botley bypass - hants
TRANSCRIPT
1
Botley Bypass
TRANSPORT BUSINESS CASE April 2016
Hampshire County Council Economy, Transport and Environment
The Castle Winchester Hampshire S023 8UD
01962 846997
2
Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Overview of the Botley Bypass Scheme .................................................................................. 4
1.3 Purpose of this Document ...................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Document Structure................................................................................................................ 6
2 Strategic Case .................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Problems Identified – wider context ...................................................................................... 8
2.3 Problems Identified – scheme specific ................................................................................. 12
2.4 Impact of Not Changing ........................................................................................................ 15
2.5 Scheme Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................ 16
2.6 Constraints and Inter-Dependencies .................................................................................... 17
2.7 Options / Scheme Development ........................................................................................... 19
2.8 The Scheme ........................................................................................................................... 22
2.9 Consultation/ Stakeholder Engagement ............................................................................... 23
2.10 Policy Context (Business Strategy) ........................................................................................ 24
2.11 Partnership Bodies and Stakeholder Working ...................................................................... 31
2.12 Scheme Impacts / Outcomes ................................................................................................ 33
3 Economic Case .............................................................................................................................. 39
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 39
3.2 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 39
3.3 Option Appraised .................................................................................................................. 39
3.4 Modelling Approach and Assumptions ................................................................................. 40
3.5 Benefit Cost Ratio – Monetised Costs and Benefits ............................................................. 41
3.6 Economic impacts ................................................................................................................. 42
3.7 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................... 47
3.8 Social Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 56
3.9 Distributional Impacts ........................................................................................................... 60
3.10 Overall Value for Money ....................................................................................................... 60
4 Financial Case ................................................................................................................................ 62
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 62
4.2 Scheme Costs ........................................................................................................................ 62
3
4.3 Scheme Funding .................................................................................................................... 66
4.4 Funding Profile ...................................................................................................................... 66
5 Commercial Case ........................................................................................................................... 68
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 68
5.2 Certainty of delivery .............................................................................................................. 68
5.3 Sourcing Options and Procurement Strategy ....................................................................... 68
5.4 Procurement Timescales ....................................................................................................... 69
5.5 Specification .......................................................................................................................... 69
5.6 Commercial Risks to Delivery ................................................................................................ 69
5.7 Human Resource Issues ........................................................................................................ 69
5.8 Contract Management .......................................................................................................... 70
6 Management Case ........................................................................................................................ 71
6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 71
6.2 Governance ........................................................................................................................... 71
6.3 Project Plan ........................................................................................................................... 74
6.4 Evidence of Scheme Delivery ................................................................................................ 76
6.5 Stakeholder Management and Engagement ........................................................................ 77
6.6 Risk Management ................................................................................................................. 80
6.7 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................... 81
4
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction and Background
1.1.1 This document presents the Transport Business Case for the Botley bypass scheme.
1.1.2 In March 2014 the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) submitted its Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to central government, setting out its strategic priorities to foster economic growth and proposals identified as necessary to support the delivery of the plan, focussing on job creation and delivery of housing.
1.1.3 The LEP Strategic Economic Plan prioritises investment in infrastructure including connectivity, transport and housing which are required to unlock development sites to facilitate and deliver growth in employment supported by an appropriate level of housing. The growth targets within the Economic Plan state that by 2020:
An additional 15,500 new jobs will be created within the Solent LEP; and
Enable the delivery of 24,000 new homes.
1.1.4 A number of priority growth areas were identified within the Strategic Economic Plan. Notably in the Eastleigh and Winchester districts the development at North Whiteley project has been prioritised with LEP funded transport links being provided to facilitate the community extension development including 3,500 houses. This includes the planned completion of Whiteley Way in 2018/ 19, a new link road to provide access to Whiteley from the north via the A3051 Botley Road.
1.1.5 The concept of the Botley bypass has been discussed for many years, although its priority status has been subject to change due to development plans and policy guidance. The proposed scheme complements the planned improvements to Whiteley Way, which facilitates the housing and employment opportunities within the Whiteley neighbourhood extension. Similarly, the Botley Bypass is necessary to help attract growth and investment into the area and to bring forward and maximise development opportunities in and around Botley, contributing to the overall economic growth of the Solent LEP.
1.2 Overview of the Botley Bypass Scheme
1.2.1 The scheme is located to the north of Botley, providing an alternative route for through traffic to the A334 Botley High Street and thus providing significant traffic relief through the village centre. The overall project will directly deliver the Botley bypass, a new 1.8km long, 7.3m wide, single carriageway with shared use footway/cycleway on the southern/western side of the road. It connects the A334 and A3051 south east of Botley with the B3354 Winchester Street and Woodhouse Lane north west of Botley.
5
1.2.2 The locational context of the scheme is illustrated in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: Locational context of the Botley Bypass Scheme
1.2.3 Overall the scheme will enhance connectivity between the Botley area and homes and jobs in the wider Solent sub-region areas of Hedge End and Whiteley by improving journey times on strategic routes and reducing delays. By providing an alternative route for through traffic, traffic congestion in Botley Village will be significantly reduced. This in turn will reduce the level of severance currently experienced along Botley High Street and contribute to improving the level of air quality and general amenity of the village.
1.2.4 Furthermore the scheme will accelerate the deliverability of adjacent land which is potentially earmarked for both housing and employment, contributing to achieving the key priorities as outlined in the Solent LEP Strategic Growth Plan.
1.2.5 The scheme demonstrates high value for money with a BCR of 2.80. There is significant jobs and housing growth which would be indirectly facilitated by this scheme. The scheme is deliverable, with construction envisaged to commence in 2018.
6
1.3 Purpose of this Document
1.3.1 In line with the Solent LEP guidance1, a ratified Business Case is required before LGF funding can be fully approved / released for scheme construction.
1.3.2 This document presents the transport business case for the proposed Botley bypass scheme. The Business Case is structured around the Department for Transport’s ‘The Transport Business Case Guidance’ (April 2011) in line with the Treasury’s recommended five case model. WebTag guidance has been taken into account with respect to the economic appraisal. Furthermore, the approach is in line with the Solent LEP guidance on Business Cases.
1.3.3 The key components of this Business Case therefore include:
The Strategic Case – providing an overview of the scheme rationale, aims and objectives, scheme development and the scheme components;
The Financial case – setting out the scheme costs and funding, including risk assumptions;
The Economic case – providing the overall value for money based on a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) and appraisal against economic, environmental and social impacts;
The Commercial case – outlining key aspects of the proposed procurement strategy; and
The Management case – considering the deliverability of the scheme, including project plan, governance, risks, stakeholder management and monitoring and evaluation.
1.3.4 In line with relevant guidance, a proportionate approach has been adopted, commensurate with the scale and value of the scheme.
1.4 Document Structure
1.4.1 The remainder of this document is structured as follows:
Chapter No. Chapter Name
2 Strategic Case
3 Economic Case
4 Financial Case
5 Commercial Case
6 Management Case
1.4.2 Supporting material is included in a set of Appendices, as follows:
1 Advice to Scheme Promoters on the Development of Full Business Cases (Solent LEP, October 2014)
7
Appendix Ref. Appendix Name
A Woodhouse Lane/ Winchester Street Junction Assessment Table
B Option Assessments (Design 07 and 08)
C Botley Bypass Scheme Plan (Design 07 & 08)
D Appraisal Summary Table
E Overview of Modelling Tools
F Modelling and Appraisal Approach
G Desktop Evaluation of Ecological and Environmental Impacts of Botley Bypass
H Summary Assessment of Distributional Impacts
I Risk register and QRA
J Risk Management Strategy
8
2 Strategic Case
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 The Strategic Case sets out the context and rationale for the scheme, including demonstrating a strong fit with strategic policy objectives and the specific problems and issues that the scheme is intended to address. It also details how the scheme has developed over time, including the different options that have been considered.
2.2 Problems Identified – wider context
2.2.1 Botley is a village within Eastleigh Borough, with an estimated parish population in excess of 5,000 people. Whilst the village is located within Eastleigh it sits on the district boundary with Winchester, and Botley railway station is actually located within the Winchester District. Situated approximately 10 miles to the east of Southampton and within 20 miles of Portsmouth, it benefits from being located within 5 miles of the M27, one of the key strategic roads within the region. The M27 suffers significant peak congestion as it is used as a local road due to the close proximity of junctions but it also caters for significant volumes of strategic movements, including traffic accessing the Ports of Southampton and Portsmouth. The congestion on the M27 impacts on the wider highway network, as traffic from the motorway transfers to alternative routes.
2.2.2 The overall congestion on the strategic road network is exacerbated by the regions relatively dispersed population. Overall, the mainland Solent LEP area is the most urbanised area in the South of England outside London. Unlike many areas which tend to have a single key centre, to which most trips gravitate, the Solent has two large cities - Portsmouth and Southampton - and a number of large towns, resulting in complex transport movements. The unique geography of the area is a defining factor in the area's economy and transport network. The regions key economic challenges have been summarised in the following section:
Gross Value Added (GVA) per head in the Solent was £21,000 in 2011, lower than both the South East (£22,400) and England (£21,300);
Solent has higher than average employment in lower-level occupations. This is reflected in below average earnings in Portsmouth and Southampton and the Isle of Wight. These areas ranked 244th, 254th and 256th respectively out of 324 local authorities nationally in 2010;
There are several large employers in the area that provide jobs for large numbers of people and below average numbers of SMEs. This may leave the local economy vulnerable if the fortunes of the key sector employers change;
The region is more dependent on public sector employment than the rest of the SE of England. According to BRES, in 2011, 79% of employment in the
9
Solent LEP area is in the private sector. Although this is in line with the England average (79%), it is significantly below neighbouring LEP areas;
The proportion of the Solent’s residents who are qualified to degree level or higher (32%) is lower than the South East (36.2%), although consistent with the national average. Although this figure varies across the LEP, it is a potential barrier to future growth of high-level skilled employment.
Although the evidence suggests that the Solent LEP is becoming increasingly competitive as it moved up three places since 2010, with all but two local authorities within the sub region improving their competitiveness over the period. However, Eastleigh now ranks 142 on the 2013 UK competitiveness index and has dropped 57 places since 2010.
2.2.3 Despite these challenges, there is significant potential for economic growth across the LEP area. The LEP Strategic Economic Plan prioritises investment in infrastructure including connectivity, transport and housing which are required to unlock development sites to facilitate and deliver growth in employment supported by an appropriate level of housing. The growth targets within the Economic Plan state that by 2020:
An additional 15,500 new jobs will be created within the Solent LEP; and
Enable the delivery of 24,000 new homes.
2.2.4 A number of priority growth areas were identified within the Strategic Economic Plan. Notably in the Eastleigh and Winchester districts the development at North Whiteley project has been prioritised with LEP funded transport links being provided to facilitate the community extension development including 3,500 houses. This includes the planned completion of Whiteley Way in 2018/ 19, a new link road to provide access to Whiteley from the north via the A3051 Botley Road.
2.2.5 The concept of a Botley Bypass has been discussed for many years, however throughout that time its priority status has been subject to change due to the quantum, allocation and abandonment of development land, both locally and regionally.
2.2.6 In 2012 the Executive Member for Environment and Transport recommended to Winchester City Council and Eastleigh Borough Council that the Botley Bypass remain as a longer term aspiration, as at that time there was no transport related justification for the bypass. It further recommended at that time that safeguarding for the scheme should not therefore be included in the Local Plans.
2.2.7 However in 2013 the Executive Member updated this position and recommended to Eastleigh Borough Council and Winchester City Council that the safeguarding of land for the route of the proposed Botley Bypass should be considered as part of their emerging Local Plans. This was as a result of both the updated Planning Policy Guidance and the updated position in terms of proposed developments which need
10
to be considered with respect to the bypass. The combination of these factors have a bearing upon the justification for and the need to accelerate the delivery of a Botley Bypass.
2.2.8 In December 2014 the Government's Planning Inspector failed to support the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-29 on the grounds that the provision of just over 10,000 homes was insufficient. The report was particularly concerned with affordable housing. Additional work was subsequently undertaken on the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan, with the Plan now extending to 2036. Consultation on the emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2036 closed in mid-February 2016. The current housing need scenarios within the Plan suggest that the number of homes that will be required within the Borough for the period 2011-2036 range from 13,800 to 20,750. Therefore there is likely to be a need for significant additional sites to be found for housing development, in addition to those sites identified in the previous Plan.
2.2.9 The Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 1 was adopted in November 2012. Within this Plan the route for the Botley Bypass was safeguarded and the Core Strategy established the requirement of 6,000 dwellings between 2011- 2031. This will be met on two strategic sites, with 3,500 dwellings at North Whiteley, and around 2,500 dwellings in the Winchester part of the West of Waterlooville Major Development Area. Winchester City Council is now preparing the Local Plan Part 2. Within this there is no change to the housing provision requirements as outlined in the Local Plan Part 1.
2.2.10 The level of housing that is indicated in both the Eastleigh and Winchester Local Plans equates to approximately 23,000 dwellings. Note, this assumes 17,000 homes within Eastleigh, which is the provisional level of housing that was assumed within the Eastleigh Transport Strategy. In order to accommodate this level of housing, significantly more housing sites will be required than those currently planned or proposed.
2.2.11 A list of the permitted and allocated developments in the local area are summarised in the following table. This summary only includes sites which are likely to have a reasonably significant impact on the local network, that being developments of 200 or more houses.
11
Table 2-1: Permitted and allocated strategic employment and housing sites in the vicinity of the Botley Bypass, within Eastleigh and Winchester
Growth Site Details
Boorley Green, Eastleigh Borough Site B01
Up to 1,400 homes consented, planning application O/12/71514
North Whiteley urban extension, Winchester District
Up to 3,500 homes, new schools and a neighbour centre (Winchester district, allocated site decision due, 15/00485/OUT)
West of Horton Heath, Eastleigh Borough
Up to 950 homes and 6ha of B1/B2/B8 employment uses (Eastleigh, previously allocated, resolution to grant O/14/75735)
Bishops Waltham area, Winchester District
500 new homes are identified for the Bishops Waltham area over the Local Plan Part 1 period to 2031 (Policy MTRA2)
2.2.12 A list of speculative sites in the local area and others which are being considered as part of the consultation on the Eastleigh Issues and Options Local Plan are identified in the table below. This summary only includes sites which are likely to have a reasonably significant impact on the local network, that being developments of 200 or more houses. There is a high level of confidence that two of these sites (HE1 and B02) will be re-allocated as they were allocated in the previous Local Plan for Eastleigh. The combined impacts of the additional growth have therefore been taken into account.
Table 2-2: Speculative strategic employment and housing sites in the vicinity of the Botley Bypass, and those within Eastleigh identified for consideration in the Eastleigh Issues and Options Plan
Growth Site Details
Land west of Woodhouse Lane, Eastleigh District (previously allocated site HE1)
800 to 1,000 homes (one part of ‘Option F’ in the Eastleigh BC Issues and Options Local Plan consultation, expected to deliver up to 1,300 dwellings combined)
Land north of Winchester Street, Eastleigh District (previously allocated site B02)
300 to 450 homes, (the other part of ‘Option F’ in the Eastleigh BC Issues and Options Local Plan consultation, expected to deliver up to 1,300 dwellings combined
Boorley Gardens, west of Winchester Road, Boorley Green, Eastleigh District
Up to 680 homes (Speculative application refused, going to appeal in May 2016, O/15/75953)
West of Bubb Lane, Hedge End, Eastleigh District
Up to 328 homes (speculative application refused, going to appeal in April 2016, O/14/75166)
2.2.13 In addition to the sites identified above there is developer interest in bringing forward identified speculative sites to the east of the River Hamble. Whilst it is recognised that these sites have no planning status in the shorter term, applications could be accelerated by the prospect of the bypass and are referenced below.
12
Table 2-3: Developer Interest in bringing forward employment and care facilities sites in the vicinity of the Botley Bypass, within Winchester
Growth Site Details
Land east of the River Hamble and north of the A334 at the eastern end of the Bypass, Winchester District
20,000m2 of B1/B2/B8 employment uses (not allocated) and a ‘later years’ residential development at Sherecroft Farm
2.2.14 The respective tables above indicate potential developments which equate to over 8,600 new homes. In order to accommodate the level of housing that is indicated within the emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan, significantly more housing will be required, which will place further pressure on the transport network.
2.2.15 The proposed scheme complements the planned improvements to Whiteley Way, which facilitates the housing and employment opportunities within the North Whiteley neighbourhood extension. Similarly, the Botley Bypass will help attract growth and investment into the area and to bring forward and maximise development opportunities in and around Botley, contributing to the overall economic growth of the Solent LEP.
2.2.16 Whilst being fully justified on its own merits (as demonstrated within the Economic Case), the Botley Bypass scheme should also be considered within the context of the wider developments that are planned across the region, in particular the North Whiteley neighbourhood extension and additional housing developments that will be required to meet the housing requirements in the Eastleigh area.
2.3 Problems Identified – scheme specific
2.3.1 The previous section set out the wider context and strategic transport issues relevant to the scheme. This section details the specific transport related problems that the scheme seeks to address.
Travel times through Botley
2.3.2 Existing localised travel time data, as extracted from the Trafficmaster database, has been analysed for three journey time routes as indicated in Figure 2.1.
13
Figure 2-1: Journey Time Route Analysis
2.3.3 As indicated on the plan, route 1 is shown as between points A to C on Figure 2.1. Route 2 is indicated as between points B to C and route 3 is indicated as between B to D.
2.3.4 The results are presented in the following table. Each of the routes include the delays associated with the immediate approach and exit to junctions.
Table 2-4: Existing Travel Time and Delay through Botley
AM Peak (07:00 – 09:00) PM Peak (16:00 – 18:00)
Route One (A-C)
Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound
Journey time (m:s)
04:48 04:42 04:19 05:07
Delay (m:s) 01:56 01:35 01:27 02:00
Route Two (B-C)
South/ Eastbound
West/ Northbound
South/ Eastbound
West/ Northbound
Journey time (m:s)
03:27 03:35 03:28 03:57
Delay (m:s) 01:03 01:11 01:04 01:32
Route Three (B-D)
South/ Eastbound
West/ Northbound
South/ Eastbound
West/ Northbound
Journey time (m:s)
04:03 05:50 04:03 05:44
Delay (m:s) 01:13 03:01 01:13 02:54
14
2.3.5 Route one, through Botley on the A334 between Woodhouse Lane and the A3051 junction currently experiences a peak period delay in excess of 1.5 minutes. This indicates that traffic is travelling at an average of 18 mph in the peak periods along this stretch of the A334.
2.3.6 Route two, through Botley on B3354/ A334 between Woodhouse Lane and the A3051 junction currently has an average peak period delay in excess of one minute. This indicates that traffic is currently travelling at an average of 26mph in the peak periods along this stretch of the B3354/ A334.
2.3.7 Route three, through Botley on B3354/ A334/ A3051 between Woodhouse Lane and the A3051 currently has an average peak period delay of approximately three minutes. The delays along this route are more significant in a westbound direction due to the delay incurred by the right turn at the A334/ A3051 junction. The average speed for traffic along this route is 25mph.
2.3.8 These existing journey times, and the associated reliability are likely to become much worse with the planned developments outlined within the Eastleigh and Winchester Local Plans, combined with forecast background traffic growth. As the road network becomes more congested, travel times between housing and employment sites will increase and the overall loss of reliability may discourage and deter potential investment and growth in the area.
Air Quality
2.3.9 Local authorities in the UK have a statutory duty to review and assess air quality under the process of Local Air Quality Management (LAQM), undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 and the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 2007. The purpose of LAQM is to determine whether the national objectives established for air quality in respective of seven pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, benzene, lead and 1,3-butadiene) are likely to be exceeded. The Air Quality Objectives for England are set out in the Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 and the Air Quality (England) Amendment Regulations 2002, and summarised in the following table.
Table 2-5: National Air Quality Objective for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
2
Pollutant Air Quality Objective
Concentration Measured as
Nitrogen dioxide
200ug/m3 not to be exceeded more than 18 times a year
1 hour mean
40ug/m3 Annual mean
2 Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 and Air Quality (England) Amendments Regulations 2002
15
2.3.10 Where exceedances are considered likely, the LPA must declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and prepare a five year Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) containing measures to improve air quality. High Street Botley AQMA as designated in March 2011 and the AQMA Order came into effect in June 2011.
2.3.11 The air quality issues within Botley, and the associated designation of the AQMA are both the result of the traffic volumes experienced through the village and the infrastructure along the High Street. Botley High Street runs on an east-west alignment through the centre of the village. It experiences high levels of traffic, including Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV), and it is used to avoid congestion on the nearby motorways, further increasing the traffic volumes. The road itself is narrow in parts, with several pedestrian crossings which disrupt traffic flows. These factors result in congested traffic flows and frequent queuing traffic, which causes increased car emissions. The narrow highway / close proximity of some properties to the kerbside also contributes to the poor dispersal of air pollution.
2.3.12 An Air Quality Action Plan for High Street Botley was produced in early 2012. Its principal aims are “…to establish local measures to improve air quality in the Air Quality Management Area”. One of the actions within the AQMA to improve air quality through Botley village is the Botley bypass scheme, with the following supporting statement,
2.3.13 …”The High Street in Botley is not a road that was designed for either the numbers or types of vehicles that are currently using it. A new by-pass would relieve traffic congestion therefore improving traffic flow and reduce the vehicle numbers using the High Street. It would also potentially reduce travel time and transportation costs for business and commerce.”
2.3.14 The scheme would provide significant environmental benefits within Botley village centre via improved air quality as traffic volumes along the High Street decrease as through traffic diverts to the bypass. In turn this would reduce severance and improve the overall amenity of Botley High Street.
2.4 Impact of Not Changing
2.4.1 Traffic volumes along the A334, through the centre of Botley Village are currently in the order of 17,000 vehicles per day (AADT) and without the scheme, the problems of congestion, severance and poor air quality through Botley Village Centre will persist.
2.4.2 The justification for the scheme is now much stronger than has historically been the case. This is due to a number of factors, most importantly the additional development that is envisaged to come forward in Eastleigh Borough over the next 10-20 years. Furthermore the extension of the North Whiteley neighbourhood, which includes an additional 3,500 houses and associated supporting infrastructure, including the connection of Whiteley Way through to the A3051
16
Botley Road further enhances the justification for the Bypass. The presence of the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) within Botley village centre, which was designated in 2011, provides added impetus to reduce traffic flows and thereby improve air quality in the village.
2.4.3 Traffic modelling demonstrates the extent of the worsening conditions due to the likely growth in traffic as a result of the proposed developments with no intervention. The Solent Sub-Regional Transport Model (SRTM) has been refined and developed to represent the impact of the scheme on the surrounding highway network.
2.4.4 The SRTM forecasts indicate that by 2036 Botley High Street is likely to experience annual average daily traffic (AADT), 24 hour volumes in excess of 20,600 vehicles, an increase of approximately 20% from the existing traffic flows.
2.4.5 Without the overall scheme the road network in and around Botley will become more congested, which may discourage and deter potential investment and growth in the area. In particular there may be a direct impact on the deliverability and timescales that developments adjacent to the Botley bypass can be delivered.
2.5 Scheme Aims and Objectives
2.5.1 The scheme objectives have been defined to directly address the problems discussed in the previous sections. They align closely with the business strategies for HCC, the Solent Local Economic Partnership (LEP) and for Central Government. They are also complimentary to the Local Plan objectives that have been set out by both Winchester City Council and Eastleigh Borough Council.
Scheme Objectives Key Outcomes Sought
Enhance connectivity across the wider sub-region by providing improved highway linkages from existing homes and planned new development sites in the Botley area through to employment and housing development at both Whiteley and Hedge End.
More reliable strategic journey times;
Assist in accelerating the delivery of approximately 1,500 homes, a new primary school and local centre adjacent to the scheme;
Removing the transport barriers to growth and development and creating the environment necessary to encourage development to come forward on potential sites on both
To support and assist in accelerating development at the proposed employment and residential sites near Botley, by improving access through the local area and to the strategic road network.
To reduce congestion through Botley village centre.
Assist in mitigating the identified AQMA within Botley.
17
Reduce severance for pedestrians through Botley Village.
sides of the river;
Reduction in traffic volumes and associated environmental issues in Botley Village Centre;
Improved air quality in Botley Village Centre;
Enhanced environment/ reduced severance for pedestrians in Botley;
2.6 Constraints and Inter-Dependencies
2.6.1 The key constraints and dependencies in terms of addressing the identified problems and issues and meeting the scheme objectives can be summarised as follows:
The proposed route crosses two Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), Botley Mill Woodland on the west side of the River Hamble and Sherecroft Farm Meadow on the east side of the river. A additional area designated a SINC is located to the north of scheme, the Newhouse Farm Woodland and swamp;
The proposed alignment for the bypass crosses a floodplain with two existing watercourses, the River Hamble and a small stream to the east. A new bridge is required to the main river and a culvert for the stream;
The River Hamble floodplain is earmarked as a Biodiversity Opportunity Area;
There are residential properties along the north side of Winchester Street, near the intersection with Woodhouse Lane;
There are four Grade II Listed Building within the vicinity of the scheme including the following:
18
o The Old Gate House, an old toll house on the south corner of the Winchester Street/ Holmesland Lane junction;
o Uplands Farm farmhouse;
o Barn at Uplands farm and
o Outbuildings at Uplands farm.
The major utility services that have been identified within the study area include the following:
12 and 10 inch Esso fuel mains running south-west/north-east, crossing the route between Woodhouse Lane and Holmesland Lane;
40 inch Portsmouth Water water main running parallel to the railway at approximately 50m clearance;
8 inch Southern Gas Networks gas main crossing the route between Woodhouse Lane and Holmesland Lane;
20 inch Southern Gas Networks gas main to the north of the preferred route, west of Uplands Farm;
33kv overhead electricity cables crossing the route to the west of Uplands Farm; and
132kv overhead electricity cables running parallel to the railway at approximately 100m clearance with pylons at a maximum of about 300m centres.
Initial advice from Scottish and Southern Electricity (SSE) suggest that the locations of the electricity cables will require a safe working and operating method as it is unfeasible to switch the cables to out of service for the duration of the works;
The Upper Hamble Estuary, which is designated a Special Protected Area (SPA), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), lies within 1km of the site. Consideration would need to be given to the construction impact of the scheme, including dust, noise, vibration and possible particulate pollution of the river;
2.6.2 A Full Environmental Impact Assessment is being prepared for the scheme and a Habitat Regulation Assessment will also be prepared given the proximity of the scheme to European designated sites.
19
Protected species including badgers and otters have already been identified and further survey work is underway to identify any other likely ecological constraints.
2.7 Options / Scheme Development
2.7.1 A significant amount of work has previously been undertaken on a potential Botley Bypass scheme by both HCC and others, and a route has been safeguarded since 1988. The relevant aspects of the most recent options appraisal work are summarised below.
2.7.2 In 2013 Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) commissioned Waterman Consulting Engineers to undertake an engineering feasibility, costing and desk-top environmental study, in support of their Pre-Submission Local Plan 2011-2029. This study identified five similar route options for the Bypass between Woodhouse Lane in Hedge End and the A334 Mill Hill/Station Hill east of Botley, as well as developing proposals for the widening of Woodhouse Lane itself. These are summarised below:
Option 1 – leaving Woodhouse Lane approximately 150m south of Winchester Street and heading east to cross Winchester Street between the gas governor stations on each side of the road (next to No. 91 Winchester Street on the west side and No. 140 on the east side). This route passes to within 60m of the railway line before crossing the River Hamble approximately 100m south of the railway crossing.
Option 1A – similar to Option 1 except that it has a flatter curve such that it does not get so close to the railway, but crosses the River Hamble approximately 80m south of the railway crossing, and has tighter curves to run closer to Bottings Industrial Estate.
Option 1B – Option 1A with a priority junction in lieu of a roundabout at Woodhouse Lane, hence a different alignment west of Uplands Farm
Option 1C – similar to Option 1A except that it has a different alignment between Winchester Street and Uplands Farm.
Option 2 – Option 1A with an alternative route via two roundabouts at Woodhouse Lane and Winchester Street.
2.7.3 The preferred route for the bypass from the Waterman report was termed the ‘Optimised Route 1C alignment’. Option 1C was taken forward by Hampshire County Council as a baseline for the next stages of the design and had the following features:
A new three-arm roundabout on Woodhouse Lane in Hedge End located approximately 150m south of the junction with Winchester Street in Botley, with the Bypass forming the eastern arm;
20
A 7.3m wide single carriageway bypass with shared use footway/cycleway on the southern/western side of the road;
Between Woodhouse Lane and Winchester Street the Bypass routes in a broadly easterly direction across Winchester Street before turning south-east and running parallel to the railway line up to the River Hamble. The Bypass crosses Winchester Street approximately half-way between the junctions with Woodhouse Lane and Holmesland Lane;
A staggered priority junction at the intersection with Winchester Street, with the Bypass forming the major arm. Winchester Street to the south of the Bypass is realigned to the east in order to form a perpendicular tie-in to the Bypass, while access to Winchester Street to the north would be restricted to an access road to circa five properties located on the eastern side of the road;
Crossing the River Hamble via a bridge located approximately 80m south of the existing railway viaduct;
A curved alignment routing around the industrial estate to tie in to the A334 adjacent to the existing junction with the A3051. A new four arm roundabout is proposed here, with the Bypass forming the north-western arm; and
On-line widening of Woodhouse Lane to increase the carriageway width to 6.75m with localised further widening at bends and a 3m wide footway/cycleway on one side of the road.
2.7.4 Whilst Option 1C has been used as a baseline, further work has recently been undertaken to assist in identifying the preferred route. Key changes relate to the western end of the scheme and also the crossing of the River Hamble. The alignment has also been adjusted in order to keep as close to the railway as possible and to avoid the 40 inch water main.
2.7.5 In relation to the changes at the western end of the scheme, work has been progressed on the design of the scheme along Woodhouse Lane, and the Woodhouse Lane junctions. In 2015 an alternative junction strategy at the western end of the bypass was identified by Atkins, which was based on the Waterman Option 2. This provided two roundabouts, one on Woodhouse Lane and one just to the west of Winchester Street, connecting to Winchester Street (North), as well as a priority junction with Winchester Street (South). The aim of this layout was to provide direct access to two development sites. The Atkins concept avoided many of the services on Winchester Street; however it provided too many junctions in a short distance.
21
2.7.6 A third option for the alignment and junctions with Woodhouse Lane and Winchester Street was subsequently developed by HCC Engineering Consultancy, which was also based on Waterman's Option 2. This also considered the following:
Minimising the effect on major utility plant; and
Maximising the development area to the south of the railway.
2.7.7 The design of the junction with the A334/A3051 has also been subject to slight modification to that indicated in the Waterman's Option 1C. An alternative siting for the roundabout is suggested to avoid the need for the additional land-take. This sites the roundabout further west.
2.7.8 The three options for the western end of the Bypass, including the junctions with Woodhouse Lane and Winchester Street have been assessed on their relative merits. The assessment table is provided at Appendix A of this document.
2.7.9 The further work by Hampshire County Council also considers two options for a structure across the River Hamble, these have been termed Design 07 and Design 08. The options have a bearing upon the route of the bypass to the east of the river but have little impact on the route to the west of the river. Further survey and design work is required in order to gain a better understanding of ground conditions and bridge construction methodology, whilst being mindful of the proximity of the extra high voltage overhead power cables, associated clearance and maintenance zones and potential for undergrounding the cables for some of their length. Until the further work has been undertaken it will be necessary to continue to progress two route options in this location.
2.7.10 An options assessment table comparing Design 07 with Design 08 at this stage is provided at Appendix B of this document.
2.7.11 The two routes showing the different options for crossing the River Hamble are identified on the following plans:
Drawing Number EC/RJ567621/03/004 as Design 07, provided at Appendix C of this document; and
Drawing Number EC/RJ567621/03/006 as Design 08 also provided at Appendix C of this document.
2.7.12 Design 07 crosses the river in a location consistent with Option 1C. However to the east of the river the route has been slightly adjusted to avoid the electricity pylon (M54) located to the west of Bottings Industrial Estate. In Option 1C the route of the bypass passes directly through the pylon, but in Design 07 the bypass has been moved east of the pylon. In Design 07 the earthworks associated with the scheme are still within part of the exclusion zone for the pylon, however this is understood to be acceptable to SSE.
22
2.7.13 Re-positioning the bypass to the east of the pylon means that the route is pushed closer to the Bottings Industrial Estate and reduces the amount of land in this area north of the bypass, which could potentially be developed. However, it increases the land to the south of the bypass which could potentially be developed.
2.7.14 Design 08 crosses the River Hamble at a point further south. This route avoids the pylon (M54) which is located to the east of the bypass although still just clips the exclusion zone. A potential complication with this route is that although the pylon is avoided, the construction of the new river bridge would be hampered by the vicinity of the overhead lines, and specialist pile driving equipment would be required assuming permission to undertake work below the cables could be secured. Discussions are ongoing with SSE in this respect.
2.7.15 Assuming construction of this route is feasible it would provide a smoother alignment, and access to potential development land north of the bypass would be easier to accommodate. It is possible that the extra high voltage (132kV) overhead power lines could be put underground to the west of the river, but even so they are likely to remain overhead to the east. The effect of any potential undergrounding on the line of the cables is yet to be determined and this would need to be taken into account prior to fixing the route of the bypass.
2.8 The Scheme
2.8.1 Dependent upon which route is identified for progression, the overall project will directly deliver the Botley bypass, a new 1.8km long, 7.3m wide, single carriageway with shared use footway/cycleway on the southern/western side of the road, connecting the A334 and A3051 south east of Botley with the B3354 Winchester Street and Woodhouse Lane north west of Botley.
2.8.2 The scheme is located to the north of Botley, providing an alternative route for through traffic to the A334 Botley High Street and thus providing significant traffic relief through the village centre. The scheme will connect to Woodhouse Lane with a new roundabout, heading east and crossing Winchester Street west of Holmesland Lane with a new priority junction. The scheme then runs towards and in parallel to the Botley railway line, heading towards and crossing the River Hamble via a new bridge. It then heads south to the west of Bottings light industrial estate, before turning east again to join the A334 where a new roundabout connection will replace the existing A335/A3051 priority junction. Woodhouse Lane would be widened as part of the scheme.
2.8.3 Figure 2-2 illustrates a typical cross section of the route.
23
Figure 2-2: Typical cross section (illustrative) for the proposed Botley Bypass Scheme
2.8.4 The shared use footway/cycleway, which is proposed on the southern/western side of the road provides a new facility for non-motorised users. This assumes a standard cross-section of a 2.5m wide shared use facility, plus 1.5m wide grassed margin, on the south side of the carriageway. No special provision has been considered at this stage for the public footpath crossings, which are likely to be accommodated by the provision of dropped kerbs and a central refuge where the paths cross the bypass.
2.8.5 Overall the scheme will enhance connectivity between the Botley area and homes and jobs in the wider Solent sub-region areas of Hedge End and Whiteley by improving journey times on strategic routes and reducing delays. By providing an alternative route for through traffic, traffic conditions in Botley Village will be significantly improved and the associated levels of traffic congestion in the village centre will be reduced. This in turn will reduce the level of severance currently experienced along Botley High Street and contribute to improving the level of air quality.
2.8.6 Furthermore the scheme will help to accelerate the deliverability of adjacent land which could be allocated for development in Eastleigh Borough and may help to bring forward applications from interested developers on unallocated land to the east of the River Hamble. Removing the transport barrier to growth will contribute towards achieving the key priorities as outlined in the Solent LEP Strategic Growth Plan.
2.8.7 Whilst there will be off road provision for cyclists adjacent to the bypass, as part of traffic management measures along A334 Broad Oak further formal provision for cyclists will be made to improve access to the village centre for non-car modes. A route has already been partially constructed along the A334 to provide a connection from Hedge End and schools including Wildern Secondary School. The completion of this route to Botley centre will provide enhanced connectivity.
2.9 Consultation/ Stakeholder Engagement
2.9.1 Initial consultation with key stakeholders has been undertaken as part of the preparation of the Eastleigh Strategic Transport Study and Botley Bypass Feasibility Study (2016), including:
The Environmental Agency;
24
Natural England; and
Scottish and Southern Electricity.
2.9.2 A meeting was held with the Environmental Agency (EA) in September 2015, whereby the proposed scheme route alignment was discussed, along with the associated new River Hamble crossing. The EA confirmed that the findings outlined in the desk-top evaluation of likely Ecological and Environmental impacts of the scheme as undertaken in 2013 are still valid.3 The EA noted that the existing railway bridge is a constraint on the floodplain, and that any proposed highway structure should provide additional water flow capacity than the existing rail bridge currently provides.
2.9.3 In December 2015 a meeting was held with Natural England (NE), whereby the proposed scheme alignment was discussed, along with the associated new River Hamble crossing. NE confirmed that there are no salmon in this stretch of the River Hamble, however otter and water vole are known to be present.
2.9.4 Furthermore NE highlighted that consideration would need to be given to the construction impacts of the scheme, given the fact that the scheme lies within 1km of the Upper Hamble Estuary SAC/ SPA/ SSSI.
2.9.5 The scheme will require Habitat Regulations screening, to identify if badgers, bats and other protected wildlife are resident on the site, and a Construction Environmental Management Plan.
2.9.6 Scottish and Southern Electricity were contacted in early 2016 to understand the initial constraints that are presented by the locations of the overhead power lines. This provided the opportunity to initially understand the clearance required and safe working practices that will be required.
2.9.7 A Consultation Strategy is currently being developed, and wider public consultation is planned to be undertaken in Summer 2016, to seek views on the preferred alignment and to help inform the next stages of the design process which will include the identification of appropriate mitigation measures associated with environmental issues.
2.9.8 Further details of the key stakeholders are included in Section 6.5.
2.10 Policy Context (Business Strategy)
2.10.1 This scheme is well founded in, and strongly supports, local and national policy objectives. The alignment with policy is not considered in detail in this business case. Some of the key policy linkages, in terms of how the scheme aligns with strategic objectives, are summarised below.
3 Botley Bypass Desk-top Evaluation of Likely Ecological and Environmental Impacts (February 2013) Waterman
Energy, Environment & Design Limited.
25
Strategic Fit – Solent LEP Strategic Economic Plan (SEP)
2.10.2 The Botley Bypass scheme is central to the growth strategy for the Eastleigh and Winchester areas as set out in the Solent LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan, which was published in March 2014. It is a key enabler in terms of meeting the LEP’s specified jobs / GVA growth targets. The scheme will contribute to the overall delivery of the Solent LEP growth agenda by accelerating the delivery of new homes and employment on land adjacent to the proposed scheme.
2.10.3 The strong strategic fit of the scheme with the Solent LEP priorities is demonstrated in Table 2-6 below.
Table 2-6: Strategic fit of the scheme with the Solent LEP priorities
2.10.4 Solent LEP Priority
2.10.5 Contribution of the Botley Bypass Scheme 2.10.6 Solent LEP Growth Targets
Ente
rpri
se
The overall project will help unlock and accelerate the delivery
of the planned housing and the potential employment sites in
the Botley area and in particular the land adjacent to the
proposed Botley bypass. Improved accessibility and reduced
congestion could assist small and medium enterprise growth in
Botley and the surrounding area.
Improved accessibility to the new agglomeration of business
and services across the region will help improve productivity.
Creation of new jobs
Contribute to the LEP’s 3% GVA Growth Target
Increase: GVA per cap; employment rates; and economic activity
Create new business
Improve business survival rates
Improve skills
Infr
astr
uct
ure
The project will enhance connectivity across the wider Solent
sub-region by providing improved transport links from existing
homes and planned new housing development sites in the
Botley area through to employment and housing development
at both Whiteley and Hedge End. The project will improve the
resilience of the highway network in the area, but particularly in
central Botley, improving journey times on strategic routes and
reducing delays, thereby improving the regions accessibility
between people and jobs. It will help to remove the transport
barriers to growth.
The bypass will help to deliver up to 1,400 homes in the
immediate vicinity of the bypass, as well as circa 20,000m2 of
employment land. In the wider area the bypass will help to
facilitate over 5,000 new homes, including up to 3,500 at North
Whiteley and 1,400 at Boorley Green.
26
Inw
ard
Inve
stm
ent The improved accessibility on the transport network via journey
time reliability improvements will increase business confidence
and will assist in facilitating the acceleration of the employment
sites adjacent to the scheme, thereby encouraging further
business growth and agglomeration. Key existing sites adjacent
to the bypass include Botley Aggregates and Bottings Industrial
Estate.
Support further education attainment rates
Increase inward Investment
Improve productivity
Skill
s
The construction of a new secondary school associated with
development in the vicinity of the bypass at North Whiteley and
a primary school on the site adjacent to the scheme will assist in
the development of early skillsets for the future workforce.
Furthermore the scheme will accelerate the development of a
new employment site adjacent to it, which will provide new job
opportunities and assist in developing the local skillsets. The
construction of the scheme itself will provide the opportunity
for local apprenticeships, thereby upskilling the local labour
market.
Stra
tegi
c Se
cto
rs
Overall the scheme supports business growth by improving
accessibility and reducing journey time delays between homes
and jobs. The scheme will support the transport and logistics
sector by providing an uplift in transport provision in the Botley
area and by improving connectivity across the sub-region. The
scheme will help support a low carbon economy by helping to
remove congestion and delay from central Botley which will
bring about associated air quality benefits in an identified
AQMA.
The scheme will assist in accelerating the development of land
earmarked for both housing and employment by the provision
of new infrastructure connecting the local area to the wider
region.
Inn
ova
tio
n
The scheme provides the opportunity for innovative design and
construction techniques, particularly in relation to the proposed
new structure over the River Hamble, ensuring that it is
sensitive to its environment, and throughout the housing and
employment developments.
The improved accessibility across the region will support new
and existing business development and innovation.
27
Solent Transport
2.10.7 The scheme will support the following Solent Transport area Joint Local Transport Plan (LTP) Strategy policies. The Joint LTP Strategy was published in March 2011.
2.10.8 Of the seven key challenges identified for the South Hampshire area, those that are relevant to the scheme are as follows:
Ensuring the timely delivery of transport infrastructure to support housing and employment growth and regeneration opportunities;
Managing the existing transport network to ensure that journey time reliability is maintained and improved to help support economic competiveness, regeneration, and growth; and
Mitigating the adverse impacts of transport activity on people, communities and habitats.
2.10.9 The scheme supports the following seven policies out of the 14 set out in the Joint LTP Strategy:
Policy A: To develop transport improvements that support sustainable economic growth and development within South Hampshire; Policy C: To optimise the capacity of the highway network and improve journey time reliability for all modes; Policy E: To deliver improvements in air quality; Policy G: To improve road safety across the sub-region; Policy H: To promote active travel modes and develop supporting infrastructure; and Policy N: To safeguard and enable the future delivery of transport improvements within the South Hampshire area.
2.10.10 Delivery options for Policy N include safeguarding of proposed strategic routes such as the Botley bypass, where heavy volumes of traffic through local communities cause problems of severance, noise and poor air quality.
2.10.11 Alongside the Joint Strategy, a Transport Delivery Plan (2012 - 2026) was adopted by the Solent Transport Joint Committee on the 5th February 2013. The TDP identifies schemes for delivery in the period up to 2026 and whilst (due to the EMETE position at the time) it does not identify the Botley bypass for delivery in the timeframe, it does include reference to the scheme as having potential in the longer term.
2.10.12 The TDP contains five key objectives, three of which are met by the scheme:
Enable higher levels of economic growth by improving local employment opportunities;
28
Improve sustainable access linking people to jobs and key facilities; and
Reduce emissions by reducing the need to travel by car.
2.10.13 The TDP evidences the statement that "there is a need for transport intervention to support sustainable economic growth and states that in the absence of transport intervention, transport will act as a constraint on sustainable economic growth".
2.10.14 The scheme will help overcome this constraint and help to achieve this goal.
Hampshire Local Transport Plan (2011 – 2031)
2.10.15 The scheme contributes to all three of the Hampshire LTP’s main priorities as explained below:
LTP Priority How the scheme contributes
To support economic growth by ensuring the safety, soundness and efficiency of the transport network in Hampshire
The scheme will deliver additional capacity that will reduce delays, improve journey time reliability and improve the safety of the highway network in the area, particularly in Botley village. The scheme will help to accommodate and mitigate the impact of planned housing and employment growth.
Provide a safe, well-maintained, and more resilient road network in Hampshire
The scheme will provide a safe and high standard new road and will help to improve highway network resilience for journeys through Botley and in the wider area.
Manage traffic to maximise the efficiency of existing network capacity, improving journey time reliability and reducing emissions, to support the efficient and sustainable movement of people and goods
The scheme and associated works to Woodhouse Lane will help improve network efficiency and capacity, thereby reducing delay and improving journey time reliability. Traffic management measures in the centre of Botley village in the form of gateways/ speed reduction measures will discourage through trips, thereby helping reduce emissions.
2.10.16 The scheme contributes to four of the LTPs 14 Policy objectives as follows:
PO1: Improve road safety (through delivery of casualty reduction and speed management). The scheme will support this objective by improved road geometry/ layout and good design, as well as reduced traffic speeds in Botley village;
PO 9: Introduce the 'shared space' philosophy, applying Manual for Streets design principles to support a better balance between traffic and community life. The scheme will reduce through traffic volumes within Botley village and improve quality of life through reduced emissions and traffic management measures in the village;
29
PO 10: Contribute to achieving local targets for improving air quality and national carbon targets through transport measures. The scheme will deliver air quality improvements in Botley village; and
PO 12: Invest in sustainable transport measures, including walking and cycling infrastructure, principally in urban areas. The scheme design incorporates delivery of a shared footway/ cycleway along the bypass route.
Eastleigh Borough Council Local Plan
2.10.17 Land for a Bypass was identified for safeguarding at Policy 91T in the adopted Eastleigh Local Plan Review Document (2001-2011). This policy was identified to be rolled forward into the Local Plan (2011-2029) where it was included at Policy BO3 where an indicative route was reserved for a new road bypassing Botley to the north. Fundamentally the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan covering the period 2011- 2029 was not supported by the Inspector because it did not provide sufficient housing.
2.10.18 A new Local Plan which covers the period to 2036 is now being prepared by Eastleigh Borough Council which allows for the provision of a significant number of new homes over and above the 10,000 allocated in the previous Local Plan. The Borough Council is considering the allocation of a number of housing development sites in the Botley area including sites adjacent to the route identified for safeguarding the Botley Bypass. Sites HE1 and BO2 were previously identified for allocation in the Local Plan to 2029 and without pre-empting the outcome of the Issues and Options consultation, these could be taken forward into the emerging Local Plan to 2036. The sites would facilitate the development of 1,500 new homes along with the provision of a new primary school.
2.10.19 Associated with the additional growth there is inevitably a requirement for an uplift in the existing transport infrastructure across the Borough, including in the Botley area, in the form of both new and improved existing transport mitigation. Congestion on the A334 in Botley Village is set to increase along with air quality management issues caused by high volumes of through traffic, particularly in peak periods.
2.10.20 In relation to the above HCC is currently undertaking an Eastleigh Strategic Transport Study (STS), which will define the need for multi-modal transport infrastructure improvements over the next Eastleigh Local Plan period to 2036. An Interim Report was produced in support of the EBC Local Plan Issues and Options consultation and a final report will be produced in summer 2016. Botley Bypass was discussed in the Interim Report, with the latest scheme being outlined along with a high-level assessment of the impact of the scheme on the local highway network.
30
2.10.21 The emerging Local Plan to 2036 is likely to include a safeguarding for Botley Bypass based upon enhanced justification linked to increased development in the area. A Botley Bypass would help accommodate increased traffic in the area associated with new development across the Borough generally, and would also help to accelerate development on adjacent potential development sites. A Botley Bypass would provide a viable alternative route for traffic currently travelling through Botley (avoiding the central area of the village), would provide environmental improvements for the area including air quality improvements, and would reduce severance for pedestrians.
Winchester City Council Local Plan
2.10.22 The Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 1 was adopted in November 2012. At the Examination in Public, the Inspector concluded that it seemed wise for Winchester City Council to retain the safeguarding of the intended route for a Botley Bypass (under saved policy T12 of their former Local Plan) and pending the final outcome of the full transport assessment for North Whiteley and other work currently being undertaken for Eastleigh Borough Council. Given the changed national planning position at that time, the recommendation was accepted.
2.10.23 Winchester City Council is now preparing their Local Plan Part 2. Comments have been forwarded to Winchester City Council to reflect the Highway Authority position and in respect of updating the safeguarding policy to reflect the increased justification for the scheme in the shorter term. Policy SHUA5 safeguards land for the construction of the part of the bypass within the Winchester area and specifies that the City Council will work closely with all parties to assist the delivery of this road. A combination of increased and revised development allocations in the vicinity of the proposed bypass, along with the long awaited connection of Whiteley Way through to Botley Road which will provide additional connectivity for the bypass through to the M27, have helped provide enhanced justification for the scheme. Winchester City Council are, however, seeking greater certainty regarding the deliverability and financing of the scheme.
2.10.24 Whilst there are no allocations for development adjacent to the bypass within the Local Plan at this time, it is possible that objection sites could emerge through the Planning process further to representations reflecting developer interest in bringing forward 20,000sqm of B1, B2 and B8 employment along with a Residential Care Home on land adjacent to the eastern part of the bypass. The status of this land remains unallocated at this stage of the Planning process.
2.10.25 A further key issue which has a bearing upon the need for a Botley Bypass is the planned completion of Whiteley Way in 2018/19 associated with the build out of the North Whiteley development and additional traffic forecast to be generated by this site (circa 3,500 homes). Whiteley Way will provide a connection through
31
to the A3051 Botley Road from the M27 Junction 9. The Botley Road connection will provide a much needed alternative for trips with an origin / destination in the North Whiteley development to the M27 Junction 9, which will have a bearing upon the predicted traffic flows in the Botley area.
Eastleigh Borough Transport Statement
2.10.26 The Eastleigh Borough Transport Statement was produced by Hampshire County Council, adopted in September 2012 and updated in December 2013. It identifies the transport issues in the borough, sets out some key challenges and identifies four overarching transport objectives. All four objectives are clearly aligned to the scheme as follows:
Promote economic growth by maintaining a safe and efficient highway network, reducing casualties and tackling congestion on the transport network;
Improve access to jobs, facilities and services by all types of transport;
Facilitate and enable new developments to come forward; and
To reduce carbon emissions and minimise the impact of transport on the environment.
2.10.27 The Transport Statement also includes a schedule of local transport scheme proposals, including estimates of scheme cost and deliverability. The Botley bypass scheme is identified within this schedule as a strategic scheme at the early stages of feasibility work. Clearly the scheme has now moved on from this stage, but it reiterates that the scheme has been a long held policy ambition.
2.11 Partnership Bodies and Stakeholder Working
2.11.1 The scheme will be delivered by HCC and there are no other formal delivery partners involved.
2.11.2 Key stakeholders (external) with a particular interest in the scheme are detailed in Table 2-6.
32
Table 2-7: Key Stakeholders
Key Stakeholders Involvement / interest
Solent LEP Part funding body
Developer Part funding
Eastleigh Borough
Council
Scheme is critical to accelerate the housing developments required
within Eastleigh and associated potential employment sites
Winchester City
Council
Scheme will provide critical support for the North Whiteley
development and the associated traffic that is forecast to be
generated by this site
Land owners Hampshire County Council and other third parties
Southern Gas
Networks
An existing gas main crosses the route alignment between
Woodhouse Lane and Holmesland Lane, and to the north of the
preferred route, west of Uplands Farm
Scottish and Southern
Electricity
Overhead high voltage electricity cables cross the proposed route
alignment to the west of Uplands Farm and adjacent to the railway
with associated pylons
Portsmouth Water An existing water main is located adjacent to the route alignment
Local residents and
local businesses
Potential impacts of the scheme (both positive and negative) on the
lives of local residents and businesses
Local user groups e.g.
cyclists, walking and
disability groups
Particular interest in how the scheme may affect different user groups
and in particular in relation to crossing points on the bypass for rights
of way
Network Rail Scheme is proposed on land adjacent to railway
Environmental Agency An additional River Crossing is required over the floodplain of the
River Hamble
Natural England The proposed route crosses two Sites of Importance for Nature
Conservation (SINCs), Botley Mill Woodland on the west side of the
River Hamble and Sherecroft Farm Meadow on the east side of the
river. A additional area designated a SINC is located to the north of
scheme, the Newhouse Farm Woodland and swamp
The Upper Hamble Estuary, which is designated a Special Protected
Area (SPA), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Area
of Conservation (SAC), lies within 1km of the site.
33
2.11.3 Section 2.7 describes the stakeholder engagement and consultation activity that has been undertaken to date, and Section 6.5 of the Management Case considers the stakeholder management strategy.
2.12 Scheme Impacts / Outcomes
2.12.1 The expected outcomes from the scheme were set out in Section 2.5, including its contribution to enhancing the strategic connectivity of the area to both accelerate potential development sites, increase business confidence and support inward investment, housing and employment growth. These outcomes will ultimately be delivered through improvements in traffic conditions resulting from the additional capacity and improved network performance provided by the scheme. The scheme will provide an enhanced route for traffic travelling through Botley, providing more reliable access and strengthened connectivity, whilst the removal of through traffic from the village centre will provide associated environmental benefits. The additional network capacity provides the opportunity to accelerate the development at various housing and employment sites, which can in turn provide economic and social benefits for this area.
2.12.2 The nature and scale of the anticipated traffic impacts of the scheme are set out in the following sections, in terms of traffic flows, vehicle delays and journey times. The impacts are based on forecast model outputs (forecast year 2036) with and without the scheme, using the Sub-Regional Transport Model (SRTM). The Economic Case (Chapter 3) demonstrates how these traffic impacts translate into economic benefits.
Traffic Flow Impacts
2.12.3 Figure 2-33 illustrates the modelled change in vehicle flows resulting from the scheme compared to the Do Minimum, for a 2036 forecast year AM peak hour. The scheme is forecast to attract approximately 2,700 vehicles in the AM peak hour, with the majority of this traffic diverting from the A334/ High Street through Botley village centre. A reduction of approximately 1,600 vehicles is forecast along the High Street through Botley village centre in the AM peak hour. Winchester Street is also forecast to experience a reduction of approximately 600 vehicles in the AM peak hour.
34
Figure 2-3: 2036 AM Flow Do Something Flow difference compared to Do Minimum – Botley Bypass
2.12.4 A consistent pattern is forecast in the PM peak hour, albeit it with slightly lower traffic volumes.
Vehicle Delays
2.12.5 Error! Reference source not found.4 illustrates the modelled change in vehicle delays within the vicinity of the scheme resulting from the scheme compared to the Do Minimum, for a 2036 forecast year AM peak hour.
2.12.6 The scheme results in reduced delays, particularly at the junction of the A334/ A3051.
35
Figure 2-4: 2036 AM Delay Difference compared to Do Minimum – Botley Bypass
Network Performance
2.12.7 Error! Reference source not found. details the modelled change in a number of network performance indicators resulting from the scheme compared to the Do Minimum, for the 2036 forecast year.
2.12.8 The scheme results in a reduction in travel time, associated with the more free flow travel conditions associated with the bypass. The total vehicle travelled distance increases due to the bypass offering a slightly longer east-west route than that currently existing along the A334. The majority of vehicle trips affected by the scheme experience a change in journey time of 15 seconds or less.
36
Table 2-8: Modelled network performance statistics - compared to Do Minimum (2036)
Performance Indicator Units AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter Peak
Hr
Total vehicle travelled time Pcu hrs -22 -30 -12
Total vehicle travelled distance Pcu kms 1,361 1,161 1,265
Total network delays Pcu hrs -1 -10 0
No. highway trips affected +/- 15 secs Vehicles 6,291 6,347 2,561
No. highway trips affected +/- 30 secs Vehicles 2,851 3,213 1,241
No. highway trips affected +/- 2 mins Vehicles 570 443 0
Journey Times
2.12.9 Error! Reference source not found.9 details the modelled change in journey times resulting from the scheme compared to the Do Minimum, for a 2036 forecast year on two routes through Botley village. These are indicated in Figures 2-5 and 2-6 and summarised as follows:
Route One – A334 from Woodhouse Lane roundabout to A3051; and
Route Two – Winchester Street from Woodhouse Lane along A334 to A3051.
2.12.10 The scheme results in reductions in journey times, with the greatest saving in journey times experienced on route one in the PM peak hour in a westbound direction. The scheme is forecast to result in a saving of over 3.5 minutes along this route. On both routes, the majority of the journey time savings are forecast to result from improvements to the A334/ A3051 junction, which currently experiences delays.
37
Table 2-9: Change in journey times (in seconds) compared to Do Minimum
AM Peak DM DS Absolute
Difference
Percentage
Difference
Route One Eastbound 309 216 -93 -30%
Route One Westbound 450 237 -213 -47%
Route Two Northbound 353 150 -203 -58%
Route Two Southbound 230 226 -4 -2%
PM Peak DM DS Absolute
Difference
Percentage
Difference
Route One Eastbound 309 217 -92 -30%
Route One Westbound 446 217 -229 -51%
Route Two Northbound 349 150 -199 -57%
Route Two Southbound 229 227 -2 -1%
Figure 2-5: Journey Time Route One A334 from Woodhouse Lane to A3051
38
Figure 2-6: Journey Time Route Two Winchester Street from Woodhouse Lane, along A334 to A3051
Wider Impacts
2.12.11 By removing the transport barriers that result in delays and unreliable journey times, the scheme will improve the connectivity of the Botley locality with the wider region. It will assist with accelerating the delivery of new homes and potential employment floor-space contributing to additional GVA growth across the Solent region by creating new jobs and attracting new investment.
2.12.12 Furthermore it will improve the environment of Botley village centre, by removing through traffic and thereby reducing severance and improving air quality within the village centre.
39
3 Economic Case
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 This Chapter presents the Economic Case for the Botley Bypass scheme. This provides an assessment of the various impacts (economic, environmental and social) of the scheme and demonstrates that it offers high value for money. The analysis has been undertaken in accordance with the methodology, techniques and underlying principles of the DfT Transport Appraisal Guidance (WebTAG), adopting a proportionate approach in line with the scale and value of the scheme.
3.1.2 The analysis is not limited to monetised impacts, but also includes those that are assessed qualitatively and quantitatively.
3.2 Summary
3.2.1 The economic assessment shows that this scheme represents high value for money. Scheme benefits are largely derived from travel time savings as a result of the infrastructure improvements delivering capacity/ operational improvements which results in an overall Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.80.
3.2.2 In addition, a range of (non-monetised) economic, environmental and social impacts have been identified, including beneficial impacts associated with reliability, regeneration, wider impacts and journey quality. Some potential adverse impacts have also been identified, including for air quality and noise, landscape and biodiversity. However these are countered by positive impacts associated with noise reduction and improvements to air quality in the centre of Botley, providing relief in an identified AQMA.
3.2.3 Appendix D contains an Appraisal Summary Table for the scheme (see below), providing an overview of the main economic, environmental and social impacts. Key impacts are discussed in more detail in the following sections. Section 3.10 at the end of this chapter also provides an overview of all key aspects of the appraisal.
3.3 Option Appraised
3.3.1 To clearly demonstrate the transport benefits of the scheme the following options were appraised:
Do-Minimum: Within the Do Minimum (DM), alongside the Reference Case schemes, the following highway schemes have been included in the model runs:
North Whiteley development supporting infrastructure, Whiteley Way extension through to A3051;
40
Mitchell Way / Chickenhall Lane extensions, to facilitate access to the Riverside employment area zone loadings have been amended to represent current understanding of proposals; and
Maypole roundabout improvements.
Do-Something (DSa): In addition to schemes included within the DM, the following highway schemes have been included as part of DSa:-
Botley Bypass, new bypass between Woodhouse Lane, Winchester Street and Botley Road;
Botley Bypass / Woodhouse Lane Roundabout at the western end;
Roundabout at the junction of Botley Bypass with the A334 and the A3051 at the eastern end; and
Woodhouse Lane improvements – widening and carriageway realignment.
3.4 Modelling Approach and Assumptions
3.4.1 Modelling for the scheme has made use of the Sub Regional Transport Model (SRTM) developed for Solent Transport in 2010. SRTM is an evidence-based, WebTAG compliant land-use and transport interaction model developed by MVA Consultancy (now SYSTRA) to provide a strong analytical basis for the development of coherent, objective-led implementation plans to enable the changes in transport provision required to deliver prosperity to the area.
3.4.2 The forecasting approach contains a suite of transport models, comprising the main demand model, the port and airport gateway demand model, the road traffic model and public transport model (as illustrated in Figure 3-1). In addition, an associated Local Economic Impact Model (LEIM) provides the capability to forecast changes in jobs, housing and GVA as a result of implementing a transport intervention. The SRTM forecasts weekday transport movements, assessing morning, inter peak and evening peak conditions and applying changes to journey mode choice and trip distribution based on changes in relative travel costs.
41
Figure 3-1: Overview of the Sub-Regional Transport Model (SRTM)
3.4.3 Further details of the traffic modelling tools utilising the SRTM are included in Appendix E.
3.4.4 The model has base years of 2010 and 2014. Forecast years were developed for 2019, 2026 and 2036 in order to provide benefit profile results required for cost benefit appraisal.
3.4.5 For the SRTM model runs utilised for the TUBA economic assessment, the Do Minimum land use inputs were also used for the Do Something tests, the only difference being the inclusion of the bypass in the Do Something.
Appraisal assumptions
3.4.6 Appendix F includes details of the SRTM modelling and appraisal approach. Standard input (scheme file) assumptions were used for the application of TUBA to assess the impact of demand and cost changes in matrices produced by the SRTM. TUBA version 1.9.5 was used with a standard (TAG recommended) set of discount rates, value of time inflators etc. All costs and benefits have been appraised using spend profiles to assess the present values of costs and a 60 year assessment of scheme benefits starting from the opening year of 2020.
3.5 Benefit Cost Ratio – Monetised Costs and Benefits
3.5.1 A cost benefit analysis of the scheme has been undertaken in accordance with TAG guidance using the SRTM. The analysis was based on scheme design layouts
42
as appended (see Appendix C) and scheme costs as presented in the Financial Case (see Chapter 4).
3.5.2 The outputs from this appraisal are summarised in the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE), Public Accounts (PA) and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Tables provided within the report at Appendix F.
3.5.3 Table 3-1 provides a summary of the (monetised) economic appraisal outputs.
Table 3-1: Summary of economic appraisal outputs (2010 prices, discounted to 2010)
Scenario BCR NPV PVC PVB
Botley Bypass 2.80 £34.9m £19.5m £54.4m
3.5.4 The scheme has an overall BCR of 2.80 and therefore represents high value for money.
3.5.5 The appraisal of Economic, Environmental and Social impacts follows in Sections 3.6 to 3.9. Monetised impacts included in the BCR calculation above are quoted, where relevant, together with other, non-monetised, impacts which should also be considered in determining the overall value for money of a scheme.
3.6 Economic impacts
3.6.1 The economic impacts of the scheme have been assessed, considering highway, bus and rail transport users, bus operators, indirect taxation, costs to HCC and funding required from the LEP.
3.6.2 User benefits assessed include journey time savings, vehicle operating costs, and reliability improvements.
Public Accounts
3.6.3 Public accounts is defined as net costs incurred by central or local government bodies. It includes investment and operating costs, grant and subsidy and changes in indirect tax and other revenues.
3.6.4 The total capital cost value has been input to TUBA to reflect the allocation of expenditure between Local and Central Government. This is made up of a number of categories of cost, which accrue separately to either Local Government or Central Government. Local Government costs include the initial scheme investment costs, loss in parking revenue, scheme operating costs and capital maintenance costs. Central Government costs principally include any lost fuel duty revenue. The Public Accounts Table is shown in the report at Appendix F.
43
3.6.5 The total costs, once converted to 2010 prices and values and discounted to 2010 using the default rates included in TUBA, produce a PVC of investment of £19.5 million.
Transport Economic Efficiency
3.6.6 Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) comprises journey time and vehicle operating costs, in addition to user charges and private sector provider impacts. The impacts of the scheme on journey times for highway, bus and rail passengers, as well as vehicle operating cost impacts for car users have been assessed using TUBA, based on outputs from the highway and public transport models.
3.6.7 Benefits accrue separately to transport users (business and non-business) and private sector operators. Business user benefits total £21.2m, whilst non-business user benefits amount to £34.5m, of which commuters contribute £12.5m and remaining non-business users £22.0m.
3.6.8 The vast majority of benefits from the scheme accrue from journey time savings, which are felt by both private road users and public transport passengers. This results from the increased capacity provided by the scheme for journeys travelling through Botley.
3.6.9 Improvements in travel time for non-business users account for £34.5m of the total benefits. Business users accumulate a £21.8m benefit from travel time reductions. The greatest part of this benefit is to business cars and LGVs, worth £12.8m, with goods vehicles also gaining £9.1m in benefits from journey time savings.
3.6.10 Increased vehicle operating costs account for an overall disbenefit of £0.5m, with a larger increase in operating costs for non-business other users offset, in part, by decreases in operating costs for non-business commuting users.
Reliability
3.6.11 Reliability impacts refer to variation in journey times that individuals are unable to predict (journey time variability). In the context of the proposed scheme, such variation could come from recurring congestion on the A334 High Street corridor through Botley at the same period each day (day-to-day variability) or from non-recurring events, such as incidents. It excludes predictable variation relating to varying levels of demand by time of day, day of week, and seasonal effects which travellers are assumed to be aware of.
3.6.12 The improved network capacity via the Botley Bypass is expected to improve traffic conditions and reduce recurring congestion and delays on this section of the network, producing a positive impact on journey time variability. The overall impact on reliability has therefore been assessed as follows:
44
Regeneration
3.6.13 Changes to transport networks can be expected to influence where businesses and workers choose to locate and where to make trips to and from. These impacts could occur by changing the travel costs for businesses of operating from, or supplying to, specific locations, and by changing the access of workers to jobs. The purpose of the assessment of regeneration impacts is to demonstrate how a proposed transport scheme will impact on the economy in regeneration areas.
3.6.14 A full assessment of regeneration impacts in line with TAG Unit A2.2 has not been undertaken at this stage of the development of the scheme. However, a broad qualitative assessment of the expected regeneration impacts for this scheme is provided below:
Increased capacity and improved journey time reliability on a key route;
Businesses (existing / prospective) will benefit from changes in travel conditions on the key A334 corridor, such as costs of access to customers and costs of access to supplies;
Businesses will also have access to a larger pool of labour;
Improved access provided by the scheme will increase the ability of people to access jobs;
Overall, the improved capacity and performance of the highway network will help to make areas more attractive, thereby encouraging new businesses to locate in Botley or existing businesses to expand.
3.6.15 Overall, the impact on regeneration has been assessed as follows:
Employment, Housing and GVA impacts
3.6.16 As previously identified in the Strategic case (Section 2) the scheme will have a crucial role in helping to accelerate the delivery of housing within Eastleigh and Winchester. A list of the permitted and allocated developments in the local area are summarised in the following table. This summary only includes sites which are likely to have a reasonably significant impact on the local network, that being developments of 200 or more houses.
Scenario Qualitative Assessment (seven point scale) - Reliability
Botley Bypass Moderate Beneficial
Scenario Qualitative Assessment (seven point scale) - Regeneration
Botley Bypass Moderate Beneficial
45
Permitted and allocated strategic employment and housing sites in the vicinity of the Botley Bypass, within Eastleigh and
Winchester
Growth Site Details
Boorley Green, Eastleigh
Borough Site B01
Up to 1,400 homes consented, planning application O/12/71514
North Whiteley urban
extension, Winchester
District
Up to 3,500 homes, new schools and a neighbour centre
(Winchester district, allocated site decision due, 15/00485/OUT)
West of Horton Heath,
Eastleigh Borough
Up to 950 homes and 6ha of B1/B2/B8 employment uses
(Eastleigh, previously allocated, resolution to grant O/14/75735)
Bishops Waltham area,
Winchester District
500 new homes are identified for the Bishops Waltham area over
the Local Plan Part 1 period to 2031 (Policy MTRA2)
3.6.17 A list of speculative sites in the local area and those which are being considered as part of the consultation on the Eastleigh Issues and Options Local Plan are identified in the table below. This summary only includes sites which are likely to have a reasonably significant impact on the local network, that being developments of 200 or more houses. There is a high level of confidence that two of these sites will be re-allocated as they were allocated in the previous Local Plan for Eastleigh. The combined impacts of the additional growth have therefore been taken into account.
Speculative strategic employment and housing sites in the vicinity of the Botley Bypass, and sites within Eastleigh identified for consideration in the Eastleigh Issues and Options Plan
Growth Site Details
Land west of Woodhouse Lane, Eastleigh District (previously allocated site HE1)
800 to 1,000 homes (one part of ‘Option F’ in the Eastleigh BC Issues and Options Local Plan consultation, expected to deliver up to 1,300 dwellings combined)
Land north of Winchester Street, Eastleigh District (previously allocated site B02)
300 to 450 homes, (the other part of ‘Option F’ in the Eastleigh BC Issues and Options Local Plan consultation, expected to deliver up to 1,300 dwellings combined
Boorley Gardens, west of Winchester Road, Boorley Green, Eastleigh District
Up to 680 homes (Speculative application refused, going to appeal in May 2016, O/15/75953)
West of Bubb Lane, Hedge End, Eastleigh District
Up to 328 homes (speculative application refused, going to appeal in April 2016, O/14/75166)
3.6.18 In addition to the sites identified above there is developer interest in bringing forward identified speculative sites to the east of the River Hamble. Whilst it is recognised that these sites have no planning status in the shorter term,
46
applications could be accelerated by the prospect of the bypass and are referenced below.
Developer Interest in bringing forward employment and care facilities sites in the vicinity of the Botley Bypass, within Winchester
Growth Site Details
Land east of the River Hamble and north of the A334 at the eastern end of the Bypass, Winchester District
20,000m2 of B1/B2/B8 employment uses (not allocated) and a ‘later years’ residential development at Sherecroft Farm
3.6.19 The respective tables above indicate potential developments which equate to over 8,600 new homes. In order to accommodate the level of housing that is indicated within the emerging Eastleigh Borough Local Plan, significantly more housing will be required, which will place further pressure on the transport network.
3.6.20 The proposed scheme complements the planned improvements to Whiteley Way, which facilitates the housing and employment opportunities within the North Whiteley neighbourhood extension. Similarly, the Botley Bypass will help attract growth and investment into the area and to bring forward and maximise development opportunities in and around Botley, contributing to the overall economic growth of the Solent LEP.
3.6.21 Whilst being fully justified on its own merits (as demonstrated within the Economic Case), the Botley Bypass scheme should also be considered within the context of the wider developments that are planned across the region, in particular the North Whiteley neighbourhood extension and additional housing developments that will be required to meet the housing requirements in the Eastleigh area.
Wider Impacts
3.6.22 In WebTAG appraisal “Wider Impacts” is the term given to some of the economic impacts of transport that are additional to transport user benefits. Transport schemes are expected to have impacts in markets other than transport (such as the labour market, product market, and land market). Wider Impacts (WIs) may result as direct user impacts are amplified through the economy.
3.6.23 The improvement of a key route will ensure this area remains an attractive proposition for businesses and will help to safeguard jobs. Without this investment, the current employment in the immediate area is more vulnerable as infrastructure is not improved and businesses may seek to site their offices elsewhere.
47
3.6.24 Whilst a full assessment of wider impacts in line with TAG Unit A2.1 has not been undertaken it is considered that the scheme could produce the following main impacts in general terms:
Productivity in the local economy could be improved by bringing businesses closer together (in terms of enhanced transport connectivity) and closer to larger labour markets – so called agglomeration benefits;
WebTAG generally advises a 10% uplift to business user benefits owing to output change in imperfectly competitive markets – business user benefits account for approximately 40% of total user benefits and therefore this impact would be beneficial; and
Increased tax revenues (received by government) arising from labour market impacts (from labour supply impacts and from moves to more productive jobs) – e.g. resulting from facilitating the expansion of advanced manufacturing and engineering jobs.
3.7 Environmental Impacts
3.7.1 The appraisal of environmental impacts considers the impact of the proposed scheme on the built and natural environment, and on people and in line with TAG Unit A3, a proportionate approach has been adopted and suitable, available data has been used to inform the environmental appraisal.
3.7.2 The potential environmental impacts of the scheme can generally be considered in terms of two categories:
Those that arise as a result of changes in traffic - noise, air pollution and greenhouse gases; and
Those that arise in the surrounding area as a result of physical changes - landscape, townscape, biodiversity, heritage and the water environment.
3.7.3 Given the stage of development of the design of the proposed scheme a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has not been completed at this stage. However, in 2013 a report was published (on behalf of Eastleigh Borough Council) which reported the findings of a desk-top evaluation of the likely ecological and environmental impacts of a Botley bypass (Appendix G). Whilst the bypass alignment reviewed in that study (Option 1C) is slightly different to the option currently being developed it is considered that the findings of that study are still valid and are summarised in the sections below.
3.7.4 It should be noted that the 2013 report is a high level evaluation of the impacts of the scheme, based upon a desk-top evaluation, and as a consequence provides a broad overview of the likely ecological and environmental impacts of the scheme. It was not intended to compromise or substitute a detailed EIA and to this end no attempt was made to ascribe levels of magnitude, or significance, or otherwise
48
classify the nature of the impacts identified. A full EIA is currently being prepared and outputs would be included in a Full Business Case.
Overview of the Surrounding Area
3.7.5 The proposed route commences at a point west of Botley and concludes at a point east of the village. It runs from the A334 Maypole roundabout, north-eastwards along Woodhouse Lane to a point to the south of its junction with Winchester Street, where it deviates eastwards from the existing carriageway, crossing agricultural land to either side of Winchester Street before running broadly parallel with the railway line to the north of Uplands Farm. It crosses the River Hamble at a point to the south of the existing railway bridge, then passes south-eastwards over land belonging to Sherecroft Farm, south of Bottings Industrial Estate, before re-joining the A334 at the Mill Hill roundabout.
Air Quality
3.7.6 This section provides an overview of existing air quality issues in and around Botley and provides an initial evaluation of the likely impacts upon local air quality within this area if the proposed bypass is implemented. It also identifies those sensitive receptors that have the potential to be affected by the construction and operation of the proposed bypass itself.
3.7.7 Likely impacts upon sensitive air quality receptors as a result of the implementation of the Botley Bypass are summarised below, taking account of those inherent mitigation measures that have been ‘designed in’ to the Outline Design:
Dust and emissions generated during the construction period - There is the potential for the generation of construction dust, along with potential air quality impacts associated with vehicle movements and the operation of construction plant, during construction works. These impacts would be temporary in nature, and would be likely to affect existing sensitive residential receptors in the vicinity of the works.
Reduction in traffic-related emissions and likely improvements in local air quality within the existing Botley High Street AQMA once the bypass is operational - Beneficial impacts are likely to be experienced within the designated AQMA with the possible exception of those receptors at its western end (close to Woodhouse Lane). Initial traffic flow estimates show c. 84% reductions in traffic flows for 2036 at the A334 to the west of the Winchester Street junction, and the A334 east of the Maypole roundabout, with the bypass in place, and allowing for all anticipated development traffic up to 2036.
Potential air quality impacts to those sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the proposed bypass - These would include residential receptors on
49
Woodhouse Lane, the northern end of Winchester Street and Uplands Farm. Initial traffic flow estimates show almost a trebling in traffic flows for 2036 along Woodhouse Lane with flows increasing from approximately 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to 15,000 vpd.
3.7.8 Standard dust control management measures (for example sheeting stockpiled materials, damping down during construction works, wheel washing etc.) should be implemented during construction. These would be detailed within, and controlled via, the preparation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which will be updated as a live document throughout the planning and delivery stages of the scheme.
3.7.9 The implementation of a planting scheme to screen the bypass and act as a pollution sink would help to mitigate any adverse operational air quality effects of the proposed bypass. Opportunities may be more limited to mitigate the effects via this strategy along Woodhouse Lane, however the design will be progressed being mindful of the need to mitigate the impacts associated with the widening.
Noise
3.7.10 This section provides an overview of likely existing noise issues in and around Botley and provides an initial evaluation of the likely impacts upon noise within this area if the proposed bypass is implemented. It also identifies those sensitive receptors that have the potential to be affected by the construction and operation of the bypass.
3.7.11 The existing noise environment in and around Botley is likely to be strongly influenced by traffic noise. Existing noise impacts are likely to be greatest immediately adjacent to the A334 and, to a lesser extent, Woodhouse Lane. Traffic will also give rise to noise on Winchester Street, although with lower flows on this highway than either the A334 or Woodhouse Lane, existing noise impacts are considered likely to be lower again in the vicinity of this highway.
3.7.12 The railway to the north-east of the study area will also give rise to intermittent sources of noise within the current baseline situation. Elsewhere within the route corridor, in particular the River Hamble and its environs, existing background noise levels are considered likely to be low.
3.7.13 Sensitive receptors to noise are similar to those for air quality, such as residential dwellings, schools, hospitals etc. In addition to those receptors within the village centre, the following sensitive receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the route corridor:
Residential properties in the vicinity of the Maypole Roundabout;
Residential properties on Woodhouse Lane;
50
Residential properties on the northern part of Winchester Street in the vicinity of the bypass intersection;
Uplands Farmhouse; and
Sherecroft Farmhouse and properties on Sherecroft Gardens.
3.7.14 Likely impacts upon noise sensitive receptors as a result of the implementation of the Botley Bypass are summarised below, taking account of those inherent mitigation measures that have been ‘designed in’ to the Outline Design:
Noise impacts associated with vehicle movements and the operation of plant during construction. These impacts would be temporary in nature, and would be likely to affect existing sensitive residential receptors in the vicinity of the works.
Reduction in traffic-related noise and vibration experienced by receptors within and adjacent to Botley High Street once the bypass is operational. As with air quality, it is likely that there would be beneficial impacts upon those receptors within the village centre and along the A334, with the possible exception of those receptors close to the intersection with Woodhouse Lane. Initial traffic flow estimates show c. 84% reductions in traffic flows for 2036 at the A334 to the west of the Winchester Street junction, and the A334 east of the Maypole roundabout, with the bypass in place, and allowing for all anticipated development traffic up to 2036.
Potential noise impacts to those sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the proposed bypass. These would include residential receptors on Woodhouse Lane, the northern end of Winchester Street and Uplands Farm. Initial traffic flow estimates show almost a trebling in traffic flows for 2036 along Woodhouse Lane with flows increasing from approximately 5,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to 15,000 vpd.
In general terms, a doubling or halving of traffic flow is equivalent to a noise change of 3 dB(A) and, historically, changes of less than 3dB(A) to broadband environmental noise such as from road traffic have generally been viewed as imperceptible. Recent surveys, and the guidance presented within the ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’ (DMRB) indicates that a greater degree of annoyance to changes in road traffic noise can occur around the time of an abrupt change in flows compared to the steady state situation. As a consequence, the DMRB, in its assessment of new roads, includes the effects of 25% changes in traffic flow which equate to a noise change of about 1dB(A).
3.7.15 Using the above as a guide, it can be seen that the reductions in traffic flow within the village would be of a level where they would be likely to result in a material
51
benefit to noise sensitive receptors within the vicinity. However, the increased traffic flows along Woodhouse Lane are also of a level where they are likely to be perceived by receptors along the route.
3.7.16 Mitigation measures can be put in place to minimise the impacts to noise sensitive receptors as a result of construction noise. These include measures such as restrictions on working hours and the implementation of noise attenuation measures for construction plant. Such measures would be included within the EMP.
3.7.17 In respect of the operational period, as noted above, noise levels for the facades of properties facing Woodhouse Lane may be expected to increase. As it is likely that the residential facades would experience increased noise levels with the Bypass in place, they may be entitled to noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (amended 1988).
3.7.18 Mitigation measures such as noise fencing / bunding will be included part of the detailed design.
Greenhouse Gases
3.7.19 The proposed scheme involves a new enhanced road alignment in the form of a bypass to Botley. The scheme is forecast to result in an increase in vehicle kilometres travelled, which will have a direct impact on fuel based emissions. However, fuel efficiency is also a factor in emissions generated and reduced congestion and delays resulting from the scheme is likely to have a small benefit to fuel efficiency, and thus an off-setting effect on total emissions.
3.7.20 The SRTM EAT tool forecasts a decrease in carbon emissions as a result of the scheme – equivalent to a decrease of 51.9kg of carbon per 12hr period in 2036. This equates to approximately 24 tonnes per annum4. This results in a forecast carbon decrease of 88 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per annum5.
3.7.21 The monetary value of the overall impact of the scheme on greenhouse gases has been calculated as PVB -£0.11m. This is incorporated in the overall BCR for the scheme reported (as a negative benefit).
Biodiversity
3.7.22 This section identifies the potential for the proposed bypass to impact upon ecological receptors both within and adjacent to the route and further afield. Consideration is given to potential effects upon designated sites at all levels of
4 Assuming a factor of 1.265 for the 12hr period between 1900 – 0700 based on variation in highway demand
in the SRTM. 5 Since November 2011, TAG guidance has measured greenhouse gas impacts in terms of tonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalents – prior to this it was measured in tonnes of carbon equivalent. In order to convert the SRTM EAT outputs to the latest unit of measures it has been multiplied by the conversion factor of 44/12 based on the relative molecular mass of carbon dioxide to carbon.
52
importance, along with protected species known to be recorded within the area, or considered to have the potential to be present.
Designated sites
3.7.23 No statutory sites would be directly affected by the proposed bypass. However, the River Hamble is subject to the following statutory designations, all of which extend to a point just under 500m south of Mill Hill, within the uppermost tidal reaches of the river:
Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA);
Solent and Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC);
Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar Site; and
Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
3.7.24 The River Itchen SAC lies almost 5km to the north-west of the proposed bypass, but the watersheds for the River Hamble and River Itchen meet, and otters, for example, are understood to move between the two catchments.
3.7.25 There are a number of SSSIs within 5km of the proposed bypass. The closest of these (other than the Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods SSSI referred to above) is Moorgreen Meadows SSSI c. 1.7km to the north-west of the nearest point of the proposed bypass. Botley Wood and Everett’s and Mushes Copses SSSI is also located c. 2.2km to the south-east of the nearest point of the route. The Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods SSSI is largely contiguous with the SPA / SAC / Ramsar site boundary within the upper tidal reaches of the River Hamble.
3.7.26 Of the three Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) returned within the search area, the closest, Manor Farm LNR, lies approximately 1.1km to the south of the nearest point of the route corridor.
3.7.27 In terms of non-statutory designated sites, there are two local Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) that the route would cross. Botley Mill Woodland, on the west side of the River Hamble; and Sherecroft Farm Meadow, on the east side. The River Hamble flood plain is also earmarked as a Biodiversity Opportunity Area.
Other Habitats
3.7.28 The line of the new bypass will cross a number of hedgerows and the improvements to Woodhouse Lane could result in the loss of over 500m of existing hedgerow. Where hedgerows cannot be maintained possible mitigation measures include planting new hedgerows within the verges of the road, of at least equivalent length to that lost (and, where possible, enhanced to be more species rich than those lost).
53
3.7.29 Records provided from EBC’s Tree Services Manager indicate that there is one Tree Preservation Order (TPO) within the vicinity of the proposed route within Eastleigh’s administrative area. The Order is TPO 114 on the southern end of Woodhouse Lane. The tree belts adjacent to the River Hamble also fall within the Botley Conservation Area. As such, they are considered to contribute towards the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and are afforded protection under its designation. There are no TPOs within that part of the route corridor which falls within WCC’s administrative area, according to their website records.
3.7.30 There is potential for visually important parts of the treescape to be lost, with a negative impact on both visual amenity and ecological value of the area. Further Arboricultural Impact Assessment is to be undertaken to inform any required Arboricultural Method Statements and Tree Protection Plans.
Protected species
3.7.31 Records of legally protected or otherwise notable species of flora and fauna within 2km of the proposed bypass (5km for bats) were provided by the Hampshire Biological Information Centre (HBIC). Records were returned in respect of: Common Toad; European Badger; Bats (various species); Birds (various species); West European Hedgehog; Invertebrates (various species); European Otter; Reptiles; Slow-worm, Grass Snake, Adder and Common Lizard; European Water Vole; Common Seal; Brown hare; Fish (various species); and Flora (various species). Full results can be obtained from HBIC, but cannot be presented in this report owing to copyright restrictions.
3.7.32 Protected species not returned from the data search include: great crested newt; dormouse; and white-clawed crayfish.
3.7.33 The design and works will be sympathetic to the natural environment with appropriate ecological mitigation measures being incorporated where necessary. A Detailed Assessment of nature conservation impacts is being undertaken in support of the EIA for the planning application for the works.
Water Environment
3.7.34 The principal local watercourse in the area is the River Hamble. The river follows a north-south alignment through the study area and would need to be crossed by the new bypass. To the east of the river a secondary water course runs broadly parallel to the River Hamble which intersects the river at a position immediately south of the railway and viaduct. In addition a watercourse runs beneath Woodhouse Lane, via Bottom Copse, which subsequently becomes Pudbrook Lake at a point to the south of the A334.
3.7.35 The areas adjacent to both the Bottom Copse watercourse and the River Hamble and its adjacent watercourse are shown as being at risk of flooding from rivers without defences (Flood Zone 3). This equates to a 1-in-100-year or greater return
54
period flood level (>1%). The remainder of the route corridor falls within Flood Zone 1.
3.7.36 Local information provided by the EA indicates that the river is prone to flooding in this area, in excess of the 1-in-100-year return period indicated by the flood model. Nearby sluices are managed manually which contributes to the unpredictable river levels and flows; this has implications for the hydrogeormorphology and biodiversity of the river and its adjacent stream.
3.7.37 It is assumed the drainage strategy will utilise balancing ponds to store storm water run-off and discharge into existing watercourses at the greenfield run-off rate of 5l/sec and will be designed for a 100yr storm plus 30% for climate change. Discussions are ongoing with the EA regarding modelling work and the approach to the drainage strategy. The geotechnical desk study indicates that soakaways would not be an option.
3.7.38 The balancing ponds would have hydro-brakes and pollution controls before discharge into the existing watercourses.
Landscape
3.7.39 The proposed route corridor does not fall within an area designated for landscape importance at the national, regional or local level.
3.7.40 The proposed route corridor falls within two principal Landscape Character Areas defined by HCC. The western part of the route (Woodhouse Lane and the land immediately to the east and west of the intersection of the route corridor with Winchester Street) comprises ‘Lowland Mosaic Open’ falling within the Forest of Bere (West) Character Area. The remainder of the route, crossing Uplands Farm and also comprising land to the east and west of the River Hamble, comprises ‘Lowland Mosaic Small Scale’ and falls within the Hamble Valley character area.
3.7.41 Overall, where the road alignment cuts through existing open fields, the local character will alter from green open space to hard-surfaced built form with traffic movements. This is likely to result in a longer term, adverse impact on landscape character and on the views from visual receptors. Potential mitigation could include provision of landscape bunds, tree planting and landscape screening.
3.7.42 The construction of the scheme will result in the removal of a number of individual tree specimens and will involve the removal of a number of hedgerows and associated habitats. These impacts will be thoroughly investigated and appropriate mitigation developed as part of the development of a full EIA for the scheme.
Townscape
3.7.43 Townscape is the physical and social characteristics of the built and non-built urban environment and the way in which we perceive those characteristics. The potential impact on townscape considers the likely extent of its visibility from key public
55
approaches and view corridors, and the changes to townscape features, townscape character and key viewpoints.
3.7.44 The area within the vicinity of the scheme is predominantly semi-rural, however the impacts upon Botley village will be need to be considered alongside traffic management measures that will need to be implemented in conjunction with the bypass. It is anticipated that these measures will have a positive impact upon the townscape of Botley. Historic Environment
3.7.45 Assessment of the impact on the historic environment includes any potential impacts on known:
buildings (individually or in association) of architectural or historic significance;
areas, such as parks, gardens, other designed landscapes or public spaces, remnant historic landscapes and archaeological complexes; and,
sites such as ancient monuments, places with historical associations such as battlefields, preserved evidence of human effects on the landscape, etc
3.7.46 There are no Listed Buildings directly within the proposed route corridor, however some Listed Buildings fall close to the safeguarded route of the proposed bypass. The nearest Listed Buildings are:
The Old Gate House (87 Winchester Street), a Grade II tollhouse from 1840;
The farmhouse, barn and outbuilding at Uplands Farm, all Grade II, dated to the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries;
The drinking fountain, monument 1m north of drinking fountain and stone 2m north of drinking fountain at Station Hill, all Grade II and dated to 1897, 1800 and unknown respectively; and
5-8 Sherecroft, a Grade II eighteenth century house.
3.7.47 There are a further 28 Grade II Listed Buildings within the central part of Botley, located roughly along the lines of Mill Hill / High Street (crossing Botley east to west) and Winchester Street / Church Lane (crossing Botley north to south).
3.7.48 Part of the route corridor falls within the northernmost edge of the Botley Conservation Area, at the point where the proposed bypass would cross the River Hamble. This Conservation Area straddles the administrative boundaries of EBC and WCC, and was designated in 1975. It was extended to the north-west and the south in 1998; the area to the northeast which has the potential to be affected by the proposed bypass comprises part of the initial designation.
56
3.7.49 Neither the route corridor nor its immediate surroundings fall within a designated Area of High Archaeological Potential. However, an initial consultation of on-line heritage records indicates that remains of archaeological importance have previously been discovered within the wider (2km) area, including known Roman remains. There is therefore considered to be the potential for buried archaeology along the route corridor which would need to be explored further.
3.7.50 A package of landscaping and replanting measures would need to be developed in order to mitigate the effects of tree and other vegetation removal upon the Conservation Area at the River Hamble crossing. This would need to be developed as part of the wider ecological and landscape mitigation strategies. In addition any archaeological remains which are discovered in the vicinity of the route corridor should be subject to an appropriate package of mitigation. This is likely to be preservation by record, although depending on the significance of any remains discovered alternative strategies may need to be considered.
3.8 Social Impacts
3.8.1 Social impacts cover the human experience of the transport system and its impact on social factors, not considered as part of economic or environmental impacts. In accordance with TAG Unit A4.1 there are eight social impacts to be considered:
Physical activity;
Accidents;
Security;
Severance;
Journey quality;
Option and non-use values;
Accessibility; and
Personal affordability.
3.8.2 Each of these impacts in relation to the scheme is considered in turn below. A proportionate approach has been taken, in keeping with the level of investment and the nature of the scheme. The general principles from TAG Unit A4.1 have been followed.
Physical Activity
3.8.3 Physical activity impacts include changes in levels of walking and cycling and resultant changes in mortality and absenteeism.
57
3.8.4 The scheme does not directly promote increased walking / cycling activity. However, the new bypass will include a combined pedestrian cycleway along its length which will provide a safer, more welcoming environment and could encourage more people to cycle / walk, or those that already cycle/ walk to do so more often. This would be expected to have a positive impact in terms of reduced mortality and absenteeism. In addition the scheme is forecast to result in significant reductions in traffic flow through Botley which could further encourage people to cycle or walk.
3.8.5 The overall impact on physical activity has been assessed as follows:
Accidents
3.8.6 Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data has been collated for the five year period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2015 for Woodhouse Lane and Winchester Road in the vicinity of the proposed bypass, and for the A334/A3051 junction at the east end. In that period only three serious accidents were recorded, and these were at the A334/A3051 junction, all involved right turning cars and two-wheeled vehicles.
3.8.7 The proposed scheme will include the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of the new bypass and the A334/A3051 which will reduce the conflict for right turning vehicles at this junction and hence the accident risk.
3.8.8 These localised benefits may be partly offset by the forecast increase in overall vehicle kilometres travelled as a result of the scheme. Therefore, the impact of the scheme on accidents has been assessed as follows:
Security
3.8.9 Potential impacts on security to be considered in accordance with Table 4.1 of TAG Unit A4.1 include: Formal / informal surveillance, site perimeters, entrances and exits, landscaping lighting and visibility and emergency call.
3.8.10 There is a degree of informal surveillance on the existing route, provided by properties adjacent to the road. With the new bypass alignment, which runs through open fields, the level of informal surveillance will be reduced.
Scenario Qualitative Assessment (seven point scale) – Physical Activity
Botley Bypass Neutral
Scenario Qualitative Assessment (seven point scale) – Accidents
Botley Bypass Slight Beneficial
58
3.8.11 The existing route alignment has street lighting. It is proposed that the new alignment would not be lit, except at the approaches to junctions, due to its rural surroundings. The overall impact on personal security has therefore been assessed as follows:
Severance
3.8.12 The high level of traffic through the centre of Botley, and in particular the number of HGVs, acts as a physical barrier to people wishing cross from one side of the High Street to the other. The new bypass will result in a significant reduction in traffic flows through the centre of Botley and will result in a reduction in severance through the area.
3.8.13 An assessment of the change in severance resulting from the scheme demonstrates slight severance, compared to moderate severance in the existing scenario. Therefore, this represents a slight beneficial impact overall, in accordance with Table 5.1 of TAG Unit A4.1.
Journey Quality
3.8.14 A qualitative assessment of journey quality considers the three key elements set out in Table 6.1 of TAG Unit A4.1:
Traveller care: aspects such as cleanliness, level of facilities, information and the transport environment;
Traveller’s views: the view and pleasantness of the external surroundings in the duration of journeys made; and
Traveller stress: frustration, fear of accidents and route uncertainty.
3.8.15 A positive impact is expected in terms of reduced congestion and delays to transport users, including bus users. Driver stress is currently classified as high. The scheme is expected to result in more reliable journey times and less frustration experienced by those travelling along this corridor, particularly at peak times.
3.8.16 The alignment of the new route, running through open fields, will offer pleasant views to travellers.
Scenario Qualitative Assessment (seven point scale) – Security
Botley Bypass Slight Adverse
Scenario Qualitative Assessment (seven point scale) – Severance
Botley Bypass Slight Beneficial
59
3.8.17 Furthermore, enhanced facilities are provided for pedestrians and cyclists, with the provision of foot /cycleways adjacent to the bypass. This will serve to create a safer, more pleasant environment for pedestrians and cyclists, improve journey quality, and reduce fear of accidents. Overall, the impact on journey quality has been assessed as follows:
Accessibility
3.8.18 Accessibility appraisal, as set out in TAG Guidance A4.2, includes a strategic accessibility assessment and an accessibility audit – these focus on public transport accessibility. Given that the proposed scheme is a highway improvement based scheme and has little direct influence on public transport services, a high level qualitative assessment has been undertaken.
3.8.19 There are currently three bus services that operate through the centre of Botley as follows:
Number 3 – Southampton to Boorley Green;
X15 – Hamble Square to Eastleigh; and
X9 – Curdridge Church to Eastleigh.
3.8.20 The proposed scheme will remove a significant amount of through traffic from the centre of Botley and will result in improved journey times and journey time reliability for bus services running through the area.
3.8.21 Whilst the accessibility appraisal focuses on public transport, the scheme does also provide enhanced accessibility by walking / cycling through the provision of enhanced / additional pedestrian and cyclist facilities including a new shared use footway / cycleway along the length of the new bypass.
3.8.22 The overall impact of the scheme on accessibility by non-car modes has been assessed as follows:
Scenario Qualitative Assessment (seven point scale) – Journey Quality
Botley Bypass Slight Beneficial
Scenario Qualitative Assessment (seven point scale) – Accessibility
Botley Bypass Slight Beneficial
60
Affordability
3.8.23 Given the nature of the scheme, the only potential impact on the cost of travel, or the availability of low cost travel to vulnerable groups, is considered to be changes in car fuel and non-fuel operating costs.
3.8.24 The TUBA analysis indicates some relatively minor changes in vehicle operating costs as a result of reduced congestion / delays, but these are not considered to be significant overall in terms of personal affordability. The overall impact on affordability has therefore been assessed as follows:
Option and Non-Use Values
3.8.25 In line with the guidance provided in TAG Unit A4.1, this scheme is assessed as having a neutral impact as it does not “substantially change the availability of transport services within the study area.”
3.9 Distributional Impacts
3.9.1 The main purpose of distributional impacts assessment is to consider how the scheme impacts may be expected to vary across different social groups. A summary distributional impacts assessment is included in Appendix H. A proportionate approach has been taken, in line with the value, scale and extent of impacts expected of the scheme proposed. It is not intended to be a fully comprehensive Distributional Impact appraisal, although key principles from TAG Unit A4.2 have been applied. A fuller appraisal of the distributional impacts of the scheme will be undertaken in due course should funding be secured for the scheme.
3.10 Overall Value for Money
3.10.1 The analysis contained within this chapter shows that the full scheme will generate a Present Value of Benefits (PVB) of £54.44m. The breakdown of the PVB is set out in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Breakdown of the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) (2010 prices, discounted to 2010)
Benefit PV (£m)
Travel Time 56.30
Vehicle Operating Costs -0.45
User Charges -0.11
Private Sector provider - revenue
-1.1
Wider public finances -0.09
Scenario Qualitative Assessment (seven point scale) – Affordability
Botley Bypass Neutral
61
(Indirect Taxation Revenues)
Greenhouse Gases -0.11
Total 54.44
3.10.2 The PVB compares against a Present Value of Costs (PVC) of £19.47m.
3.10.3 This results in a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.80, representing high value for money.
3.10.4 Further economic, social and environmental impacts have been derived which, whilst not providing a monetised benefit for use in this appraisal, should be taken into consideration when deriving the overall Value for Money presented by the scheme. These are set out in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3: Non-monetised impacts
Non-monetised impact Botley Bypass
Reliability Moderate Beneficial Regeneration Moderate Beneficial Wider Impacts - Noise Full EIA is currently being prepared Air Quality Full EIA is currently being prepared Landscape Full EIA is currently being prepared Townscape Full EIA is currently being prepared Historic Environment Full EIA is currently being prepared Biodiversity Full EIA is currently being prepared Water Environment Full EIA is currently being prepared Severance Slight Beneficial Personal Security Slight Adverse Physical Activity Neutral Accessibility Slight Beneficial Journey Quality Slight Beneficial Affordability Neutral Option Values Neutral
3.10.5 Whilst not being appraised benefits as defined by WebTAG, as they are not direct impacts on public accounts, the impact of the scheme on the local economy will also be substantial – this includes facilitating the delivery of jobs and housing.
62
4 Financial Case
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 The financial case sets out the profile of the scheme costs and provides justification of the affordability and details of funding responsibilities.
4.2 Scheme Costs
4.2.1 The total current outturn cost estimate for the scheme is £24,337,317, as detailed in Table 4-1. These figures include the base cost, plus adjustments for risk allowance and inflation. Each of these elements is discussed in turn below.
Table 4-1: Outturn scheme cost
Woodhouse Lane Improvements
Bypass Link Total
6.75m
A. Main Works 1,372,615 8,356,192 9,728,807
B. Statutory Undertakers
2,684,370
Total Works Costs 12,413,177
C. Land & compensation
113,960 602,952 716,912
D. Contingency (15%)
1,459,321
E. Design, Supervision, Support, Investigations@ 23.5% on A, D, H, F
3,379,738
F. Inflation (5% on A, D, H)
2,554,673
G. Base Project Cost (A to F) 20,523,821
H. Mean Risk Outcome
639,063
I. Risk Adjusted Project Cost (G + H) 20,523,821
J. Optimism Bias (15% on I)
3,174,433
Total Project Cost (I + J) 24,337,317
63
Base Costs
4.2.2 Base cost estimates for the scheme have been prepared, including the preparation costs, the design, supervision and construction of the road, and associated complementary and environmental mitigation. A cost estimate has been produced for the scheme, with costs prepared by Hampshire County Council Quantity Surveyors, who have used their estimating and pricing database as the base for the unit rates
4.2.3 The total main works cost estimate, which excludes allowances for statutory undertakers’ costs, inflation, land and risk (and optimism bias), is £9,728,807, as shown in Table 4-1 above.
4.2.4 A more detailed breakdown of the construction cost component of the total base cost is provided in Table 4-2 below. This correlates with the totals for ‘main works’ in Table 4-1 above.
Table 4-2: Construction costs breakdown
Construction cost component
(excluding utilities)
Woodhouse
Lane
Improvements
Cost (£)
New Bypass
Link
Cost (£)
TOTAL
(£)
Preliminaries 0 1,150,000 1,150,000
Site clearance 257,522 1,056,751 1,314,273
Carriageways & Drainage 924,952 2,355,926 3,280,878
Signs, Markings & Lighting 151,750 183,100 334,850
Environmental Works 38,391 250,465 288,856
Structures 0 3,359,950 3,359,950
Total 1,372,615 8,356,192 9,728,807
4.2.5 Allowances have further been made for inflation and risk (see below).
Inflation Assumptions
4.2.6 The Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) issued a statement on 15 October 2015 that said, ‘Tender prices in the civil engineering sector are set to rise significantly over the next five years. Prices have been stable over the past year but are forecast to rise by an average of over 5% per year for the next five years’.
64
4.2.7 Consequently, 5% p.a. inflation has been applied to the Base Project Cost to allow for a 2-year construction period commencing January 2019.
4.2.8 For the purposes of appraisal only, real inflation (i.e. the rate of inflation of costs above the rate of background inflation) has been considered (see Economic Case). For this financial case, the full rate of inflation has been included in cost forecasts.
Optimism Bias
4.2.9 As stated in TAG Unit A1.2 Scheme Costs, ‘Optimism bias is the demonstrated systematic tendency for appraisers to be overly optimistic about key parameters. Theories on cost overrun suggest that optimism bias could be caused by the organisation of the decision-making process and strategic behaviour of stakeholders involved in the planning and decision-making processes.’
4.2.10 Table 8 of the same document provides optimism bias percentage uplift recommendations to be applied to the risk adjusted project costs. The current project stage correlates to Stage 1 and therefore an optimism bias of 44% would be appropriate. However, clause 3.5.9, of TAG Unit A1.2, permits the use of Optimism Bias reductions provided there is sufficient supporting evidence to support this and the reduction is limited to the threshold recommended for the next stage in the development of the scheme which, in this case, would be 15%.
4.2.11 By undertaking a Monte Carlo simulation as part of the Quantified Risk Assessment the interrelationship between risks and the overall range of costs can be modelled and understood. This can be used as evidence when determining an appropriate level of Optimism Bias to apply to the risk-adjusted project cost provided the quality of the analysis is deemed acceptable. The Risk Workshop involved over 10 experienced and impartial specialists which has contributed to the rigor of the analysis. The results of the Monte Carlo simulation are shown in Appendix I and summarised in Table 4.3 below.
65
Table 4-3: Monte Carlo Simulation Results Summary
Percentile of results Maximum
Cost (£)
Percentage of
Risk-adjusted
Project Cost
0 35,791 0.2%
10 304,606 1.4%
20 406,461 1.9%
30 483,220 2.3%
40 541,642 2.6%
50 607,370 2.9%
60 675,509 3.2%
70 762,393 3.6%
80 863,282 4.1%
90 1,027,242 4.9%
100 1,462,173 6.9%
4.2.12 The results indicate that for the risks identified on the Risk Register with their associated cost range and probability of occurrence, the maximum combined cost of all risks is unlikely to exceed £1.5M, which corresponds to an Optimism Bias of around 7%. Under the TAG Unit A1.2 guidelines, this supports a reduction of the 44% Stage 1 Optimism Bias down to the Stage 2 threshold of 15%, which is in addition to the 15% contingency that has been included within the scheme costs.
Risk Allowances
4.2.13 A 15% contingency for variations to the Contract during the construction period has been included in the Works Cost estimates for the scheme. In addition, a general project risk allowance has been provided for. Risk costs are based on an assessment of risks and a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA). A full Monte Carlo approach has been used.
4.2.14 The QRA has identified a mean risk value of £639,063 in relation to the scheme. This figure is included in the overall scheme cost and spend profile. The Risk Register, including details of the quantified risk costs, is provided in Appendix I. Further details on risk assessment and risk management are also provided in Appendix J.
66
Scheme Cost Profile
4.2.15 as design work progresses.
4.2.16 Table 4-4 sets out an indicative spend profile which will be updated as design work progresses.
Table 4-4: Scheme cost profile - Phase 1
Year costs are incurred (£)
Total 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21
Total Project Costs £1m £1m £3m £9m £8-10m £22-24m
Ongoing Revenue Liability
4.2.17 The scheme design will take into account the need to build resilience into the bypass construction methodology from the outset being mindful that maintenance liabilities will fall to HCC beyond the funding window.
4.3 Scheme Funding
4.3.1 It is anticipated that 45-50% of the total cost of the scheme will be secured through local public and private sector contributions with the remaining 50-55% of the scheme costs being funded through the third round of the Local Growth Fund (LGF).
4.3.2 Confirmation of funding from the LEP along with the early confirmation of funding agreements will be sought to facilitate the acceleration of the delivery of the bypass. It would be inappropriate to pre-determine the proportions of respective contributions at this stage in advance of the negotiating and planning process, hence figures are not specified in this report. Discussions will be undertaken with the developers of adjacent land holdings and any other relevant nearby sites in respect of highways matters, as well as obligations associated with the bypass, at the appropriate time in the planning process and prior to scheme construction.
4.4 Funding Profile
4.4.1 Table 4-5 sets out the indicative funding profile for the scheme in advance of agreements formalising the level of private sector contribution, and hence only alludes to the contribution which is likely to be required from the LEP.
67
Table 4-5: Scheme funding profile
£m 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 TOTAL
Public and private sector
contributions tbc 1 4 tbc
LGF funding request £1m £1m £2m £5m £tbc tbc
Total Project Costs £1m £1m £3m £9m £8-10m £22-24m
68
5 Commercial Case
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 The Commercial Case sets out the commercial viability of the Botley Bypass scheme and the procurement strategy that will be used. This includes details of risk allocation and transfer, contract timescales and implementation timescales, as well as details of the capability and skills of the team delivering the project and any personnel implications arising from the proposal.
5.2 Certainty of delivery
5.2.1 Hampshire County Council has a proven track-record for delivery and is therefore confident that this project can be completed within the stated timescales and milestones. The scale and types of works are familiar to those delivering them.
5.3 Sourcing Options and Procurement Strategy
Main works contract
5.3.1 The main works will be procured via the Generation 3 Civil Engineering, Highways and Transportation Infrastructure Works Framework Two 2016-2020 (GEN3 (2)). GEN 3 (2) is a framework contract for specialist civil engineering structural works, complex highway infrastructure works, public authority civil engineering works and associated medium value construction work between the individual project values of approximately £50k to £10m. The GEN (2) Framework is available for use by HCC and other authorities across Southern England.
5.3.2 The GEN3 (2) Framework was introduced in 1st April 2016 with 10 selected contractors in the framework. Framework contractors’ performance will be monitored using Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and other performance data. Green performing Framework contractors are incentivised and tender submissions are weighted depending on current dashboard status
5.3.3 This mechanism provides an incentive for the Framework Contractors to maintain a high quality of work and standard of service whilst working for HCC. The GEN (2) framework has been demonstrated to provide value for money and this procurement route is also most suitable for the proposed delivery timescales for the scheme, for instance when compared to the OJEU process which would extend the delivery programme significantly.
5.3.4 The Contract will be procured under the terms and conditions of the NEC 3 Engineering and Construction Contract, most likely using Option B: Priced contract with Bill of Quantities. This Contract is applicable to both the value and the timescales required for the scheme and is used for contracts up to £10m. An option could be that the Contract could be let with a Quality / Price bid. This would enable
69
HCC to ask and score the Tenderers on specific questions relating to managing the highway network, public safety, and other key issues whilst constructing the works.
5.4 Procurement Timescales
5.4.1 Based on the assumption that there is a favourable response to the bid for funding which could accelerate the delivery of this scheme, a very high level indicative delivery programme is set out below:
Detailed Design – 2016/17;
Planning Application – 2017/18;
Land Acquisition – 2017/18/19; and
Main Construction – 2018/19/20.
5.4.2 The above will be ratified as design work progresses and clarity on funding is secured.
5.5 Specification
5.5.1 HCC has a standard specification that it uses on all of its highway projects. The SE7 Regional Highways Framework Model Contract Specification (which follows DMRB standard specification, contained in the Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW), published by Highways England in February 2016) will be used for the proposed works. If required, additional items will be added to the standard specification.
5.6 Commercial Risks to Delivery
5.6.1 The risks that the contractor will take on are as identified in the specified information contained within the NEC3 conditions of contract under which this scheme will be let Other project risks are identified in the Risk Register (see Appendix I) and risks will be allocated to the relevant party that will take on each risk, with some risks being mitigated by transferring the risk to the contractor to manage. Where possible, risks will be reduced throughout the design period and those remaining risks identified as part of the contract documents. Separate Risk Reduction meetings will also be held on a regular basis by the Site Team and the Contractor.
5.7 Human Resource Issues
5.7.1 There are no HR issues that have been identified in relation to the contracting for this scheme.
70
5.8 Contract Management
5.8.1 HCC Engineering Consultancy will prepare and audit the Contract documents in-house. The contract will be tendered using the electronic tendering system In-Tend. This facility enables Tenderers to receive and submit Tender documents electronically. It also manages Tender queries and their responses.
5.8.2 The following tender documents will be prepared and provided to Tenderers:
Specification;
Works Information;
Site Information;
Contract Data;
Bill of Quantities; and
Pre-Construction Health and Safety Plan.
5.8.3 A Contract Audit will be carried out by HCC, and a full cost estimate including risk cost review will be provided prior to Invitation to Tender.
5.8.4 During construction the site will be managed by an experienced Resident Engineer. The Resident Engineer will be responsible for the day to day management of the Contract. Site engineers, Clerk of Works and Quantity Surveyors will also assist the Resident Engineer.
5.8.5 The work will be required to be undertaken whilst causing the minimum of disruption to existing road network particularly along Woodhouse Lane and the junctions at either end of the proposed bypass.
5.8.6 Regular progress meetings will be held to monitor progress on site. The Project Manager will also attend these meetings and if need be will provide technical support and assistance to the Site Team. If needs be the Project Manager will inform the Client Manager of any significant events which can then be considered by the senior management teams.
71
6 Management Case
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 The Management Case demonstrates that the scheme is deliverable and that there are appropriate processes in place to support effective delivery.
Overview of Deliverability
6.1.2 The scheme will require the acquisition of land and planning permission. Discussions with the landowners will commence prior to the submission of the planning application. CPOs will be prepared in parallel in case they are needed, and whilst their use generates the risk of a Public Inquiry, the programme has taken the potential delay into account.
6.1.3 The majority of the bypass construction is off-line, so disruption to the travelling public will generally be limited to the construction of the tie-ins and works along Woodhouse Lane.
6.1.4 It is estimated that the bypass will take approximately 24 months to construct.
6.2 Governance
Project governance
6.2.1 The project will be delivered by Hampshire County Council (HCC). In all projects, HCC assembles a qualified and experienced team of individuals best suited to deliver major projects.
6.2.2
6.2.3
72
6.2.4 Figure 6-1 below illustrates the high level project governance / management arrangements to oversee successful delivery of the scheme. A more detailed illustration of the proposed delivery team structure / governance for this project is also provided in Figure 6.2
Figure 6-1: High level project governance
Hampshire County Council Executive Member for
Environment and Transport
Strategic Management Group
Major Schemes Project Board (Solent LEP Area)
Project Team
Design Team Working Group Project Working Groups
73
Project Management Board
6.2.5 The HCC Major Schemes Project Board (Solent LEP area) comprises officers with responsibility for the strategic delivery of all HCC major schemes within the Solent LEP area, thus ensuring effective co-ordination between all schemes. The Project Management Board has met regularly and will continue to do so throughout the delivery of the scheme. It will have a key focus on ensuring project assurance objectives are met, ensuring that the project remains on target in terms of business, user and technical objectives. It will also consider and approve contract management arrangements.
Senior Responsible Officer / Project Manager
6.2.6 The Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for the project delivery is: Keith Willcox (Assistant Director Economy, Transport and Environment). The Client Manager for the project is Heather Walmsley (Team Leader Major Schemes). The Project Manager for the scheme is Linda Wickens. Their role is to oversee the development and implementation of the scheme and provide the interface between the Project Teams and the Project Board.
Project teams
6.2.7 The project teams will be organised around project working groups focusing on a particular technical delivery topic. Project teams will consist of a combination of HCC staff and consultants. The Client Manager will co-ordinate the work of the project teams.
74
Figure 6-2: Scheme management structure
Project assurance
6.2.8 The project lifecycle will be underpinned by Hampshire County Council through a Gateway Review Process (GRP) and regular reports to the Executive Member in order to ensure each stage is critically assessed by personnel with the relevant skills and experience, prior to commencing the next stage. The GRP provides an audit trail and ensures relevant scrutiny and challenge, visibility and transparency, and compliance.
75
6.2.9 The GRP process enables:
Realistic and achievable targets;
Deployment of relevant skills and competencies to a project;
Stakeholders understanding of a project and issues involved;
Less chance of a project failing;
Identification of issues within a project and lessons learnt;
Compliance and governance of standing orders and best practice;
Visibility of the procurement process; and
Provision of a comprehensive audit trail.
6.2.10 A Project Appraisal will be produced as part of the Gateway process stage G3. A report has recently been approved by the Executive Member for Environment and Transport which will represent a G1 report.
6.3 Project Plan
6.3.1 A indicative programme for the bypass is presented in Figure 6-3 below which illustrates the key project tasks and delivery timescales. A more detailed gant chart will be provided as part of the Full Business Case.
Figure 6-3: Indicative Programme
Delivery Milestones
6.3.2 Key project milestones are provided below.
Table 6-4: Key project delivery milestones
Project Milestone Expected start - completion date
Public consultation June 2016
Preliminary Design April 2016 – February 2017
Planning Application June 2017
Detailed design May 2017 - May 2018 Contract and procurement May 2018 – October 2018
Advance works November 2018 – February 2019
Main works February 2019 – February 2021
76
Key Dependencies and Critical Path
6.3.3 Key dependencies that are critical to the successful delivery of the planned programme include:
Confirmation of funding approval from Solent LEP;
Planning consent for the works;
Acquisition of the land required for the works;
Woodhouse Lane improvements are dependent upon the completion of improvements to Maypole roundabout as part of committed off site works in association with permitted development at Boorley Green;
The A334 / A3051 junction at the eastern end of the bypass is currently identified as part of committed off site works linked to development at North Whiteley. Modifications will be required to the proposed improved layout;
Timely procurement of contractor; and
Project Appraisal (G3) approval by the HCC Executive Member for Environment and Transport which provides approval to deliver the scheme;
Statutory Powers and Consents
6.3.4 The construction of the Bypass will require planning permission and the acquisition of land. The extent of third party land is yet to be confirmed. Much of the land required for the bypass is already in the ownership of Hampshire County Council. However it will still be necessary to acquire various land interests in order to implement the improvement proposals and discussions have already started in respect of some of the known areas. Temporary use of additional land throughout the construction period may also be required.
6.3.5 Discussions with third party landowners who remain to be contacted, will take place prior to the submission of the planning application. CPOs will be prepared in parallel in case they are needed in the event that negotiations to acquire the necessary land by agreement are unsuccessful. The use of CPO’s generates the risk of a Public Inquiry which could cause delay, hence this has been factored in to the programme.
Statutory Undertakers
6.3.6 The Hampshire County Council Geographic Information System has been used to obtain data on public utilities. New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA) C2 plant enquiries have not been made to the relevant Utilities at this stage.
77
6.3.7 The following major services have been identified within the study area:
12 and 10 inch Esso fuel mains running south-west/north-east, crossing the route between Woodhouse Lane and Holmesland Lane;
40 inch Portsmouth Water water main running parallel to the railway at approximately 50m clearance;
8 inch Southern Gas Networks gas main crossing the route between Woodhouse Lane and Holmesland Lane;
20 inch Southern Gas Networks gas main to the north of the preferred route, west of Uplands Farm;
33kv overhead electricity cables crossing the route to the west of Uplands Farm; and
132kv overhead electricity cables running parallel to the railway at approximately 100m clearance with pylons at a maximum of about 300m centres.
6.3.8 Scottish & Southern Electricity (SSE) have been consulted about the location of the bypass with respect to the extra high voltage electricity pylons, and particularly in relation to the proximity of the River Hamble crossing to the pylon just west of Bottings Industrial Estate. SSE have provided the levels of the cables in the areas close to the bypass, along with information on the safety zones required.
6.3.9 It may be possible to put the 132kV overhead lines underground to the west of the River Hamble in association with the development of land in this area and for the cables to remain overhead to the east of the river. It is likely that should the lines be relocated underground then they will remain on the same alignment, however the ultimate location of the power cables and whether they are above or below ground is yet to be confirmed. The high voltage lines have a direct impact upon the location of the river crossing hence further work is required working closely with SSE to identify the optimum solution.
6.4 Evidence of Scheme Delivery
6.4.1 Hampshire County Council (HCC) has a strong track record in delivering transport infrastructure schemes, including major schemes. HCC is confident that this project can be completed within the stated timescales and milestones. The scale and types of works involved are familiar to those delivering them. Some examples of HCC delivery of transport infrastructure schemes are provided below.
78
Fareham to Gosport BRT (Redlands Lane to Tichborne Way) dedicated busway - Phase
1A
6.4.2 This £25m scheme was delivered to budget by Hampshire County Council within an extremely rapid timescale given the nature of scheme complexities and legal opposition, being opened in April 2012. The project faced legal opposition on environmental grounds and was ultimately taken to the Supreme Court where the final Appeal was dismissed and Objections overturned. In addition the County Council faced two separate Village Green Applications one of which was rejected the other partly accommodated.
6.4.3 The overall impact of the legal challenges resulted in a 9 month delay to construction programme, disruption and heavy legal costs. These impacts are considered to be relatively modest given the significant challenges faced.
M27 Junction 5 Phase 1
6.4.4 This scheme was completed in July 2010 and delivered by HCC on time and within budget, overcoming significant ecological and environmental constraints. Phase 1 provided a segregated left turn lane from the westbound off slip to the southbound A335 Stoneham Way, removing queuing traffic from the M27 westbound carriageway
6.5 Stakeholder Management and Engagement
6.5.1 Hampshire County Council has a good understanding of the key stakeholders involved in this scheme. Stakeholder engagement has included, and will continue to include, internal groups and external bodies as necessary, including: Natural England, the Environment Agency, Eastleigh Borough Council, Winchester City Council, and others as necessary.
Consultation / Engagement Undertaken to Date
6.5.2 Eastleigh Borough Council has recently undertaken an Issues and Options Public Consultation on their Local Plan. Botley Bypass was included as a scheme required to mitigate the impacts associated with potential new development generally in the area given the additional housing numbers the Planning Authority are minded to allocate and the increase in traffic growth over the extended Plan period.
6.5.3 Comments and considerations will be taken into account as design work progresses and further public consultation is planned specifically focusing on the Botley Bypass which will take place in June 2016.
79
6.5.4 The public consultation will provide the opportunity to seek public views regarding the bypass proposals and design work and will provide the opportunity for comments and feedback to inform the scheme development. See Section 2.7 for further details.
Stakeholder Management Strategy
6.5.5 Effective consultation and stakeholder management is undertaken in line with a scheme specific consultation strategy and communications plan. A consultation strategy is currently being prepared which will be included within the Full Business Case. A copy of the indicative consultation strategy programme is included below:
80
6.5.6 The consultation strategy and communications plan will set out the key events / actions that have been identified throughout the life cycle of the scheme, the key messages that require dissemination, and the preferred means of achieving this. The principal communication approaches will include the web site, press releases, events, meetings and formal reporting, depending upon the target audience. Co-ordination between departments within the Council, the Solent LEP, and partner organisations will ensure that information is released in a co-ordinated fashion, reducing confusion and supporting the process. Media relations will be co-ordinated through the Council’s press team and local media will be kept informed.
6.5.7 Table 6-1 below provides a summary of the key stakeholders and their influences/ interests and summarises the overall strategy for management / engagement. The most appropriate approach has been identified based upon the particular stakeholder interests and / or their role in scheme implementation
Table 6-1: Summary of the Stakeholder Management Strategy
Who Role/
Relevance /
interest
How Involve / Inform /
Consult
When
All
Councillors
Political
representatives
Internal Member
documents
Raise awareness and
consult
At key points
in the project
Solent Local Enterprise Partnership
Funding body One to one briefings
Inform, involve and consult
As necessary
Members of the public
General
interest
Public
consultation
event. Press
releases,
website and
electronic
newsletters
Seek comments; Inform, raise awareness
Regular updates to web site; at least every two months
Local MPs and MEPs
Political
representatives
One to one briefings
Consult and gain buy in
As necessary, and at key decision points
Natural England
Statutory
Consultee
One to one
briefings
Involve in design decisions
At appropriate times
Environment Agency
Statutory
Consultee
One to one
briefings
Involve in design decisions
At appropriate times
Local large and small employers
Interest in
localised
scheme
impacts
Public
consultation
Consult and gain buy in
As necessary
81
Who Role/
Relevance /
interest
How Involve / Inform /
Consult
When
Emergency
services
Emergency
access routes
Regular meetings
Consult and gain buy in
As project progresses
Disability Groups
Implications of
scheme design
on access
Email, meetings, Consult and inform
As necessary
Cycle groups
Provision for
cyclists,
including
safety
Letters / e-mail updates
Inform
At key points in the project
Public Utilities
Direct impacts
of scheme on
equipment
Letters / e-mail updates
Inform and involve As necessary
Scheme Acceptability
6.5.8 Overall, based on the consultation and engagement undertaken to date, the scheme has been demonstrated to have strong local support amongst the public and wider stakeholders.
6.5.9 There is a high public demand for improving traffic conditions through Botley, although a few local businesses may object to the loss of passing trade. There is good support from drivers and local residents for a bypass. The proposed alignment follows the route of the historical bypass shown on the Local Plans, and has political support from Eastleigh Borough Council and Winchester City Council.
6.6 Risk Management
Risk Management Approach
Risks are defined as the potential for future events to have a negative impact upon the
achievement of scheme objectives; scheme costs; and scheme delivery timescales. A risk
workshop has been held for the scheme to identify a comprehensive range of risks
falling under various risk categories. The Risk Register includes details of individual
risks, their potential impact and likelihood, any mitigating actions, and the
responsible owner. Risks have been considered to ensure all relevant risks are
captured and the risk register is included in Appendix I.
Risk management is a key process underpinning scheme governance and the
achievement of scheme objectives. Effective risk management will be underpinned
by the strong scheme governance and will support the achievement of scheme
objectives in a cost effective manner. An appropriate Risk Management Strategy
82
framework (comprising managing, reporting, process and responsibilities) is being
developed and will be included in the Full Business Case.
An appropriate framework comprising management, reporting, process and
responsibilities will be required throughout the development of the scheme which
will adopt the four processes identified below:
6.6.1 The Risk Register has informed the assessment of risk cost allowance to be included in the total scheme cost. Details of quantified risk costs are included in Chapter 4.
6.6.2 The Risk Register will be kept under review throughout the life of the project and will be the responsibility of the Project Manager. Risk reporting and review will be an integral component of Project Management Board meetings.
6.7 Monitoring and Evaluation
6.7.1 A monitoring and evaluation framework will support the wider monitoring and evaluation of the Solent LEP for the Solent Growth Deal. The primary purpose of undertaking monitoring and evaluation of the scheme is to:
Measure the success of the scheme against the identified scheme objectives;
Demonstrate that the scheme has achieved value for money; and
Identify key lessons learned.
83
Monitoring
6.7.2 The Monitoring and Evaluation plan will assess the performance of the proposal against the specific scheme objectives – these have been defined in terms of key outputs and outcomes. Before and after scheme monitoring will be undertaken to assess the performance of the scheme.
6.7.3 As part of the next stage of the scheme a comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation plan will be developed including the identification of the scope and requirements for the collection of before and after monitoring data. This likely to include traffic flows through Botley, journey time information, air quality monitoring in Botley, and accident data.
6.7.4 The facilitation of development is not easy to monitor specifically in relation to transport elements due to commercial sensitivities and the many and varied complex economic factors at play. They also tend to be longer term impacts. The economic benefits could be monitored through HCC’s Economic Development and Research and Intelligence teams who collect data annually on housing and employment development completions, which can then be used to assess the impact of transport infrastructure improvements through the following indicators:
Level of job retention;
Actual job growth; and
Increase in GVA.
Evaluation
6.7.5 Following scheme completion, an evaluation team will carry out an evaluation of the scheme to audit performance against aims and objectives in relation to activity performance, financial projections, construction and commissioning. A summary analysis of the outcomes that the project has delivered will be provided. If appropriate, and feasible, the evaluation could extend beyond a desk-based study and involve interviews with key project officers and a process review workshop with key parties and stakeholders.
6.7.6 The evaluation may cover the following areas, as appropriate:
Programme management, success factors and key obstacles to delivering the scheme. Provide details of project plan assessment, delivery at key milestones, etc. This will help identify good practice in this area, which can be shared in the future;
A review of evidence collated through HCC’s project management and governance procedures;
Consultation with key stakeholders to garner a range of views of the operation and success of the scheme;
The evolution of the risk register and the effectiveness of the risk management strategy e.g. safety during construction, delays to transport users, impacts on local business during construction;
If and how the context and rationale behind the scheme has changed;
84
Identify any changes to the delivered scheme from the planned scheme and the reasons behind any changes;
Assess how well scheme objectives are being realised at this stage; and
All costs involved in the management, construction and delivery of the scheme compared to the forecast costs including an assessment of risk and optimism bias in pricing.
6.7.7 Lessons learned from the implementation of the scheme will be documented on completion of key stages. The evaluation team, identified to carry out Post Project Evaluation (PPE), will audit performance against aims and objectives in relation to activity
performance, financial projections, construction and commissioning. The Project Manager will oversee the maintenance of a Lessons Learned Log from which will derive a Lessons Learned Report at project closure. This information will be shared with stakeholders and other authorities as appropriate.