Lynchford Road Improvements Consultation

Farnborough Growth Package – Lynchford Road Improvements Consultation

Findings Report

December 2018

Contents Introduction 4 Context 4 Consultation aims 4 Geographical scope of consultation 5 Summary of key findings 6 Responses to the consultation 8 Who responded? 8 Location of respondents 9 Respondents experience of travelling around North Camp 10 Modes of transport used to travel around North Camp 10 Frequency of travel through or around North Camp 10 Reason for travel through or around North Camp 11 Respondents’ feedback on the proposed Lynchford Road improvements 13 Overall agreement with the proposed improvements to Lynchford Road 13 Reasons that respondents only agreed with ‘some’ aspects of the proposed improvement scheme at Lynchford Road 14 Reasons that respondents disagreed with all aspects of the proposed improvement scheme for Lynchford Road 19 Respondents’ views on delivering against the objectives 22 Respondents’ views on specific elements of the proposed improvements to Lynchford Road 23 Queen’s Roundabout and Alexandra Road 23 St. Albans Roundabout and North Camp village 24 Peabody Road 25 Proposed improvements to open space 26 Further comments on the proposed improvements to Lynchford Road 27 Potential impact of the proposed improvement scheme to Lynchford Road 30 The perceived impact of the proposed scheme on the local area 30 The perceived impact of the proposed scheme on respondents or organisations, groups or businesses 33 Unstructured Responses 36 Appendices 38 Appendix 1 – Research approach 38 Appendix 2 – Interpreting the data 39 Appendix 3 – Consultation Response Form 40 2

Appendix 4 – List of organisations or groups who responded to the consultation 50 Appendix 5 – Consultation participant profile 51 Appendix 6 – Coded responses to open questions 52 Appendix 7 – Data tables 60

Introduction

Context

The County Council has provisionally secured £6.7 million of Local Growth Deal funding from the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership for improvements to Farnborough, plus £2 million of local contributions, giving a total package of £8.7 million for highways improvements.

An initial consultation on proposals to improve congestion and accommodate increasing travel demands in Farnborough and the wider Blackwater Valley area was undertaken between Tuesday 28 November 2017 and Tuesday 23 January 2018. The results of the exercise included a recommendation to undertake further consultation on a preferred design of the A3011 Lynchford Road at North Camp Village which took place between Monday 1 October 2018 and Monday 12 November 2018. This report summarises the consultation findings.

Consultation aims

The consultation was an opportunity for local residents and businesses to provide their views on the proposed improvement scheme to Lynchford Road.

The consultation sought to understand:

• the extent to which residents and the public support the County Council’s proposed scheme • the level of support or opposition to specific components of the scheme • how the scheme may impact people who travel in and around North Camp Village • alternative options that could be considered.

Geographical scope of consultation

The below map shows the location of the proposed improvements:

Queens St Alban’s Roundabout Roundabout

Summary of key findings

In Phase One of the Lynchford Road consultation, 43% of respondents agreed with the principle of improvements, whilst 27% disagreed and 30% were unsure.

In Phase Two, the response was similarly mixed. The majority of respondents (55%) supported the County Council’s preferred option for making improvements to Lynchford Road. Of these 16% agreed with ‘all aspects’ of it and a further 39% agreed with some aspects. This compares to 36% of respondents who ‘did not agree with any aspects’ of the scheme.

Those in favour of the scheme recognised its potential to ease congestion – particularly during peak hours and when major events were held in the area. Some also noted that the scheme could improve safety for those that walk or cycle.

The possible closure of Old Lynchford Road from St. Albans Roundabout and at Southampton Street near Queens Roundabout was the main reason that respondents did not agree with all aspects of the proposed scheme. Respondents were concerned that the closure could create unnecessary disruption to those that live in the area, and that both routes currently offer relief to congestion at peak hours.

Respondents that disagreed with all aspects of the scheme were likely to do so because of the perceived impact it may have on the safety of children. Many respondents cited how the proximity of the proposed road widening by The Wavell School could create a potentially unsafe crossing.

Of the 24 specific elements of the proposed improvement scheme, those that received the most support were:

• improving the pedestrian and cycle route over Alexandra Road • introducing a two-way cycle path linking to Old Lynchford Road • enhancing the pedestrian space west of Camp Road • introducing two lanes Eastbound/ two lanes Westbound on Lynchford Road past Lille Barracks.

For the first three elements, support well outweighed opposition, whilst the fourth received similar levels of support and opposition.

The elements that were least well supported were:

• the option of introducing a complete closure of access between Old Lynchford Road and St. Albans roundabout • the option of closing Old Lynchford Road - west of Southampton Street (by the Holiday Inn) to provide more cycle and pedestrian space • widening of Alexandra Road southbound to two lanes approaching the roundabout • widening of the Wavell School crossing to two lanes in both directions but with more given time to pedestrians.

For these specific elements of the scheme, at least half of respondents disagreed with the proposed improvements, and the proportion of those that did so was significantly higher than those who agreed.

It should be noted that the potential closure of Old Lynchford Road at Southampton Street near Queens Roundabout is not part of the preferred scheme.

Responses to the consultation

Who responded?

There were 334 responses to the consultation questionnaire, which breaks down as follows:

• 246 responses were submitted through the online Response Form • 88 were submitted via the paper Response Form.

Of these responses, 320 were from individuals and nine were from organisations or groups.

There were also nine separate unstructured responses that were received within the consultation period; these responses are also included in this report.

The majority (87%) of responses were from local residents.

1% 3% Local resident

Who are you? 7% (Base: 328) Member of the public

Elected Member

Organisation, group, business or school 87%

A detailed participant profile is provided in Appendix 5.

Location of respondents

The map (below) shows the distribution of respondents by postcode. The highest concentration of respondents were from North Camp; however, responses were received from across Farnborough and a smaller proportion came from Aldershot. (Base: 229)

Legend

Number of respondents

Respondents experience of travelling around North Camp

Modes of transport used to travel around North Camp

Respondents represented a broad range of travel modes, with almost all having experience of travelling around North Camp by motorised transport, and many having walked or cycled around the area. Around one in five respondents had used public transport.

Mode of transport by respondents 90% (base: 332, multi-choice)

65%

29% 18% 5% 3% 0%

Car On foot Bicycle Public Motorcyclist HGV or van Other transport

Frequency of travel through or around North Camp

Travel issues, particularly those

experienced by car users, were likely 1% to be well known by the majority of 3% respondents, with 71% of 71% respondents travelling through North 9% Camp on five or more days during an average week.

A further 17% indicated that they 17% travel through the area on three to four days per week.

How many days in an average week do you travel in North Camp Village? (base 334)

5 days or more 3 to 4 days 1 to 2 days Less than once a week Never

Reason for travel through or around North Camp

The majority of respondents said that the main reason they travelled in and around the area was that they lived in North Camp (65%). Many respondents also travelled to visit shops in the area (59%). One in three respondents said that they went to North Camp for leisure, whilst an additional one in four travelled to North Camp to access local services such as health care, job centres or council offices.

For what reason(s) do you come into or travel around Lynchford Road? (base 332, multi-choice)

I live in North Camp Village 65%

Shopping 59%

For leisure 33%

To access local services 26%

Work in the North Camp area 18%

Study nearby/ school run 15%

Work in Farnborough, travel via North 13% Camp

Commute via Farnborough via North 10% Camp

Other 12%

Respondents that travelled through North Camp Village because they live in the area were more likely to make these journeys during the weekends, but also made journeys during the weekday at between 7:00-9:00 or 15:30-18:30. The least popular time to travel was between 12:00-14:00 during the week day.

Respondents that made journeys to access retail areas were, similarly, most likely to make these journeys over the weekend, but around half also used the area to shop during the week – including during the evening peak.

The most popular time to visit leisure facilities, such as restaurants and bars, was outside of peak hours – either during the week or at weekends.

Respondents that travelled to North Camp to access local services such as health care, day centres or council services, were likely to make these journeys at any time except peak hours on weekday mornings (7:00-9:00).

Respondents’ feedback on the proposed Lynchford Road improvements

Overall agreement with the proposed improvements to Lynchford Road

Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the proposed improvement scheme for Lynchford Road. Just over half of respondents (55%) were positive about the proposed improvement scheme, with 16% agreeing with all aspects of the proposal and a further 39% agreeing with at least some aspects.

However, just over a third of respondents said that they did not agree with ‘any aspects’ of the scheme.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed improvement scheme to Lynchford Road? (Base: 333)

16%

36%

39%

Yes, I agree with all aspects Yes, I agree with some aspects I neither agree nor disagree with the scheme No, I don't agree with any aspects Not sure

Overall agreement by location of respondents

The below map shows a geographic comparison of agreement with ‘all’ and ‘some aspects’ of the proposed scheme, versus disagreement of ‘all aspects’ of the proposed scheme:

Location of respondents that do not agree Location of respondents that agree with all aspects of the Location of respondents that agree with some with any aspects of the proposed proposed improvement to Lynchford Road (Base: 37) aspects of the proposed improvement to Lynchford Road (Base: 84) improvement to Lynchford Road (Base:84)

Support for the proposed improvement scheme was highest just north of Lynchford Road. Disagreement by contrast was more marked specifically along Lynchford Road itself, suggesting that residents closest to the improvement scheme were more likely to disagree. Those that mentioned they agree with only ‘some aspects’ of the proposed scheme were more likely to be spread across the Farnborough area.

Reasons that respondents only agreed with ‘some’ aspects of the proposed improvement scheme at Lynchford Road

Respondents were asked to comment on why they agreed with ‘some’ aspects of the proposal. The chart (below) quantifies the verbatim comments for this question:

Reasons respondents only agreed with 'some' aspects of the proposed improvement scheme for Lynchford Road. (Base: 113, multi-choice)

Concerned about access off St. Albans to Old 31% Lynchford Road Concerned about access to Old Lynchford 22% Road (Queens roundabout) Concerned about the creation of additional lane 19%

Concerned with pedestrian/ cycling proposal 17% Concerned about safety of school children

crossing 16% Agreement with pedestrian/ cycling aspect of the scheme 6% Mentioned environmental concerns 6% Agreement with proposed method to reduce congestion 5%

Agreement with the creation of additional lane 4%

Concerned about speed of traffic in general 3%

Agreement with additional planting 3%

Improvements should be made to other roads 3%

Alternative routes should be considered 2%

Introduce 'smart' traffic lights 2%

Improvement needed for public transport 2%

Need more information on other alternative schemes 1%

Concerned about road works disruption 1%

31% of respondents who indicated that that they agreed with ‘some’ aspects of the proposal, stated that this was because they had concerns regarding the potential closure of Old Lynchford Road from St. Albans Roundabout:

Respondents were concerned that closing the access from St. Albans Roundabout to Old Lynchford Road would cause unnecessary disruption, with many suggesting that this route was often used by residents to access their homes as well to avoid current congestion on Lynchford Road.

A further 22% of respondents commented that the potential closure of Old Lynchford Road from Southampton Street near Queens Roundabout could also cause disruption:

It should be noted that the potential closure of Old Lynchford Road at Southampton Street near Queens Roundabout is not part of the preferred scheme.

19% of respondents mentioned the proposed road widening, with many comments highlighting concerns about the impact it could have on residents, as well as the speed and volume of traffic. A smaller percentage of respondents suggested that the scheme could only be successful if the road was widened throughout the area:

Others spoke about the potential changes to pedestrian and cycling provision in the area (17%), with some feeling that the proposal may not go far enough to provide separate walking and cycling lanes:

Respondents also questioned the adequacy and safety of specific crossings, particularly the zebra crossing on Alexandra Road, and the crossing opposite The Wavell School.

16% of respondents expressed a concern that the proposed changes to Lynchford Road may jeopardise the safety of school children crossing to reach The Wavell School:

Despite the majority of this respondent group disagreeing with various aspects of the proposal, some respondents shared their thoughts on the aspects which they did agree with. 6% of respondents recognised the value of improving pedestrian and cyclist provision in the area:

Reasons that respondents disagreed with all aspects of the proposed improvement scheme for Lynchford Road

Respondents who indicated that they did not agree with any aspect of the proposal were also asked to provide a comment.

This group mentioned some similar reasons to those raised previously such as being concerned about the creation of the additional lane. This group were, however, much more concerned about the safety of school children crossing Lynchford Road.

Reasons respondents disagreed with 'all' aspects of the proposed improvement scheme for Lynchford Road. (Base: 113, multi-choice)

Concerned about safety of school children crossing 41%

Concerned about the creation of additional lane 38%

Mentioned environmental concerns 26%

Alternative routes should be considered 8%

Concerned about access off St. Albans to Old Lynchford Road 6%

Concerned with pedestrian/ cycling proposal 4%

Concerned about access to Old Lynchford Road (Queens roundabout) 4%

Improvement needed for public transport 4%

Concerned about speed of traffic in general 3%

Concerned about new development 3%

Need more information on other alternative schemes 2%

Improvements should be made to other roads 2%

Introduce 'smart' traffic lights 1%

Concerned about road works disruption 1%

41% of respondents opposed the scheme due to a perceived risk to children when crossing Lynchford Road. In particular, respondents focused on the proximity of The Wavell School to Lynchford Road:

Respondents felt that the proposal to increase road capacity could potentially encourage increased speed and volume of traffic, which could in turn put students at risk.

38% of those who disagreed with the proposed scheme mentioned that they were concerned about road widening more generally, especially for its potential to increase traffic along Lynchford Road:

Respondents felt that the road widening could do the opposite of what is intended, and potentially encourage more cars through Lynchford Road, doing little to relieve congestion and potentially discouraging customers from visiting North Camp retail area.

26% were worried about the perceived environmental impacts of the scheme, mentioning that both noise and air pollution could increase because of the proposed road widening:

A further 8% of respondents suggested that the County Council should consider improving alternative routes instead of Lynchford Road:

Respondents’ views on delivering against the objectives

Respondents were generally unclear about the schemes potential to deliver against the following five objectives:

• reduce congestion and increase reliability for car journeys • improve quality of the public realm/ pedestrian environment and crossings in North Camp village • enhance pedestrian links and crossings with North Camp village • improve quality, continuity and safety of cycle links between North Camp village and the wider Blackwater Valley • improve bus journey times and reliability between Farnborough, North Camp and Aldershot.

Do you believe that the improvements to Lynchford Road will deliver against the following objectives? (Base: 331, 331,330,329,328)

Overall disagreement generally outweighed agreement. On average, 41% of respondents felt that the scheme would not meet its objectives compared to 30% who felt that it would.

Respondents’ views on specific elements of the proposed improvements to Lynchford Road

In addition to providing overall feedback on the proposed improvement scheme, respondents were also asked for their views on specific elements. This section summarises feedback received on each element of the overall scheme.

Queen’s Roundabout and Alexandra Road

Respondents did not always recognise the value of proposed improvements between Queen’s Roundabout and Alexandra Road, with, on average, 46% disagreeing and 30% agreeing with proposals to:

• create two lanes Eastbound and one lane Westbound. • close Old Lynchford Road west of Southampton Street to provide more cycle and pedestrian space • move the crossing west and provide countdown timers to improve safety • widen the Wavell School crossing to two lanes in both directions, but with more given time to pedestrians.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed improvements to Lynchford Road between Queen’s Roundabout and Alexandra Road? (Base: 326, 326, 328, 327)

The most supported element was the option of moving the pedestrian crossing west and providing countdown timers to improve safety, which 37% of respondents agreed and 38% disagreed with.

St. Albans Roundabout and North Camp village

Although no one element of the proposed improvements to St. Albans Roundabout and North Camp village received majority agreement, respondents were most supportive of proposals to:

• improve the pedestrian and cycle route over Alexandra Road (48%) • enhance pedestrian space west of Camp Road (44%) • create pedestrian only space from Camp Road through to Peabody Road (40%).

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed improvements to St. Albans Roundabout and North Camp village? (Base: 325, 324, 325, 329, 326, 325, 327, 327,327,326)

In contrast, respondents were particularly against the potential full road closure between Old Lynchford Road and St. Albans Roundabout, with 60% of respondents either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with this element of the scheme.

Peabody Road

Respondents gave a mixed response to the proposed improvements for Peabody Road to the A331, with a notable proportion having no strong opinion about the specific schemes.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed improvements to Peabody Road to A331? (Base: 323,327,327,325)

In general there was more support for improvements on the section from Peabody Road to to A331 than other sections of Lynchford Road.

Many more respondents agreed (48%) than disagreed (21%) with the creation of a two- way cycle path linking to Old Lynchford Road.

Most respondents had an opinion about the potential creation of two lanes Eastbound and two lanes Westbound on Lynchford Road going past Lille Barracks, but their opinions were almost evenly split between support (45%) and opposition (44%).

Similarly, opinion was split with regards to widening the pedestrian crossing to two lanes Eastbound and two lanes Westbound but with more time given to pedestrians.

However, respondents were more likely to oppose (44%) than support (29%) options to remove parking bays east of Morris Road to allow for a wider footway and cycle track.

Proposed improvements to open space

Respondents were asked how they would like the open space around Old Lynchford Road, in the vicinity of Camp Road, to be used.

36% of respondents wanted to see additional green space or increased planting.

21% wanted the space to be used as a focal point for the village and the same percentage were keen to see the spare space used for parking.

The proposed improvements will create space around Old Lynchford Road in the vicinity of Camp Road. How would you like the space to be used? (Base: 322)

Green space or 21% increased planting 36% More parking

Civic/community space 17% Focal point for village

Other 21%

Further comments on the proposed improvements to Lynchford Road

Respondents were asked to provide a comment on the proposed improvements for Lynchford Road. The below graph quantifies the verbatim comments.

18% of respondents mentioned concerns about the proposals for the area between Queens Roundabout and Alexandra Road. Comments focused on the potential closure of Old Lynchford Road to Southampton Street, as well as concerns over the safety of school children crossing the road:

Similarly, respondents reflected that the road widening near The Wavell School could pose a danger to children. Some were also concerned that access to Southampton Street could become difficult for residents and those accessing the hotel, if the closure of the Old Lynchford Road went ahead, although this is not part of the preferred scheme.

16% of respondents mentioned alternative improvements to cycling and pedestrian facilities. The most frequently mentioned suggestion was to create a footbridge over Lynchford Road next to The Wavell School to resolve issues of crossing additional lanes of traffic. Others commented on how cycle routes should be segregated to ensure safety:

13% of respondents took the opportunity to mention other roads that could be improved in place of Lynchford Road:

Here, respondents were keen to highlight other opportunities around Farnborough which could be utilised to help smooth traffic flow through the area, whilst ensuring Lynchford Road remains as it is.

In addition, 13% of respondents mentioned alternatives to the current suggested scheme, particularly around relieving congestion in Lynchford Road:

Respondents reflected how Lynchford Road could be two lanes both Eastbound and Westbound to allow smooth traffic flow, whilst others suggested that alternatives to car use should be encouraged to ease traffic along the road.

12% of respondents were concerned about access around St. Albans Roundabout. In particular, they highlighted issues with access to parking in the area and the potential restriction of entry and exit to St. Albans Roundabout from Old Lynchford Road:

Potential impact of the proposed improvement scheme to Lynchford Road

The perceived impact of the proposed scheme on the local area

When asked what impact the proposed scheme could have on the local area respondents were mainly concerned that there may be a negative impact on the environment or appearance of the area, along with concerns that traffic flow might not improve as a result of the scheme. However, around one in four also took time to comment on the positive impact of the scheme.

Respondents comments on the impact of the prposed scheme on the local area. (Base: 218)

Proposal could negatively impact 30% environment/ appearance of area

Concerned about traffic flow 29%

Positive impact because of the proposal 23%

Negative impact on children who attend 14% The Wavell School

Negative impact on businesses 14%

Negative impact on pedestrians and cyclists 10%

Impact of road works 6%

General negative impact on residents 4% No works are needed 2%

Concerned about parking in the area 2%

Little or no impact 1%

30% of respondents mentioned that there could be a negative impact on the appearance or the environment of the local area:

Some respondents assumed that the proposed scheme may bring additional traffic and, as a result, lead to additional noise and air pollution, potentially impacting residents. Some perceived that this traffic may jeopardise the village feel and were concerned about a potential reduction in house prices that could follow.

Linked to this, 29% were concerned that traffic along Lynchford Road may encourage more vehicles through the area and in doing so, would not address traffic flow issues:

Respondents also suggested that the speed of traffic along Lynchford Road could potentially increase as a result, impacting on safety. Others felt that there may be a knock- on effect of increased traffic along smaller residential streets.

Despite this, 23% of respondents did see positives to the proposed scheme:

Respondents mentioned how the proposal could greatly improve traffic flow for motorists, improve travel times during peak hours and potentially ease traffic during major events in the town. Some also suggested that the scheme could improve safety for those that walk or cycle.

The perceived impact of the proposed scheme on respondents or organisations, groups or businesses

When asked about the impact that the proposed scheme could have on themselves, or their organisation, group or business, a quarter of respondents noted a potentially positive impact. However, respondents also shared their concerns about the proposed scheme, particularly around the perceived impact on residents.

The perceived impact of the proposed scheme on respondents or organisations, groups or businesses. (Base: 148)

Positive impact 24%

Mentioned an impact on residents 21% Mentioned an impact on small business 12% owners Mentioned concern about Traffic flow 11% Concerned about the crossing for Wavell 8% School children

Environmental impact 7% Mentioned negative impact on pedestrains/ 6% cyclists

Mentioned road works disruption 5%

No impact 4%

Concerned about parking in area 3% Concerned about proposed road closure at St. 3% Albans Roundabout Concerned about proposed road closure at 2% Queens roundabout

Negative impact on North Camp area 1% Mentioned negative impact of Peabody Road 1% improvements

General negative impact 1%

Mentioned impact on public transport 1%

24% of respondents provided details of the positive implications that they felt the scheme could have on their personal situation:

Respondents mentioned that congestion may ease because of the proposed scheme, which could make travelling by vehicle quicker and travelling on foot easier. Some respondents mentioned that their commute to work may also be greatly improved, due to reduced journey times.

Despite a perceived improvement to congestion in the area by some respondents, 21% suggested that the proposed scheme could prove detrimental to local residents’ quality of life, with many suggesting that a possible increase in noise and air pollution could have a detrimental affect. A smaller percentage were also concerned that the value of their property may drop as a result of the proposed scheme:

12% of respondents also shared their concern that local businesses may suffer because of the proposed scheme:

Respondents suggested that smaller businesses in North Camp could potentially suffer due to a loss in footfall and visibility if the scheme was implemented. Some also suggested that getting deliveries to businesses in North Camp could become more difficult.

11% of respondents reflected that traffic flow could be negatively impacted. Respondents were sceptical that the proposed scheme would improve travel times, with some suggesting it could make travelling around more difficult:

8% of respondents reiterated their fears that the proposed scheme could create a more dangerous environment when moving around the area on foot, particularly for children on their way to school:

Unstructured Responses

The consultation received seven ‘unstructured responses’. These are responses that were made within the consultation period but were not submitted using the consultation questionnaire. The responses break down as follows:

• six responses were received from members of the public • one response was received from an organisation or group.

Overall themes (each featured once unless otherwise specified):

1. Road widening • Road widening may not relieve traffic congestion as it could potentially encourage more traffic through the area (three respondents). • Having increased ‘green time’ is not a solution to the potential dangers that widening the road poses. • Road widening could create a barrier to North Camp.

2. Alternative routes that could be considered • Alternative such as Alisons Way in Aldershot should be used in order to keep North Camp as a residential/ small business area (three respondents). • Traffic schemes across Farnborough should work together as a whole and not be viewed in isolation.

3. Sustainable transport • More sustainable transport options should be encouraged and access or provision for them should be improved - such as links between North Camp Station and Ash Vale Station that improve walking and cycling facilities. • A park and ride should be created.

4. Mentioned a concern about the safety of school children • The crossing at The Wavell School could be dangerous with the additional lane and increased traffic (three respondents). • Air pollution around The Wavell School could increase which could impact children and young people.

5. Cycling • A more joined up approach to cycling should be considered. • Additional cycling and pedestrian improvements should be made, including the ones mentioned in the scheme, such as improvements to curb heights, having additional segregated cycle lanes and removing blind spots (two respondents). • Additional cycle route tracks should be created to encourage cycling (two respondents).

6. Pedestrian improvements • Additional crossings should be considered in addition to the crossings already considered in the scheme (two respondents). • Safety at night for pedestrians could be improved. • Paths should be widened in order to allow access to those that are wheelchair users (two respondents).

7. Road closures • Retain existing access to Old Lynchford Road at St. Albans Roundabout. • Old Lynchford Road access from Queens Roundabout should remain as it is currently.

8. Car parks • Napier Gardens Car Park should have better pedestrian infrastructure up to The Wavell School as this is a popular area for school drop off. • The entrance into Peabody Road Car Park should remain as it is or businesses may lose customers due to lack of convenient parking.

9. Lack of benefit to local people • The scheme may not benefit those that live in the area (two respondents). • The improvements could cut off access between the north side of North Camp and the south which could potentially isolate businesses in the area and decrease footfall. • The scheme may not benefit the local community but may serve to benefit the Airfield and surrounding businesses instead.

10. Ungrouped comments • Concerned that new development in the area could increase traffic and the proposed scheme may not be able to cope with increased traffic (two respondents). • The area should be left as it is and no improvements should take place. • The scheme could create more pollution. • Concern that the airfield has been underrepresented in the consultation and that it has not considered the impact of the airfield on local traffic.

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Research approach

The consultation ran for a period of 6 weeks from 1 October 2018 to 12 November 2018. It sought to understand the views of those that live in the vicinity of Lynchford Road as well as those that use the road and surrounding road network regularly. In total there were 334 responses to the consultation, this included paper and online responses.

In order to gather views from respondents, the consultation questionnaire, along with accompanying information was made available on the County Council’s website: https://www.hants.gov.uk/transport/transportschemes/farnboroughgrowthpackage

To aid participation, two drop-in exhibitions were held in the local area, open to all members of the public. Officers the County Council were on hand to answer questions and walk people through the proposed scheme for Lynchford Road. Paper copies of the survey were available at exhibitions and also upon request.

Respondents that attended an event were asked to rate their experience. 75 respondents that completed a questionnaire attended an exhibition; 40% of those that attended said that they thought the exhibition was either ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Just over half said that the exhibition was ‘ok’.

9% 1% 24%

If you attended an exhibition event, how would you rate the exhibition? (Base: 75) 15%

51%

Good Very good Ok Poor Very poor

The consultation was also promoted through the County Council’s social media channels and released to local press. ‘Unstructured’ responses could also be sent through via email or written letters, and those received by the consultation’s closing date were accepted, a summary of which is included in the report.

Appendix 2 – Interpreting the data

As the consultation was an open exercise, the findings cannot be considered to be a ‘sample’ or representative of a specific population.

The analysis only takes into account actual responses – where ‘no response’ was provided to a question, this was not included in the analysis. As such, the totals for each question add up to less than 334 (the total number of respondents who replied to the consultation questionnaire).

Imagery has been used throughout the report to illustrate findings; all icons are made by Freepik, available from www.flaticon.com.

Publication of data

All data is processed according to the General Data Protection Regulations as detailed below:

Hampshire County Council adheres to the requirements of the UK Data Protection legislation. Hampshire County Council is registered on the public register of data controllers which is looked after by the Information Commissioner. The information that was provided through the questionnaire will only be used to understand views on the proposals set out for this consultation. All individuals’ responses will be kept confidential and will not be shared with third parties, but responses from organisations may be published in full. Responses will be stored securely and retained for seven years following the end of the consultation before being deleted or destroyed.

Where the information provided is personal information, there are certain legal rights. Respondents to the consultation may ask us for the information we hold about you, to rectify inaccurate information the County Council holds about you, to restrict our use of your personal information and to erase your personal data. When the County Council uses your personal information on the basis of your consent, you will also have the right to withdraw your consent to our use of your personal information at any time.

Appendix 3 – Consultation Response Form

Appendix 4 – List of organisations or groups who responded to the consultation

The consultation questionnaire asked whether the respondent was responding on behalf of an organisation, group, school or business. There were a total of nine responses to the consultation questionnaire on behalf of an organisation, group, school or business.

Organisations or groups who responded to the consultation, that provided details are listed below:

Name of organisation, group or business: M J Events Support ShuZu Limited Blackwater Valley Friends of the Earth Wild Wild Western Wear North Camp Methodist Church Hollis Hockley TrueColours Bespoke Furniture Ltd

Appendix 5 – Consultation participant profile

The breakdown of respondents by category is shown below:

Respondent type Count/% Who are you? Base: 334 Local resident 286 85.60% Elected Member 4 1.20% Member of the public 22 6.60% Other 7 2.10% Are you responding on your own behalf or on the behalf of an organisation, group, school or business? Base: 334 I am providing a response on my own behalf 320 95.80% I am providing the official response of an organisation, group, business or school 9 2.70% What was your age on your last birthday? Base: 318 Under 18 3 1% 18-24 2 1% 25-34 21 6% 35-44 73 22% 45-54 92 28% 55-64 49 15% 65+ 58 17% Prefer not to say 20 6% Is your ability to move around Lynchford Road limited because of limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months Base: 315 Yes, a lot 12 4% Yes, a little 17 5% No 272 81% Prefer not to say 14 4%

Appendix 6 – Coded responses to open questions

113 respondents provided a comment for the below question. This question was open to those respondents that said they did not agree with any aspects of the proposed scheme.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed improvement scheme to Lynchford Road? If ‘No’ please explain your reason in the box below.

Code Count % Concerned about the safety of school children (Macro) 46 41% School: additional lane proximity to Wavell school could cause safety concerns 39 35% whilst crossing School: safety concerns for other surrounding schools 4 4% School: speed of road users near school could mean safety concerns 10 9% School: difficulty in crossing even with traffic lighting 1 1% School: pollution increase around school 1 1% Concerned about the creation of additional lane (Macro) 43 38% Additional lane: could encourage increase in cars and traffic 18 16% Additional lane: speed of traffic could increase effecting safety of pedestrians in 12 11% general Additional lane: residential housing will have knock on affect 6 5% Additional lane: not enough space to widen all the way down Lynchford Road 1 1% Additional lane: negative impact on businesses in North Camp 13 12% Additional lane: may not solve congestion concerns 3 3% Mentioned environmental concerns (Macro) 29 26% Environmental: loss of trees/ cover for houses 4 4% Environmental: noise pollution for residents 22 19% Environmental: air pollution increased 20 18% Environmental: loss of green space 1 1% Improvements should be made to other roads (Macro) 2 2% Improvements to other roads: Government House Road 1 1% Access to Old Lynchford Road (Queens roundabout) concerns (Macro) 4 4% Old Lynchford Road: maintain access in both directions 3 3% Old Lynchford Road: increase traffic if closed access 1 1% Access off St. Albans to Old Lynchford Road concerns (Macro) 7 6% Access: should maintain access / lessens congestion and reduces journey times 2 2% Access: could make access difficult for businesses e.g. delivery’s 4 4% Pedestrian/ cycling improvement concerns (Macro) 5 4% Pedestrian / cycling concerns: make a bridge instead 1 1% Pedestrian / cycling concerns: create separated/ dedicated cycling lane 3 3% Improvement needed for public transport (Macro) 4 4% Concerned about road works disruption (Macro) 1 1% New development (Macro) 3 3% New development: increased congestion concerns 3 3% Proposal does not benefit local businesses and local people (Macro) 13 12% There are no traffic flow/ congestion issues / no improvements are necessary 6 5% (Macro) Introduce 'smart' traffic lights (Macro) 1 1%

Alternative routes should be considered (Macro) 9 8% Need more information on other alternatives (Macro) 2 2% General concern with speed of traffic (Macro) 3 3% Not applicable 4 4%

113 respondents provided a comment for the below question. This question was only open to those that stated they agree with ‘some aspects’ of the proposed scheme:

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed improvement scheme to Lynchford Road? If ‘some aspects’ please explain your reason in the box below.

Code Count % Concerned about the safety of school children (Macro) 18 16% School: additional lane proximity to Wavell school could cause safety concerns 17 15% whilst crossing School: safety concerns for other surrounding schools 1 1% School: speed of road users near school could mean safety concerns 1 1% Concerned about the creation of additional lane (Macro) 21 19% Additional lane: could encourage increase in cars and traffic 4 4% Additional lane: speed of traffic could increase effecting safety of pedestrians in 3 3% general Additional lane: residential housing will have knock on affect 4 4% Additional lane: not enough space to widen all the way down Lynchford Road 0 0% Additional lane: negative impact on businesses in North Camp 3 3% Additional lane: may not solve congestion concerns 4 4% Additional lane: should be the whole way through to make a difference 4 4% Mentioned environmental concerns (Macro) 7 6% Environmental: loss of trees/ cover for houses 2 2% Environmental: noise pollution for residents 4 4% Environmental: air pollution increased 1 1% Environmental: loss of green space 0 0% Improvements should be made to other roads (Macro) 3 3% Improvements to other roads: Government House Road 1 1% Improvements to other roads: Alexandra Road 0 0% Improvements to other roads: Alexandra Road two lanes 1 1% Improvements to other roads: Peabody Road two lanes 2 2% Improvements to other roads: Morris Road two lanes 1 1% Access to Old Lynchford Road (Queens roundabout) concerns (Macro) 25 22% Old Lynchford Road: maintain access in both directions 15 13% Old Lynchford Road: important access for residents 3 3% Old Lynchford Road: do not close access - need access to Southampton Street 1 1% from roundabout Old Lynchford Road: increase traffic if closed access 4 4% Access off St. Albans to Old Lynchford Road concerns (Macro) 35 31% Access: should maintain access / lessens congestion and reduces journey 10 9% times Access: should be maintained as shops rely on passing trade 1 1%

Access: could make access difficult for businesses e.g. delivery’s 4 4% Access: Camp Road improvements 1 1% Access: Parking should be removed 1 1% Access: parking should not be removed near Peabody Road 7 6% Access: should be restricted to Alexander Road 1 1% Access: Peabody road should be improved 3 3% Pedestrian/ cycling improvement concerns (Macro) 19 17% Pedestrian / cycling concerns: make a bridge instead 3 3% Pedestrian / cycling concerns: increased waiting times at traffic lights creates 1 1% pollution and congestion Pedestrian / cycling concerns: no Zebra crossing in Alexander Road too close 3 3% to roundabout Pedestrian / cycling concerns: create separated/ dedicated cycling lane 6 5% Pedestrian / cycling concerns: create extra pedestrian crossings / improve 3 3% pavements Pedestrian / cycling concerns: improve school pick up/ drop off 1 1% Improvement needed for public transport (Macro) 2 2% Pedestrian / cycling improvement agreement (Macro) 7 6% Pedestrian improvement: agree with crossing by Wavell School 1 1% Pedestrian improvement: agree with cycling improvements 3 3% Reduction in congestion proposal agreement (Macro) 6 5% Agree with the creation of additional lane (Macro) 5 4% Agree with additional planting (Macro) 3 3% Concerned about road works disruption (Macro) 1 1% Proposal does not benefit local businesses and local people (Macro) 7 6% There are no traffic flow/ congestion issues / no improvements are necessary 4 4% (Macro) Introduce 'smart' traffic lights (Macro) 2 2% Alternative routes should be considered (Macro) 2 2% Need more information on other alternatives (Macro) 1 1% General concern with speed of traffic (Macro) 3 3% Not applicable 3 3%

186 respondents provided a comment for the below question.

Do you have any comments on the suggested improvements for Lynchford Road?

Code Count % Suggested an alternative to relieve congestion in general (Macro) 24 13% Alternative: make whole of Lynchford road 2 lanes in both directions 10 5% Alternative: discourage the use of cars 7 4% Alternative: more consideration needed for school access 3 2% Alternative: solutions needed for road usage during events (e.g. Farnborough Air Show) 1 1% Alternative: use of sensor based traffic lights 4 2% Mentioned concern about Queens Roundabout to Alexandra Road(Macro) 33 18% Queens Roundabout: do not close access to Southampton Street from roundabout 6 3% Queens Roundabout: additional lane concerns 1 1% Queens Roundabout: school crossing safety 25 13% Suggested an alternative improvement to Queens roundabout (Macro) 2 1% Queens roundabout improvement: make traffic lights peak only 2 1% St. Albans and North Camp Village access suggestions (Macro) 22 12% North Camp Village access: use Camp Road as an exit instead 1 1% North Camp Village: traffic should be re-routed 5 3% North Camp Village: parking 9 5% North Camp Village: traffic light on Alexandra Road 2 1% North Camp Village: traffic light on roundabout 1 1% North Camp Village: Access from roundabout to Old Lynchford maintained 6 3% Mentioned concern regarding road closures (Macro) 7 4% Road closures: Peabody Road Car park access at St. Albans 3 2% Road closures: both should remain open 2 1% Peabody Road suggested improvements (Macro) 4 2% Peabody Road: stop exit to Lynchford Road 1 1% Peabody Road: On street parking suggestion 2 1% Mentioned concern about St. Albans and North Camp (Macro) 14 8% North Camp concern: parking should remain 3 2% North Camp concern: access to shops difficult 4 2% North Camp concern: concerned about zebra crossing safety 1 1% North Camp concern: zebra crossing could create congestion 1 1% North Camp concern: concerned about increased congestion on roundabout 2 1% North Camp concern: need to consider businesses 6 3% Mentioned concern regarding impact on residents (Macro) 17 9% Residents: property value 3 2% Residents: increased noise and air pollution 8 4% Suggested a use for North Camp Village public space (Macro) 2 1% Public space: market space 2 1% Public space: youth club 1 1% Suggested improvements to other roads (Macro) 24 13% Suggested improvements: widen roads at A327 2 1%

Suggested improvements: create bypass 2 1% Suggested improvement: alternative route should be enhanced/ taken forward, instead 13 7% such as A325 Peabody Road concerns (Macro) 2 1% Peabody Road: junction might be difficult to pull out from 1 1% Suggested improvement to public transport (Macro) 7 4% Public transport: make more accessible/ cheaper/ more frequent 5 3% Suggested improvement for cyclists/ pedestrians (Macro) 29 16% Cyclists/ pedestrians: dedicated cycle lanes 12 6% Cyclists/ pedestrians: extra crossings 5 3% Cyclists/ pedestrians: create footbridge 10 5% Cyclists / pedestrians: improvements to footpaths 6 3% Cyclists/ pedestrians: signage 1 1% Green screening / increase green screen (Macro) 3 2% Mentioned concern about road works (Macro) 6 3% Mentioned concern about traffic speed (Macro) 4 2% Mentioned concern about development in area (Macro) 6 3% Development: Wait till Wellesley development complete 2 1% Suggested a concern about pedestrian crossing (Macro) 3 2% Concern pedestrian crossing: crossing should not affect traffic flow 3 2% Mentioned was not happy with consultation process (Macro) 4 2% Did not agree with extra lanes (Macro) 11 6% Works are not needed in the area (Macro) 14 8% Agreement with proposal ideas (Macro) 7 4% Should only go ahead with full MOD approval (Macro) 6 3% Not applicable 10 5%

218 respondents provided a comment for the below question.

If the proposal improvement scheme for Lynchford Road was approved, what would be the impact on the local area?

Code Count % Proposal could negatively impact environment/ appearance of area (Macro) 65 30% Environment/ appearance: loss of mature trees 3 1% Environment/ appearance: longer term environmental impact 2 1% Environment/ appearance: air pollution could increase 37 17% Environment/ appearance: sustainable travel should be encouraged instead 2 1% Environment/ appearance: noise pollution could increase 37 17% Environment/ appearance: less desirable place to live for residents 12 6% Environment/ appearance: reduced property value 9 4% Environment/ appearance: reduced green spaces 1 0% Negative impact on businesses (Macro) 31 14% Businesses: north Camp businesses may suffer due to fast through route 11 5% Businesses: new road layout may not encourage people to go to shops 4 2% Businesses: lack of parking could discourage visits in North Camp 6 3% Businesses: could create a 'barrier' between North Camp and existing road 3 1% Concerned about traffic flow (Macro) 63 29% Traffic flow: traffic speed could increase 10 5% Traffic flow: increased number of cars/congestion 41 19% Traffic flow: difficulty getting around local roads due to closures 3 1% Traffic flow: increased traffic in smaller residential streets 7 3% Traffic flow: residents may find it difficult to get to North Camp Village 4 2% Traffic flow: proposals could do more to resolve issues 5 2% Negative impact on Wavell School children (Macro) 31 14% Impact on Wavell school children: safety in crossing road/ increased danger 24 11% Impact on Wavell school children: increase in air pollution around school ` 5 2% Negative impact on pedestrians and cyclists (Macro) 22 10% Pedestrians/ cyclists: increased danger due to traffic increase 12 6% Pedestrians/ cyclists: increased danger to young children walking or cycling 12 6% Impact of road works (Macro) 14 6% Impact of road works: less people visit shopping 3 1% Impact of road works: phased approach may cause disruption for long period 1 0% Impact of road works: frustration for local residents 5 2% Positive impact because of the proposal (Macro) 51 23% Positive impact: improved travel times and traffic flow 27 12% Positive impact: ease local traffic 10 5% Positive impact: could help when events are on 3 1% Positive impact: public transport could improve 1 0% Positive impact: economic prosperity for North Camp 4 2% Positive impact: enhancement of green space 1 0% Positive impact: Improved cycling provision 5 2%

Positive impact: improved pedestrian provision 4 2% Positive impact: less pollution due to less idle cars 3 1% General negative impact on residents (Macro) 8 4% Little or no impact (Macro) 2 1% Concerned about parking in the area (Macro) 4 2% No works are needed (Macro) 5 2% Not applicable 14 6%

148 respondents provided a comment for the below question.

If the proposed improvement scheme for Lynchford Road was approved, what would be the impact on you or your organisation, group or business?

Code Count % Concerned about Wavell School Children (Macro) 12 8% Wavell school children: safety concerns 11 7% Mentioned an impact on residents (Macro) 31 21% Residents: access to place of residence difficult 4 3% Residents: increased traffic noise 8 5% Residents: reduced parking Camp Road 2 1% Residents: affect quality of life/ health due to pollution/ noise 15 10% Residents: value of property could decrease 5 3% Mentioned an impact on small business owners (Macro) 18 12% Small businesses: Damage to businesses 9 6% Small businesses: May relocate to another area 4 3% Small businesses: Rely on passing trade by cars which could be jeopardised 3 2% through proposal Small businesses: Difficulty in getting delivery vehicles to shops on Camp Road 5 3% Small businesses: loss of parking could affect business 2 1% Mentioned road works disruption (Macro) 8 5% Road work disruption: disruption to businesses 1 1% Road work disruption: increased travel times 2 1% Environmental impact (Macro) 11 7% Environmental impact: air / noise pollution 10 7% Mentioned impact on public transport (Macro) 1 1% impact public transport: number 1 bus route concerns 1 1% Mentioned negative impact on pedestrians/ cyclists (Macro) 9 6% Negative pedestrians/ cyclists: affect health due to air pollution 1 1% Negative pedestrians/ cyclists: increased safety risk 5 3% Negative impact of Peabody Road improvements (Macro) 2 1% Negative impact: difficulty accessing Park Road roundabout 1 1% Negative impact on North Camp area (Macro) 2 1% Positive impact (Macro) 35 24% Positive impact: ease traffic congestion / less congestion in peak periods 8 5% Positive impact: shorten traffic journeys / easier journey 12 8%

Positive impact: improved pedestrian access 2 1% Positive impact: improved cyclist access 2 1% Positive impact: quicker commute 5 3% Positive impact: improved bus service 1 1% Positive impact: encourage use of cycling 2 1% Positive impact: benefits Airfield Businesses 2 1% Positive impact: road widening could improve road safety 1 1% Positive impact: less pollution 1 1% Mentioned concern about Traffic flow (Macro) 16 11% Traffic flow concerns: Road widening could increase traffic 3 2% Traffic flow concerns: May increase journey times 11 7% Lynchford Road Closure (St. Albans) (Macro) 4 3% Lynchford St. Albans Road closure: difficult vehicle access to North Camp 1 1% Lynchford St. Albans Road closure: impact on North Camp Methodist Church 2 1% access Lynchford Road closure (Queens roundabout) (Macro) 3 2% Lynchford Road: affect access to Southampton Street residences 2 1% Lynchford Road: access to Holiday Inn issues 1 1% Overall negative impact (Macro) 2 1% Concerned about parking in area (Macro) 4 3% No impact (Macro) 6 4% Not applicable 11 7%

Appendix 7 – Data tables Data tables

How many days in an average week do you travel in North Camp?

Analysis %

Respondents

Base 334

How many days in an average week do you travel in North

Camp?

5 days or more 70.7%

3 to 4 days 16.8%

1 to 2 days 9.0%

Less than once a week 3.0%

Never 0.6%

How do you normally travel along/around North Camp?

Analysis %

Respondents

Base 332

How do you normally travel along/around North Camp?

Car 90.1%

Bicycle 29.2%

On foot 64.5%

Public transport 18.4%

HGV or van 2.7%

Motorcyclist 4.8%

Other 0.3%

For what reason(s) do you come into, or travel around North Camp village?

Analysis %

Respondents

Base 332

For what reason(s) do you come into, or travel around

North Camp village?

I live in North Camp 65.4%

I work in the North Camp area 17.5%

I work in Farnborough, and have to travel through North 12.7% Camp

I commute via Farnborough which takes me through North 10.2% Camp

I study nearby or do the school run to or via North Camp 15.1%

I go shopping in North Camp 59.0%

For leisure (e.g. bars, restaurants, sports, entertainment) 33.4%

To access local services (e.g. healthcare, day centre, job 25.6% centre, council offices)

Other 12.3%

At what times do you usually travel through North Camp on this journey?

Week Counts day Week day Analysis % Week day (12:00 Week day off peak Respondents (7:00 to to (15:00 to (any other Weekends Base 9:00) 14:00) 18:30) time) anytime

399 328 518 426 542 50.3% 41.3% 65.2% 53.7% 68.3%

I live in North 214 170 95 170 128 180 Camp 79.4% 44.4% 79.4% 59.8% 84.1%

I work in the 55 40 32 43 28 29 North Camp 72.7% 58.2% 78.2% 50.9% 52.7% area

I work in 40 28 10 29 17 13 Farnborough, 70.0% 25.0% 72.5% 42.5% 32.5% and have to travel through North Camp.

I commute via 34 23 9 28 15 15 Farnborough, 67.6% 26.5% 82.4% 44.1% 44.1% which takes me through North Camp

I study nearby 50 47 5 44 3 4 or do school 94.0% 10.0% 88.0% 6.0% 8.0% run to or via North Camp

I go shopping 186 45 96 101 99 148 in North Camp 24.2% 51.6% 54.3% 53.2% 79.6%

103 9 23 37 68 90 8.7% 22.3% 35.9% 66.0% 87.4% For leisure (e.g. bars, restaurants)

Week Counts day Week day Analysis % Week day (12:00 Week day off peak Respondents (7:00 to to (15:00 to (any other Weekends Base 9:00) 14:00) 18:30) time) anytime

To access local services (e.g. health care, 75 day centre, job 22 39 41 42 38 centre, council offices) 29.3% 52.0% 54.7% 56.0% 50.7%

37 15 19 25 26 25 Other 40.5% 51.4% 67.6% 70.3% 67.6%

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed improvement scheme to Lynchford Road?

Break % I neither Respondents agree No, I Yes, I nor don't Yes, I agree with disagree agree agree with some with the with any Not Base all aspects aspects scheme aspects sure

Total 333 15.9% 38.7% 6.0% 36.3% 3.0%

How many days in an average week do

you travel in North Camp?

5 days or more 235 14.0% 38.3% 4.3% 40.9% 2.6%

3 to 4 days 56 19.6% 44.6% 8.9% 26.8% 0

1 to 2 days 30 26.7% 33.3% 10.0% 23.3% 6.7%

Less than once a 10 * * * * * week

Never 2 * * * * *

How do you normally travel along/around North Camp?

Car 299 17.1% 39.1% 6.4% 35.1% 2.3%

Bicycle 97 15.5% 40.2% 7.2% 36.1% 1.0%

On foot 214 14.5% 40.2% 5.1% 37.9% 2.3%

Public transport 60 11.7% 46.7% 6.7% 28.3% 6.7%

HGV or van 9 * * * * *

Break % Base I neither agree No, I Respondents Yes, I nor don't Yes, I agree with disagree agree agree with some with the with any Not all aspects aspects scheme aspects sure

Motorcyclist 16 25.0% 25.0% 0 43.8% 6.3%

Other 1 * * * * *

For what reason(s) do you come into, or travel around North Camp village?

I live in North Camp 217 12.0% 39.2% 5.5% 40.6% 2.8%

I work in the North 58 17.2% 48.3% 5.2% 29.3% 0 Camp area

I work in 41 12.2% 48.8% 4.9% 34.1% 0 Farnborough, and have to travel through North Camp

I commute via 33 24.2% 42.4% 6.1% 27.3% 0 Farnborough which takes me through North Camp

I study nearby or do 50 6.0% 46.0% 0 46.0% 2.0% the school run to or via North Camp

I go shopping in 196 15.8% 41.8% 4.1% 36.2% 2.0% North Camp

For leisure (e.g. 111 16.2% 39.6% 5.4% 36.0% 2.7% bars, restaurants, sports, entertainment)

Break % Base I neither agree No, I Respondents Yes, I nor don't Yes, I agree with disagree agree agree with some with the with any Not all aspects aspects scheme aspects sure

To access local 84 19.0% 38.1% 6.0% 34.5% 2.4% services (e.g. healthcare, day centre, job centre, council offices)

Other 41 19.5% 31.7% 12.2% 31.7% 4.9%

What was your age on your last birthday?

Under 18 3 * * * * *

18-24 2 * * * * *

25-34 21 19.0% 33.3% 0 42.9% 4.8%

35-44 73 20.5% 37.0% 4.1% 35.6% 2.7%

45-54 92 16.3% 39.1% 3.3% 41.3% 0

55-64 49 16.3% 38.8% 8.2% 32.7% 4.1%

65+ 57 12.3% 42.1% 14.0% 24.6% 7.0%

Prefer not to say 20 0 35.0% 10.0% 55.0% 0

Is your ability to move around Basingstoke limited because of a health problem?

Yes, a lot 12 16.7% 50.0% 0 25.0% 8.3%

Yes, a little 16 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 37.5% 0

No 272 16.5% 38.6% 5.9% 36.0% 2.9%

Break % Base I neither agree No, I Respondents Yes, I nor don't Yes, I agree with disagree agree agree with some with the with any Not all aspects aspects scheme aspects sure

Prefer not to say 14 0 28.6% 14.3% 57.1% 0

Are you responding on your own behalf or on the behalf of an organisation or group?

I am providing a 319 15.7% 38.2% 6.3% 36.7% 3.1% response on my own behalf

I am providing the 9 * * * * * official response of an organisation, group, business or school

Who are you? (Please tick one box only)

Local resident 286 15.4% 39.2% 5.9% 36.0% 3.5%

Elected Member 3 * * * * *

Member of the public 22 22.7% 27.3% 4.5% 45.5% 0

Other 7 * * * * *

Do you believe that the improvements to Lynchford Road will deliver against the following objectives?

Analysis % Respondents Strongly Strongly Base disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree Not sure

24.4% 17.0% 19.3% 23.5% 6.9% 8.7%

Reduced 331 20.2% 19.9% 15.1% 26.0% 10.9% 7.9% congestion and increased reliability for car journeys

Improved quality 330 31.2% 16.7% 16.7% 24.8% 5.8% 4.8% of the public realm/pedestrian environment and crossings in North Camp village

Enhanced 331 26.3% 16.3% 18.4% 26.9% 6.3% 5.7% pedestrian links and crossings with North Camp village

329 24.9% 17.6% 20.1% 24.6% 5.8% 7.0% Improved

quality, continuity and safety of cycle links between North Camp village and the wider Blackwater

Valley

Analysis % Respondents Strongly Strongly Base disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree Not sure

Improved bus 19.5% 14.6% 26.5% 15.2% 5.8% 18.3% journey times and reliability between 328 Farnborough, North Camp and Aldershot

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed improvements to Lynchford Road between Queen's Roundabout and Alexandra Road?

Analysis % Respondents Strongly Strongly Total disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree Not sure

30.6% 15.4% 17.6% 21.9% 9.2% 5.4%

Wavell School 326 34.7% 15.0% 14.4% 23.6% 9.5% 2.8% crossing widened to two lanes in both directions but with more given time to pedestrians

Move crossing 326 24.2% 13.5% 19.9% 24.5% 12.0% 5.8% west and provide countdown timers to improve safety

Old Lynchford Road 327 34.3% 18.7% 16.2% 18.7% 8.0% 4.3% closed (Southampton Street) to provide more cycle and pedestrian space

Analysis % Strongly Strongly Respondents Total disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree Not sure

Two lanes 29.3% 14.3% 19.8% 20.7% 7.3% 8.5% Eastbound and 328 one lane Westbound

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed improvements to St. Albans Roundabout and North Camp village?

Analysis % Respondents Strongly Strongly Not Base disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree sure

22.8% 16.1% 21.2% 24.3% 10.3% 5.2%

Improving 325 13.8% 8.9% 24.3% 32.9% 14.8% 5.2% pedestrian and cycle route over Alexandra Road

Access from 327 22.6% 19.0% 24.8% 19.6% 4.9% 9.2% Old Lynchford Road to St. Albans roundabout only

326 32.2% 27.9% 16.3% 13.2% 4.9% 5.5%

Would like to see access between Old Lynchford Road and St. Albans roundabout closed completely

Analysis % Strongly Strongly Not Respondents Base disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree sure

Widen 27.4% 22.5% 13.5% 23.1% 10.2% 3.4% Alexandra Road southbound 325 to two lanes approaching the roundabout

New access 327 21.1% 17.4% 23.2% 22.9% 8.0% 7.3% to Old Lynchford Road

Creation of 326 19.3% 15.3% 23.6% 26.7% 12.0% 3.1% pedestrian only space from Camp Road through to Peabody Road

Car park 327 16.8% 16.2% 30.3% 24.8% 6.1% 5.8% accessed from Peabody Road only

Enhancement 324 13.3% 7.4% 30.2% 33.6% 9.9% 5.6% of pedestrian space east of Camp Road

325 34.2% 13.8% 8.9% 19.7% 20.0% 3.4% Two lanes in each direction on the new

Lynchford Road

Analysis % Respondents Strongly Strongly Not Base disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree sure

Pedestrian 329 27.7% 12.2% 17.0% 26.4% 12.8% 4.0% crossing widened to two lanes in both directions with more time given to pedestrians.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed improvements to Peabody Road to A331?

Analysis % Respondents Strongly Strongly Base disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree

25.0% 12.2% 23.5% 29.0% 10.3%

Two lanes 327 30.0% 13.8% 11.3% 29.7% 15.3% Eastbound and two lanes Westbound on Lynchford Road past Lille Barracks

Two-way 323 13.9% 7.1% 31.6% 34.7% 12.7% cycle path linking to Old Lynchford Road

Removal of 325 28.6% 15.4% 27.1% 21.8% 7.1% parking bays east of Morris Road to allow wider footway and cycle track

Analysis % Respondents Strongly Strongly Base disagree Disagree Neutral Agree agree

Pedestrian 27.2% 12.5% 24.2% 30.0% 6.1% crossing widened to two lanes Eastbound and two 327 lanes Westbound but with more time given to pedestrians

The proposed improvements will create additional space around Old Lynchford Road in the vicinity of Camp Road. How would you like the space to be used?

Analysis %

Respondents

Base 332

The proposed improvements will create additional space around Old Lynchford Road in

the vicinity of Camp Road. How would you like the space to be used?

Civic/community space 16.5%

More parking 21.1%

Green space or increased 36.3% planting

Focal point for village 20.8%

Other 5.3%