Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport Ref No: HT13(12/13) Review of Approved Major Highway Schemes Key Decision: (Yes) January 2013 Part I
Report by Director of Communities Commissioning Electoral and Strategic Planning Manager Divisions: All
Executive Summary
The County Council retains a list of Approved Major Highways Schemes that it has sought to implement. The schemes were developed over time to meet congestion or access needs, reduce casualties or enhance the highway network. However, in light of changes to central Government funding opportunities, development requirements and modern design standards, the opportunity has been taken to review the list of Approved Schemes. Accordingly, it is recommended that the following schemes should be rescinded for the reasons outlined in Table 1 of this report and to protect the County Council from future claims for property blight: A286 Lavant Bypass; A286 Chichester North-South Bypass (Hunter’s Race to St Paul’s Road); B2145 Whyke Road, Chichester; A283 High Street/Old Shoreham Road, Shoreham; A29 Shripney Road, Bognor Regis; A264 Holyte Road, East Grinstead; C37 Titnore Lane, Worthing; East Worthing Access Road; A283 Improvements, Wiston to Buncton; A280 Long Furlong; A24 Dial Post Junction; and A24 Ashington to Southwater.
It is recommended that eleven schemes should be retained and brought forward as and when funding is available (see paragraph 1.10 and Appendix B).
Recommendations 1. That the Approved Major Highway Schemes contained within Table 1 of this report are rescinded; and
2. That the Approved Major Highway Schemes identified in paragraph 1.10 of this report are retained.
1. Introduction
1.1 The County Council retains a list of Approved Major Highway Schemes that have been developed to improve the County’s highway network. These schemes are revealed in land search enquires to the County Council and could potentially result in compensation claims for property blight in respect of any affected properties. Blight claims have financial implications for the County Council around property purchasing at full market value.
1.2 These schemes were intended to improve the transport network through congestion reduction, bypassing urban areas, providing access to development opportunities or reducing the incidence of accidents. The alignments of approved schemes are currently protected from alternative development.
1.3 The County Council periodically reviews the list of Approved Major Highway Schemes to ensure that the most suitable and deliverable schemes are retained and those that are no longer viable, necessary or deliverable are rescinded. Schemes which are retained on the list will continue to be revealed in response to land search enquiries and protected from alternative development.
1.4 In October 2010, Government changed the approach to funding local authority major transport schemes; identifying which schemes would be delivered or developed further, through the current spending review period. None of the County Council’s Approved Major Highway Schemes were on this list and, therefore, they are reliant on funding from alternative sources, such as developer contributions. More recently, in 2012, the Government published its intention to devolve funding for local transport major schemes from 2015 onwards to newly created Local Transport Bodies (LTBs) comprised of local transport authorities and Local Enterprise Partnership (LEPs). Although investment decisions will be made locally, the indicative funding allocation for the entire Coast to Capital LEP area (including West Sussex) is £9m per annum, which will severely limit opportunities to bring forward local major transport schemes in the foreseeable future.
1.5 In light of this funding situation, the opportunity has been taken to review the Approved Major Highway Schemes list and to consider which schemes should be rescinded and which should be retained. In reviewing the list of Approved Major Highway Schemes, consideration has been given to the following factors: the policy context (i.e. whether the scheme is identified in the West Sussex Transport Plan 2011-26 or a Local Plan); the occurrence of personal injury accidents over a three year period; peak period traffic levels; the number of affected properties (within 200m reflecting buffer zone for a scheme being revealed in land searches); the likelihood of receiving funding (Government or development); scheme cost; the expected impact and outcomes of the scheme; whether the scheme would support development and viability.
1.6 The following options have been considered for each scheme:
A. rescind the scheme and declare any retained land or property surplus to requirements and, where appropriate, consider a sale or transfer; B. rescind the scheme but retain land for any possible smaller scheme; or C. retain the scheme and redesign where necessary.
1.7 The outcome of the review is that twelve schemes are recommended for rescission. These schemes are detailed in Table 1 along with the action to be taken and reason for their rescission. An expanded summary detailing the results of the assessment for all the schemes can be found in Appendix A. Eleven of these schemes are not mentioned as aims in the West Sussex Transport Plan 2011-2026. The only exception is the A24 Ashington – Southwater scheme where it is recommended that the scheme is rescinded and a lower cost alternative pursued.
1.8 The review recommends the partial rescission of the A286 Chichester North- South Bypass. The section between Hunter’s Race and B2178 St Paul’s Road (Approved Plan 9272/62/1 1989) would be rescinded with 14 Brandy Hole Lane being surplus to requirements (and which could be sold subject to approval by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources). The section B2178 St Paul’s Road to A259 Cathedral Way (Approved Plan 9272/63/1 1989) would be retained due to the potential need to support strategic development to the west of Chichester – this includes the retention of properties 117 & 119 Westgate.
Table 1: List of Approved Schemes recommended for rescission Scheme Description Proposed Reason for Rescission Action 1 A286 Lavant A 2km single carriageway Rescind and While providing relief for Bypass bypass to the west of the declare any Lavant village, the Lavant between new land surplus proposed alignment lies roundabouts at Hunter’s to within the South Downs Race and B2141. The requirements National Park. There is scheme would reduce the unlikely to be sufficient volume of traffic travelling level of development through the village and locally to fund a provide local scheme. environmental benefits. 2 A286 A single carriageway See The alignment is now Chichester bypass to the west of Paragraph the Centurion Way North-South Chichester between A259 1.8 sustainable transport Bypass Cathedral Way and corridor. The County Hunter’s Race, linking with Council owns properties Lavant Bypass using at Brandy Hole Lane and alignment of old Westgate, rescinding Chichester-Midhurst scheme allows future railway line. sale of 14 Brandy Hole Link road from new Lane. The route also roundabout at Bishop abuts the South Downs Luffa School to Clay Lane. National Park. Section Would reduce the level of St Paul’s Road to through traffic on existing Cathedral Way to be A286/A259 corridor in retained to support any Chichester with associated development aspirations positive environmental in Chichester. benefits. Negative effects for properties along proposed alignment. 3 B2145 Whyke Local widening of Whyke Rescind and A Highways Agency Road Road and provision of new retain land proposal for a new Chichester footway on western side of as highway footbridge over the A27 carriageway. Provides at Whyke Roundabout approximately 115 metres would reduce the need of footway between A27 for this scheme, through roundabout and Langdale provision of a more Avenue. suitable alternative pedestrian route via Whyke Close. 4 A283 High Provide a new junction Mark as Scheme was completed Street/ Old with Ropetackle and complete as part of the Shoreham associated footway and and rescind Ropetackle Road, highway works at the scheme. development. Any Shoreham A283/A259 roundabout. residual land is not sufficient enough for any major improvements.
Table 1: List of Approved Schemes recommended for rescission Scheme Description Proposed Reason for Rescission Action 5 A29 Shripney Improve a 300 metre Rescind Due to delivery of Road, Bognor section of A29 Shripney scheme but Bognor Regis Relief Regis Road between A259 retain land. Road this scheme is no Chichester Road (at longer necessary. ‘Squareabout’) to Orchard Way to dual carriageway standard 6 A264 Holyte Approved widening line for Rescind Scheme originally Road, East footway provision from scheme and retained as local Grinstead Wilderwick Road to the declare any commitment when the County boundary retained land majority of scheme was surplus to rescinded in 1996, the requirements scheme is no longer a local priority. 7 C37 Titnore Realignment of Titnore Rescind Titnore Lane is no Lane, Lane that straights the scheme longer part of the Worthing alignment of the road by County’s Strategic Road upgrading the road to Network; however it modern design standard does provide access to by removing sharp bends western Worthing. Local at South Lodge. measures here would be more appropriate (a speed management scheme has been agreed with developers of the West of Durrington site); also falls within the South Downs National Park. 8 East Worthing A 1.7km access road Rescind The majority of the Access Road between A27 to B2233 scheme and proposed alignment lies (EWAR) Dominion Road with declare any in Adur District, no connecting road and land surplus provision for the scheme junction with Dominion to is being made in Adur Way. Includes an requirements Local Plan; therefore the additional stage to prospect of a scheme improve link between being delivered in Southdown View Road and medium/long term is Dominion Way, associated unlikely. traffic management proposals on Penfold Road, Southdown View Road and Clarendon Road 9 A283 Realignment of sections of Rescind Prospect of funding for a Improvements A283 between Wiston and scheme and full scheme is unlikely Buncton- Bucks Green in order to retain land. due to low levels of local Wiston smooth out the horizontal development, retaining alignment on the bends to the land enables a improve safety. scheme to come forward if required in the future.
Table 1: List of Approved Schemes recommended for rescission Scheme Description Proposed Reason for Rescission Action 10 A280 Long Scheme that upgrades Rescind Prospect of funding for a Furlong Long Furlong to modern scheme and full scheme is unlikely, design standards to tackle retain land. by retaining land as poor safety record. highway allows appropriate schemes to come forward as required in the future. 11 A24 Dial Post A grade separated Rescind Prospect for funding for Junction junction on A24 to provide scheme and a full scheme unlikely. (South) safer access to Dial Post retain land. Lower cost alternatives village at Grinder’s Lane to be investigated to through closure of gaps in deal with the accident central reservation. issue. 12 A24 Ashington Major route safety scheme Rescind Prospect for funding for to Southwater between B2133 scheme and the full scheme is low (Ashington) and Mill retain land. following Department Straight roundabout for Transport (DfT) (southern access to decision in 2010. Lower Southwater), which would cost alternatives to be close the gaps in central investigated to reduce reservation and provide the accident risk on grade separated junctions A24. at Buck Barn (A272) and Steyning Road, plus associated safety works.
1.9 It is recommended that the schemes in Table 1 should be rescinded by the County Council and, as a result, that they should no longer be revealed in land search enquiries. This is to protect the County Council from future claims for property blight as the schemes are not viable for delivery in the medium to long-term. The decision to rescind a scheme does not prejudice any improvements scheme being implemented in the future, if they were deemed necessary and sufficient funding where available for delivery.
1.10 It is recommended that the following eleven Approved Major Highway Schemes should be retained because they are required to address congestion or access needs, to reduce casualties, or to enhance the highway network (see Appendix B). They will be brought forward as and when funding is available: 1 A286 Stockbridge Bypass, south of Chichester; 2 A286 Chichester North-South Bypass (St Paul’s Road to Cathedral Way); 3 A284 Lyminster Bypass, north of Littlehampton; 4 Fitzalan Link Road, Littlehampton; 5 A259 Roundstone Bypass, Angmering; 6 C207 Radford Road, Crawley; 7 Haywards Heath Relief Road; 8 A259 Shoreham-Southwick; 9 A259 Worthing Road, Littlehampton;
10 A259 Chichester-Bognor Regis; and 11 A259 Comet Corner, Climping.
2. Alternative Options Considered
2.1 As outlined in paragraph 1.6, alternative options for each scheme were considered as part of their assessment; these included consideration of the objectives, funding viability, deliverability and impact of the scheme.
2.2 The decision to rescind a scheme does not prejudice any improvement scheme being delivered in the future if they were deemed necessary and sufficient funding could be identified to deliver a scheme.
3. Consultation
3.1 Consultation has been carried out with local Members and CLC Chairmen in affected areas where the rescission of schemes has been considered. Consultation has also been carried out with officers at the district and borough councils and internally within the County Council. The responses received have been taken into account when finalising the list of schemes nominated for rescission.
3.2 Consultation responses have been received from Arun District Council, Adur District Council, Worthing Borough Council, Chichester District Council, Horsham District Council and the South Downs National Park Authority. No response was received from Crawley Borough Council or Mid Sussex District; however, there are no major schemes within Crawley or Mid Sussex recommended for rescission.
3.3 The Highways Agency has also been consulted and responded on schemes that affect the Strategic Highway Network.
3.4 The Environment and Community Services Select Committee have also discussed this decision. The Committee endorsed the recommendations of the Report on 16th January 2013 and made the following comments: A24 Ashington to Southwater – a request that low cost alternatives are pursued. A259 Shoreham-Southwick – concern about impact of the retained scheme on Kingston Beach.
3.5 The low-cost alternatives for the A24 Ashington-Southwater are being investigated and any proposals will be brought forward when funding is available. The protected A259 Shoreham-Southwick alignment involves occasional widening of the carriageway on both sides of the road, the approved plan indicates that an approximate 1m wide strip along Kingston Beach maybe required. If a scheme was to be brought forward here it would need to conform to modern design standards and consultation.
4. Equality - Customer Focus Appraisal
4.1 A Customer Focus Appraisal has been undertaken and is attached to this report. This outlines that whilst support for the schemes have been
demonstrated in the past, this is not sufficient justification to retain all the schemes. This decision does not prejudice any improvement schemes being delivered in the future if they were deemed necessary and sufficient funding could be identified to deliver a scheme.
5. Resource Implications and Value for Money
5.1 It is important to rescind obsolete schemes as the County Council could incur substantial claims for blight compensation. This may be an acceptable burden if a scheme is required in the near future, but is otherwise a large unnecessary cost if there is little prospect of a scheme being delivered. In light of changes to central Government funding and lower levels of contribution generating development close to these schemes, the prospect of delivery would be low.
5.2 Any land and property that will become surplus as a result of the rescission will be assessed to see whether it is suitable to be sold on the open market, or offered back to the former owner from whom it was acquired. The extent to which there might be opportunity to do this, in this case, is yet to be determined and so no estimate is available of the potential capital receipts at this time. In this case it is worth noting that there is likely to be only one major capital receipt from the sale of land declared surplus following the rescission of these schemes and that is 14 Brandy Hole Lane, Chichester.
5.3 Any decision on the future of surplus land and property rests with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources.
6. Risk Management Implications
6.1 Rescinding these schemes will reduce the risk to the County Council from claims for statutory property blight.
6.2 Where risk has been identified for individual schemes, such as against accident records, this is recorded in Appendix A. Rescinding a scheme does not protect against this risk and it does not prejudice an improvement scheme being delivered in the future, if it were required for any reason.
7. Crime and Disorder Act Implications
There are no Crime and Disorder Act implications.
8. Human Rights Act Implications
8.1 The rights of those living near to the lines of the improvements schemes and users of the road network have been considered and that they will not be negatively affected should this report be approved.
Sue Hawker Michael Elkington Director of Communities Strategic Planning Manager Commissioning
Contact: Iain Steane, 01243 777353
Background Papers – None
Appendices
Appendix A – Assessment of Approved Major Highway Schemes proposed for rescission Appendix B – Assessment of Approved Major Highway Schemes proposed for retention Appendix C – Plans of Major Highway Schemes proposed for rescission
Customer Focus Appraisal 2012 Customer Focus Appraisal 2012
Title of proposal Review of Approved Major Highway Schemes (2012)
Date for January 2013 implementation Name: Iain Steane CFA completed by: Email [email protected] Tel: 01243 777353
1. What information have you used to analyse the impact of the proposal on customers?
The County Council holds a list of several major highway schemes for improving the strategic road network in the county. The improvements that are now recommended for rescission were originally proposed for capacity, safety or environmental reasons, and are listed below. A286 Lavant Bypass; A286 Chichester North-South Bypass (Hunter’s Race to St Paul’s Road); B2145 Whyke Road, Chichester; A283 High Street/Old Shoreham Road, Shoreham; A29 Shripney Road, Bognor Regis; A264 Holyte Road, East Grinstead; C37 Titnore Lane, Worthing; East Worthing Access Road; A283 Improvements, Wiston to Buncton; A280 Long Furlong; A24 Dial Post Junction; and A24 Ashington to Southwater. The changes to central Government’s approaches funding major highway schemes mean that these schemes have not been identified for delivery or further development. Responsibility for scheme development is with the County Council and these have not been identified as priorities by the CLCs as part of the Infrastructure Planning process. The schemes are long standing projects to develop and improve the County’s road network developed over a long period of time. Current design specifications, need and development patterns mean that these are no longer technically or financially viable to proceed with.
In some cases low-cost or remedial measures have been implemented, or proposed, to deal with immediate issues regarding traffic congestion, accessibility and accident rates. To protect the County Council from claims for blight, it is recommended to rescind these schemes and to discontinue revealing the schemes in land search enquires. Our customers include all those who use, or live alongside, any of the roads affected by the schemes listed above; and these who lie on, or adjacent to, the routes of any of the nominated improvement schemes above.
2. Are there any customers who are negatively affected by the proposal? If so, explain which customers and how they are negatively affected.
The proposal to rescind the schemes would negatively impact on those who live along the existing routes, because if a scheme were to be delivered it may remove a substantial level of traffic. Any customers living along the existing routes with protected characteristics would be negatively affected by the proposals to rescind an improvement scheme. However, although reducing traffic and accidents on these routes is desirable, it is not feasible to achieve this in all circumstances, due to high financial and environmental costs associated with road schemes of this nature. Additionally, there will be customers who would
Printed on 29-Jan-13 Agreed guidance 26/09/12 Customer Focus Appraisal 2012 be negatively affected through the implementation of an improvement scheme; particularly where traffic is moved in closer proximity to them – either through a new alignment or road widening.
3. Are there any customers who are positively affected by this proposal? If so, explain which customers and how they are positively affected.
Customers who live along the route of any proposed improvement scheme will be positively affected by this proposal, because their property will no longer be blighted by the existence of the scheme, also the prospect of a new road being constructed adjacent to their property will be removed.
A high level assessment of the impact of each scheme has been carried out, identifying between 10 and 600 properties affected by the alignment of any improvement scheme. In addition in rural areas there would be land owners, not yet identified, who would be affected by schemes.
4. How does your proposal help to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation?
The proposal to rescind the improvement schemes has no effect on the elimination of discrimination, harassment and victimisation. If an improvement scheme were needed at some point in the future, the scheme would need to be developed in an inclusive way which helps to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
5. How does your proposal help to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not?
The proposals to rescind the improvements schemes have no effect on promotion of equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. If an improvement scheme were needed at some point in the future, the scheme would need to be developed in an inclusive way, which helps to promote equality of opportunity.
6. How does your proposal help to foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not?
The proposals to rescind the improvements schemes have no effect on fostering good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. If an improvement scheme were needed at some point in the future, the scheme would need to be developed in an inclusive way that helps to foster good relations between these groups.
7. What have you learnt from the analysis of the effect of the proposal on customers? What changes were made to the proposal as a result?
Although support has been demonstrated, in the past, for improvement schemes; it is simply not feasible to reduce or remove traffic from public roads in all circumstances, due to the associated high financial and environmental costs. No changes have been made to this proposal as a result of analysing the effect of rescinding a scheme on customers.
8. If you did not make any changes to the proposal following the analysis please explain why.
The potential impact of not rescinding these schemes would be further claims made to the County Council; these blight claims would incur substantial costs in compensation. This would represent a large and unnecessary cost if there is little prospect for an improvement scheme being delivered, this therefore outweighs the negative impact on customers of
Printed on 29-Jan-13 Agreed guidance 26/09/12 Customer Focus Appraisal 2012 rescinding the scheme.
9. How will the proposal be monitored and evaluated to make sure it continues to meet the equality duty owed to customers?
The County Council continually monitors the incidence of accidents on these routes and although not currently a high priority, will continue to do so. Traffic levels will also continue to be monitored through various permanent traffic counters across the network, to assess whether any improvement scheme is required at some point in the future.
10. Who will be responsible for the monitoring and review?
Responsibility for monitoring the incidence of accidents rests with the County Council’s Accident Data Analysis Team. Responsibility for monitoring traffic data rests with the County Council’s ITS & Traffic Monitoring Team.
To be signed by an Executive Director, Director or Head of Service to confirm that they have read and approved the content of the CFA and the Action Plan.
Name Susan Hawker Date 28/01/13
Your position Director of Communities Commissioning
Telephone 0330 22 22658 Email [email protected]
Printed on 29-Jan-13 Agreed guidance 26/09/12 Customer Focus Appraisal 2012
CFA ACTION PLAN
Actions identified through the CFA will be recorded, monitored and reported upon at regular intervals. You need to make sure that the actions identified by your CFA in relation to your proposal are incorporated into your action plan, business plan and, if appropriate, performance measures, and are followed-up. Based on the CFA of your proposal, enter here the actions that have arisen and need to be taken forward. These are likely to be from
your findings, and should include how you intend to monitor and review the effects your proposal is likely, or is expected, to have on
customers and people with protected characteristics.
With procurement, outsourcing or commissioning, you need to ensure that the actions and findings of your CFA are used to inform the specification of the relevant tender and contract documents. The CFA and accompanying evidence will inform, and be reflected in, the contract to be managed and reported on by the contract manager. You need to ensure that any contractor or other company doing work on our behalf does not hinder you from meeting your requirements under the Equality Act.
In Business Who will the action be Person Details of the action By When? Plan (Y/N) reported to and how? Responsible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
You can add more lines to the Action Plan if necessary
Printed on 29-Jan-13 Agreed guidance 26/09/12