likelihood of works being delayed into 2017. The Cabinet report contained an analysis of the subsequent risks presented as a result of this possible delay and considered whether the overall risk to the wider network and community would be reduced if the road was reopened.

5.5 Cabinet agreed to reopen the C13 pending suitable mitigation measures being put in place, principally the placement of barriers at the bottom of each bank and the siting of a traffic signal system to introduce a single file traffic flow in the centre of the carriageway.

5.6 The Cabinet decision was examined by Audit and Scrutiny Committee on 10 June 2015 and the road was duly opened in early July. Since the reopening, traffic levels on the C13 and A350 have returned to pre closure levels.

5.7 Since June, Officers have been involved in a number of statutory processes associated with works being carried out within an area of outstanding natural beauty, such as Dinah’s Hollow. This work included producing a number of ecological reports, a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, detailed survey of all trees within the Hollow, a Woodland Tree Preservation Order Application, noise study and securing a licence from Natural England relating to the closure of the badger setts.

5.8 As previously mentioned, to proceed with the scheme, landowners consent to allow the County Council to access the slopes, has been required and at the time of writing this remains unresolved. As a result it is unlikely that the works will be able to proceed as planned in early January and it remains a possibility that to access the slopes in future, a Compulsory Purchase Order process will be required which will result in a commencement date sometime in 2017 at the earliest.

5.9 In recent weeks, Dorset County Council has been in discussion with colleagues in Wiltshire Council and Bath and North East Somerset Council to explore, in conjunction with respective LEPS, the possibility of preparing a collaborative evidence based prospectus document that could ultimately assist in the development of a case for improvement of the infrastructure links from the M4 to Poole Port.

5.10 With the outline target cost for the Dinah’s Hollow slope stabilisation works totalling £2.5 million, Cabinet are asked to consider whilst this strategic regional initiative is being explored, whether there is a case for deferring any further works in Dinah’s Hollow until a definitive decision has been made on the M4 – Poole Port infrastructure initiative.

5.11 Should the Dinah’s Hollow works be suspended it will however be necessary to carry re visit the adequacy of the existing traffic management layout and the subsequent risk presented to the Authority as a result. The Corporate Risk Team have carried out an assessment of this revised risk, and as a result it is proposed to carry out a number of activities to ensure any risk to the travelling public and the reputation of the County Council is kept to a minimal level. These operations would include:

Replacing the plastic barriers currently placed through the Hollow with a slightly higher more robust concrete version. Resurfacing the carriageway in West Lane. Resurface the carriageway in Boundary Lane. Page 12 – Dorset’s North-South highway infrastructure (A350 / C13 and A37 / A354)

Introduce further mitigation measures at the Church Bank to deal with falling rocks. Monthly site inspections to monitor and slippage, displacement of material or movement of trees.

It is anticipated this work would total approximately £350,000, and can be financed from within the overall scheme budget.

A copy of the risk assessment is attached in Appendix 1

6 Conclusion

6.1 The DLEP SEP did not propose improvements to the A350/C13 or A37/A354 as it was not possible to demonstrate the essential links to housing and economic growth. The outcome of Dorset's bid to the Local Growth Fund, which provides funding for improved access to key employment sites at the Port of Poole and Bournemouth Airport, demonstrates the substantial change in the funding landscape for major transport schemes that have occurred in recent years.

6.2 Rural bypass schemes (such as those proposed for A350/C13), regardless of how much they may be needed by local residents, will struggle to compete for the limited funds available unless they can also demonstrate the potential to access and/or release the land that will enable much needed employment and housing development to be brought forward leading to economic growth.

6.3 In simple terms, the process to secure any transport scheme involves establishing need; developing the necessary business case; securing funding and planning consents and agreement to acquire the land on a confirmed route usually using Compulsory Purchase Order powers. Embarking on a strategy of major improvement to the A350, C13 and A354 would require sustained funding over many years. To develop the necessary business case in sufficient detail to take forward a major highway scheme would require the County Council to invest at least £2-3M (2006 prices). This commitment would be required with no certainty that planning consent or the full funding to construct a scheme could be secured.

Mike Harries Director for Environment and the Economy October 2015

IMPACT

Summary of Current Risks Strategic Priorities Financial Health & safety Reputational Service Delivery and Opportunities Risk Register for: 0High Likelihood ¾

Reopening C13 on temporary basis (Melbury 1Medium i.e. a greater Major impact (positive Fatality or major injury/ Sustained/long term Unable to deliver Financial impact > £1 HIGH than 20% or negative on a illness (long term negative public critical services (levels Abbas) 3 Low million strategic priority) incapacity / disability) attention one and two) 4 chance of: Short to medium term i.e. a greater Financial impact Moderate impact Moderate injury or Unable to deliver impact on public Marc Eyre MEDIUM than 20% between £500,000 - £1 (positive or negative on illness (including critical services (level Last Review by: Date: 05/11/15 memory (affecting chance of: million a strategic priority) RIDDOR reportable) three) Shortmore tothan medium one ward) term Minor/ negligible Potential for minor impact on public Financial impact less impact (positive or injury/illness (requiring Minor disruption to LOW i.e. : memory (affecting one than £500,000 negative) on a strategic minimal intervention or service delivery ward) / minor priority treatment) complaints or rumours No Risk Description Risk Status Risk Lead Date Date Risk Current Controls Current Risk Movement Is the current Notes Further actions identified to achieve Target Date Open or Closed Identified Reviewed How do we currently manage this High / Since Last level of risk an acceptable level of risk for further risk? Medium / Review acceptable? actions Low Improving / i.e. Yes or No, Deteriorating / based on the No Change current controls Click here for a Risk Calculator 1 Negative impact on the Council's Open Andrew 22/04/15 05/11/15 The re‐opening of the C13 is Low No Change Yes Negligible impact on the Council's None strategic priorities (economic / Martin considered to have a positive strategic priorities. wellbeing) bearing on the "Economic Growth" priority 2 Risk of fatality or serious injury Open Andrew 22/04/15 05/11/15 Traffic management works Medium No Change Yes Ongoing inspections have not highlighted Ongoing inspections to identify any Martin implemented to reduce health and any deterioration in the slopes. deterioration in safety; consider safety risk (reduced road width ‐ whether beneficial to implement single lane; traffic signals/"give and heavier duty barriers, in view of take"; safety barriers; warning signs potential delay of full reopening (2019) of potential for rock falls; a reduced speed limit through the hollow; regular maintenance of the slopes to remove any loose or unstable ground/tree roots; weekly visual inspections)

3 Sustained and long‐term negative public Open Andrew 22/04/15 05/11/15 Ongoing and proactive publicity; Low No Change Yes Could be additional media attention due Ongoing communication Ongoing attention Martin communication team input in to to later reopening (2019) but not weekly project team meeting anticipated to cause any significant deterioration in the risk 4 Traffic congestion Open Andrew 22/04/15 05/11/15 Road narrowing, which is managed Low No Change Yes No further action Martin with temporary traffic signals, has been modelled using the Paramics analysis tool to ensure that queing traffic does not block the free passage of oncoming traffic

1