suffolk local access forum · suffolk local access forum title: agenda meeting date: 17 january...

65
Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting (LAF 08/01). 3. Introduction of new members. 4. Bylth Estuary Draft Strategy. Michael Steen from Environment Agency to attend (LAF 08/02) 5. Onehouse Chilton Way (LAF 08/03). 6. Correspondence List of Streets, Lost Ways and National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums (LAF 08/04). 7. Tothill Junction (A14 NMU Audit) (LAF 08/05). 8. Ipswich Unitary Status Update (LAF 08/06). 9. Dates & Venues of Future Meetings. 10. Any Other Business. 11. Public question time.

Upload: others

Post on 08-Oct-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Agenda

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 Welcome and apologies

2 Minutes of last meeting (LAF 0801)

3 Introduction of new members

4 Bylth Estuary Draft Strategy Michael Steen from Environment Agency to attend (LAF 0802)

5 Onehouse ndash Chilton Way (LAF 0803)

6 Correspondence ndash List of Streets Lost Ways and National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums (LAF 0804)

7 Tothill Junction (A14 NMU Audit) (LAF 0805)

8 Ipswich Unitary Status Update (LAF 0806)

9 Dates amp Venues of Future Meetings

10 Any Other Business

11 Public question time

LAF 0801

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Minutes

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

AuthorContact Andrew Woodin

Minutes of meeting held in Tranmer House Sutton Hoo on Thursday 4 October 2007 Present David Barker Bryan Collen Julie Craven Gordon Merfield John Pearson (Chairman) Monica Pipe Norman Southgate Mike Taylor John Wayman Annette Whybrow Anthony Wright SCC Officers Present Jill Christley (minutes) Catherine Osborne Peter Tilley and Andrew Woodin

1 Welcome and apologies

Apologies Angela Brown Linda Hoggarth Mark Timms Bryan Freemantle and Jane Midwood

2 Minutes of Last Meeting (LAF 0716)

The minutes of the previous meeting were confirmed as an accurate record No matters arising

3 New members applications resignation and re-election

Linda Hoggarth has resigned from the forum Three more members are required to make up the required number The vacancies have been advertised and six people have applied Peter Tilley will retire at the end of November

4 Suffolk Coast amp Heaths AONB Draft management plan ndash Presentation

by Simon Hooton AONB unit manager SCampH (LAF 0717)

A management plan is required under the Countryside ampand ROW Rights of Way Act ampand is reviewed every 5 years ndash with the latest review due in 2007 The draft plan is currently out to consultation It tTried to bring together things partners ampand the public want andThe draft plan picks up on CCountryside Character setting out a vision for 2030 The plan reviews plans strategies and extend external priorities and sets out aims objectives outcomes and monitoring

LAF 0801

Simon Hooton flagged up some key drivers to the new plan - sustainable Sustainable development ndash development makes a big

difference eg in the Haven Gateway area with 50000 new homes in 20 years where will the new population go for recreation

- - interest Interest in rural delivery ndash balancing the needs of urban

ampand rural communities - Climate change ndash the need to understand the behaviour of people

who want to enjoy the AONB and help them to understand their impact and responsibility

- Coastal management ndash with the coming of Coastal Access the public need to understand that the coast is a resource

- Influence of farming ampand forestry -Development makes a big difference particularly in the Haven

Gateway area ndash 50000 new homes in 20 years and where will the new population recreate

- ROWIP o Countryside access o Suffolk Partners

- Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) - Adverse influences - eg litter disturbance pressure of use Need

to find ways of minimising adverse influences - Tranquillity - AONB has to balance visitors ampand tranquillity - Transport

o Trying to encourage use of bus ampand train by visitors o Important to work with local tourist businesses eg Connect

scheme to encourage sustainability o Coast link service to Minsmere ampand Dunwich ndash very

popular - Multiple management areas like the Sandlings need integrated

approach - All major walks need upgrading Simon Hooton distributed lsquoSnape

Explorerrsquo leaflet and raised possibility of a walking festival in lsquoshoulderrsquo seasons

- Try to build on AONB branding May have lsquoYou are now inhelliprsquo signs Current ROW finger posts help already

- Volunteer ranger projects encourage people to get involved Simon Hooton concluded he would welcome SLAFrsquos response to the draft document and would also welcome to comments on the strategic environmental assessment John Wayman ndash doesasked whether Simon Hooton thought there would Simon think there will be funding to achieve objectives Simon Hooton responded that although money was tight he was relatively confident of finding funding The AONB has connections with various organisations and many sources of funding eg Haven Gateway Interreg the National Lottery and Connect DEFRA have contributed to the sustainable development fund

LAF 0801

Relatively confident theyrsquoll find funding Bryan Collen ndashpointed out that f Funding from Europe was likely to diminish ndash it may need be necessary to get more from the public Simon Hooton ndash agreed that there was a need to change the psyche of the public and convince them that they may have to contribute more Gordon Merfield expressed concern at the number of cars in the AONB and said that some people arewere worried concerned that car park charges are were not going into funding the facility being visited (Peter Tilley joined the meeting) The Forum discussed the need for an improved cycling infrastructure It was felt that large tractors and trailers were making cycling in the countryside difficult and dangerous and that saving money on cycle routes resulted in more injuries which in turn led to more costs in hospitals and emergency services

He asked whatrsquos happening about cycling ndash need infrastructure for cyclists ndash need to be safe Large tractors amp trailers make cycling difficultdangerous Wants to see cycle paths so people can leave cars behind

Peter Tilley responded reported that SCC is working on improved cycling routes but said that under the LTP it was easier to get funding for urban cycling than for recreational cycling Simon Hooton said he wndash Would like to receive a response from SLAF containing GMrsquos these comments The more these concerns are expressed the more they would be taken into account in plans John Pearson ndash The more cycles on the road the more accidents will happen This impacts on hospitals ndash costs incurred here The cost of cycle networks would be less than the cost of hospitalisation of injured people Annette Whybrow asked how access and conservation can could be balanced SH is responded he hoped to work with Natural England to promote positive aspects of visiting sites to promote best behaviour in the countryside and to understand the implication of behaviour eg letting dogs off leads Wardens need to be out and about at weekends promoting good behaviour Julie Craven was ndash Ppleased to see an emphasis on ICZM Would She would like to see SLAF kept closely involved with the AONB plan by maintaining good communications with them The Coastal Zone is going to be important over coming years

LAF 0801

SH responded he would like to strengthen links between SCampH AONB ampand SLAF as the lsquorelevant authorityrsquo body John Pearson thanked Simon Hooton and asked for him to come back annually to review progress He asked the Forum to feed back to their constituent organisations

5 Response to Proposals to improve access to the English coast ndash comment on letter and pro forma (LAF 0718)

Forum happy with letter and pro-forma submitted

6 A14 Joint working between Highways Agency and Suffolk County

Council ndash update by officers

Andrew Woodin updated SLAF on a meeting in August between SCC officers and the Highways Agency and their agents Atkins to discuss access severed by A14 generally and to discuss some specific sites

- Belstead ndash SCC are successfully negotiating improvements - Bramford ndash edge of Ipswich ndash Agency acknowledge problems

They wanted to re-route the path to an underpass but are now looking at other options including installing a bridge suitable for walkers and cyclists

- Bury St Edmunds - the Agency may undertake a feasibility study on a cycle bridge over the A14

- All routes over A14 ndash Atkins will review their earlier audit of NMU crossings ampand will involve SCC in this process They acknowledge the same consideration needs to be applied to all the crossings SCC will feed information into this process

Andrew Woodin felt progress was being made and SLAF had an opportunity to get more involved Catherine Osborne had spoken to the Atkins agent doing the survey Catherine will look at crossing points and put SCCrsquos view before Atkins do their survey ACTION Catherine Osborne to draft letter from SLAF to Highways Agency asking for involvementdialogue with them ACTION CO asked Forum members who had volunteered on this issue to meet to discuss Anthony Wright noted the Agency needs to acknowledge that low use of ROW crossing the A14 is a direct result of the road itself also this isnrsquot just about ROW but quiet lanes too Highways Agency didnrsquot take this into account

LAF 0801

John Pearson felt an ongoing positive dialogue is required that also looks at funding issues He would like to meet the Agency once a year to discuss progress and asked CO to keep SLAF involved in ongoing discussions It was generally agreed that previous success on Haughley Bends had resulted in more engagement from Highways Agency They are more amenable now so SLAF need to maintain dialogue Julie Craven asked if gaps and severance would be taken into account by Highways Agency Andrew Woodin responded Highways Agency priorities have changed over last few years Accessibility is now more of a priority Severance of routes and splitting of communities is now more important to them John Pearson expressed concern some s106 agreements were not working very well and SLAF need a better need understanding of them Andrew Woodin told SLAF that SCC could fund a member on s106 and planning training Peter Tilley explained that s106 are planning agreements made prior to submission of planning applications concentrating on highways and access to school There is on average a contribution from developers of pound150 - pound250 per house for cycle paths and ROW Anthony Wright said that changing requirements mean that s106 agreements can get out of date

7 Highways Agency ndash Rookery Crossroads consultation ndash comment by

Bryan Freemantle (LAF 0719)

Bryan Collen felt that analysis of usage after improvement may be useful in future negotiations Peter Tilley responded that the principle of analysis from LTP schemes could be used with the Highways Agency There are lots of stats available showing good usage of improved routes Anthony Wright warned SCC officers to be careful in dealings with the Highways Agency For example the path under the A14 did not meet its original specification The Highways Agency said they werenrsquot bound by agreements and claimed they were only obliged to install a BR Even at construction stage it hadnrsquot been possible to make the Highways Agency construct the crossing to the agreed standard Sustrans had repeatedly reported that the path couldnrsquot be used because of mud and effluent from pigs that are transported along the path This is still a highway and is maintained by SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION ndash SCC officers to follow this up 8 Highways Agency ndash Haughley Bends Improvements ndash Comment on

post inquiry non-motorised user audit for Haughley Bend development Andrew Woodin reported that the Highways Agency had done audits of NMU usage as required by the Public Inquiry inspector but are not happy with report that came out The Highways Agency will be consulting with SCC on the detailed design of NMU facilities SCC will consider how the junction can be improved and use Highways Agency consultation to look for the best solution David Barker said that following the PI the track from Stowmarket is no longer a BR but now a road maintained by SCC and felt a bridge for horses and cyclists was required Peter Tilley responded if this area is developed there will be an opportunity to discuss improvements ACTION - Peter Tilley will approach engineers and designers about improvement to Tot hill junction Anthony Wright said the existing path adjacent to the A14 is difficult for cyclists to use Travelling downhill is not so bad but coming up cyclists must keep left - within 25cm of juggernauts This is more dangerous in rain wind and conditions of poor visibility Andrew Woodin reminded SLAF this whole carriageway will become a cycle track Gordon Merfield would like to send a letter to his MP pointing out that his promises are not being fulfilled John Pearson said that whilst individual SLAF members could take action independently SLAF needed to follow their agreed actions and have decided to maintain dialoguecontact with the Agency

9 SLAF Annual Report 2006-07 ndash Comment and response from SCC (LAF 0720)

The annual report was presented to Cabinet by Guy McGreggor and was very well received A discussion on funding followed Peter Tilley reminded SLAF very little money comes from SCC for major improvements this funding is usually obtained elsewhere eg LTP Capital funding SLAF also considered IBC unitary status and whether they would have a separate SLAF or combine with SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION Andrew Woodin to look at LAF arrangements in other areas with unitary councils Discuss at next meeting

10 Blyth Estuary Draft Strategy ndash update comment response

SCC circulated the Environment Agencyrsquos flood management document that outlines their intention not to protect the Blyth Estuary area (apart from around Reydon ampand Walberswick) Natural England ampand the Environment Agency have conflicting remits Natural England has funding to develop Coastal Access but Environment Agency doesnrsquot intend to maintain routes claiming landowners are responsible for these

Bryan Collen noted this issue is much wider than the Blyth Estuary Julie Craven felt other issues eg housing must not deflect SLAF who must concentrate on ROW SLAF need to go in hard on this consultation as it is the first of its type Julie Craven pointed out that there might be safety issues with non-maintenance A large chunk of Coastal network may be lost with cul-de-sac routes lost completely SLAF need to publicise implications and campaign to make people aware of conflicting policies Peter Tilley said costing takes several factors into account with only broad economics being considered Microeconomics are being ignored The argument is clear and pragmatic but takes no account of local coastal implications Andrew Woodin said Coastal Access proposals will incorporate a roll-back strategy and suggests that on Blyth Estuary consultation SLAF should raise the problem of loss of wider ROW network Wait for Environment Agencyrsquos reply (see below) before deciding on action then deal with Coastal Access implications later (John Wayman left the meeting) ACTION ndash Peter Tilley will write to Environment Agency as an initial response pointing out the conflicts between the Coastal Access initiative and the Blyth Estuary strategy Ask what they are going to do about ROW stating loss of access in unacceptable Ask them to defer SLAFrsquos response until after the next meeting Invite them to the next meeting to discuss

11 Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Letter and comment from users comment and response

LAF 0801

Peter Tilley briefed SLAF on the background of this potentially highly desirable route which would give good access to schools and for the local community Despite discussions the landowner has refused to agree to upgrade to a bridleway from a footpath Wimpey who have an option on the land agree with development of the route It is also in the Parish Plan Peter Tilley said that SCC would consider making an Order for the upgrade SLAF members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement Julie Craven ndash Proposed Forum must liaise with landowner and if unsuccessful should advise SCC to make order Gordon Merfield ndash Seconded IN FAVOUR ndash 6 AGAINST ndash 2 ABSTENTION ndash 2 The motion was carried ACTION David Barker assist SCC in discussions with landowner

LAF 0801

12 Consultation on ldquoRight to Apply for Path Ordersrdquo response ndash

comment (LAF 0721)

The Forum made no further comments

13 Access to Nayland Fen ndash letter from user group ndash comment

Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site as it is common land Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates The Forum endorsed Catherinersquos decision not to replace the stiles ACTION Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council

14 Dates ampand Venues of Future Meetings

Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAFrsquos comments into account after their deadline Date of next meeting 17 January 2008 at Claydon

15 Any Other Business

Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk A project called lsquoGeesersquo in Norfolk won the top award On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter

16 Public question time

There were no questions from the public

END

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 2: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0801

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Minutes

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

AuthorContact Andrew Woodin

Minutes of meeting held in Tranmer House Sutton Hoo on Thursday 4 October 2007 Present David Barker Bryan Collen Julie Craven Gordon Merfield John Pearson (Chairman) Monica Pipe Norman Southgate Mike Taylor John Wayman Annette Whybrow Anthony Wright SCC Officers Present Jill Christley (minutes) Catherine Osborne Peter Tilley and Andrew Woodin

1 Welcome and apologies

Apologies Angela Brown Linda Hoggarth Mark Timms Bryan Freemantle and Jane Midwood

2 Minutes of Last Meeting (LAF 0716)

The minutes of the previous meeting were confirmed as an accurate record No matters arising

3 New members applications resignation and re-election

Linda Hoggarth has resigned from the forum Three more members are required to make up the required number The vacancies have been advertised and six people have applied Peter Tilley will retire at the end of November

4 Suffolk Coast amp Heaths AONB Draft management plan ndash Presentation

by Simon Hooton AONB unit manager SCampH (LAF 0717)

A management plan is required under the Countryside ampand ROW Rights of Way Act ampand is reviewed every 5 years ndash with the latest review due in 2007 The draft plan is currently out to consultation It tTried to bring together things partners ampand the public want andThe draft plan picks up on CCountryside Character setting out a vision for 2030 The plan reviews plans strategies and extend external priorities and sets out aims objectives outcomes and monitoring

LAF 0801

Simon Hooton flagged up some key drivers to the new plan - sustainable Sustainable development ndash development makes a big

difference eg in the Haven Gateway area with 50000 new homes in 20 years where will the new population go for recreation

- - interest Interest in rural delivery ndash balancing the needs of urban

ampand rural communities - Climate change ndash the need to understand the behaviour of people

who want to enjoy the AONB and help them to understand their impact and responsibility

- Coastal management ndash with the coming of Coastal Access the public need to understand that the coast is a resource

- Influence of farming ampand forestry -Development makes a big difference particularly in the Haven

Gateway area ndash 50000 new homes in 20 years and where will the new population recreate

- ROWIP o Countryside access o Suffolk Partners

- Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) - Adverse influences - eg litter disturbance pressure of use Need

to find ways of minimising adverse influences - Tranquillity - AONB has to balance visitors ampand tranquillity - Transport

o Trying to encourage use of bus ampand train by visitors o Important to work with local tourist businesses eg Connect

scheme to encourage sustainability o Coast link service to Minsmere ampand Dunwich ndash very

popular - Multiple management areas like the Sandlings need integrated

approach - All major walks need upgrading Simon Hooton distributed lsquoSnape

Explorerrsquo leaflet and raised possibility of a walking festival in lsquoshoulderrsquo seasons

- Try to build on AONB branding May have lsquoYou are now inhelliprsquo signs Current ROW finger posts help already

- Volunteer ranger projects encourage people to get involved Simon Hooton concluded he would welcome SLAFrsquos response to the draft document and would also welcome to comments on the strategic environmental assessment John Wayman ndash doesasked whether Simon Hooton thought there would Simon think there will be funding to achieve objectives Simon Hooton responded that although money was tight he was relatively confident of finding funding The AONB has connections with various organisations and many sources of funding eg Haven Gateway Interreg the National Lottery and Connect DEFRA have contributed to the sustainable development fund

LAF 0801

Relatively confident theyrsquoll find funding Bryan Collen ndashpointed out that f Funding from Europe was likely to diminish ndash it may need be necessary to get more from the public Simon Hooton ndash agreed that there was a need to change the psyche of the public and convince them that they may have to contribute more Gordon Merfield expressed concern at the number of cars in the AONB and said that some people arewere worried concerned that car park charges are were not going into funding the facility being visited (Peter Tilley joined the meeting) The Forum discussed the need for an improved cycling infrastructure It was felt that large tractors and trailers were making cycling in the countryside difficult and dangerous and that saving money on cycle routes resulted in more injuries which in turn led to more costs in hospitals and emergency services

He asked whatrsquos happening about cycling ndash need infrastructure for cyclists ndash need to be safe Large tractors amp trailers make cycling difficultdangerous Wants to see cycle paths so people can leave cars behind

Peter Tilley responded reported that SCC is working on improved cycling routes but said that under the LTP it was easier to get funding for urban cycling than for recreational cycling Simon Hooton said he wndash Would like to receive a response from SLAF containing GMrsquos these comments The more these concerns are expressed the more they would be taken into account in plans John Pearson ndash The more cycles on the road the more accidents will happen This impacts on hospitals ndash costs incurred here The cost of cycle networks would be less than the cost of hospitalisation of injured people Annette Whybrow asked how access and conservation can could be balanced SH is responded he hoped to work with Natural England to promote positive aspects of visiting sites to promote best behaviour in the countryside and to understand the implication of behaviour eg letting dogs off leads Wardens need to be out and about at weekends promoting good behaviour Julie Craven was ndash Ppleased to see an emphasis on ICZM Would She would like to see SLAF kept closely involved with the AONB plan by maintaining good communications with them The Coastal Zone is going to be important over coming years

LAF 0801

SH responded he would like to strengthen links between SCampH AONB ampand SLAF as the lsquorelevant authorityrsquo body John Pearson thanked Simon Hooton and asked for him to come back annually to review progress He asked the Forum to feed back to their constituent organisations

5 Response to Proposals to improve access to the English coast ndash comment on letter and pro forma (LAF 0718)

Forum happy with letter and pro-forma submitted

6 A14 Joint working between Highways Agency and Suffolk County

Council ndash update by officers

Andrew Woodin updated SLAF on a meeting in August between SCC officers and the Highways Agency and their agents Atkins to discuss access severed by A14 generally and to discuss some specific sites

- Belstead ndash SCC are successfully negotiating improvements - Bramford ndash edge of Ipswich ndash Agency acknowledge problems

They wanted to re-route the path to an underpass but are now looking at other options including installing a bridge suitable for walkers and cyclists

- Bury St Edmunds - the Agency may undertake a feasibility study on a cycle bridge over the A14

- All routes over A14 ndash Atkins will review their earlier audit of NMU crossings ampand will involve SCC in this process They acknowledge the same consideration needs to be applied to all the crossings SCC will feed information into this process

Andrew Woodin felt progress was being made and SLAF had an opportunity to get more involved Catherine Osborne had spoken to the Atkins agent doing the survey Catherine will look at crossing points and put SCCrsquos view before Atkins do their survey ACTION Catherine Osborne to draft letter from SLAF to Highways Agency asking for involvementdialogue with them ACTION CO asked Forum members who had volunteered on this issue to meet to discuss Anthony Wright noted the Agency needs to acknowledge that low use of ROW crossing the A14 is a direct result of the road itself also this isnrsquot just about ROW but quiet lanes too Highways Agency didnrsquot take this into account

LAF 0801

John Pearson felt an ongoing positive dialogue is required that also looks at funding issues He would like to meet the Agency once a year to discuss progress and asked CO to keep SLAF involved in ongoing discussions It was generally agreed that previous success on Haughley Bends had resulted in more engagement from Highways Agency They are more amenable now so SLAF need to maintain dialogue Julie Craven asked if gaps and severance would be taken into account by Highways Agency Andrew Woodin responded Highways Agency priorities have changed over last few years Accessibility is now more of a priority Severance of routes and splitting of communities is now more important to them John Pearson expressed concern some s106 agreements were not working very well and SLAF need a better need understanding of them Andrew Woodin told SLAF that SCC could fund a member on s106 and planning training Peter Tilley explained that s106 are planning agreements made prior to submission of planning applications concentrating on highways and access to school There is on average a contribution from developers of pound150 - pound250 per house for cycle paths and ROW Anthony Wright said that changing requirements mean that s106 agreements can get out of date

7 Highways Agency ndash Rookery Crossroads consultation ndash comment by

Bryan Freemantle (LAF 0719)

Bryan Collen felt that analysis of usage after improvement may be useful in future negotiations Peter Tilley responded that the principle of analysis from LTP schemes could be used with the Highways Agency There are lots of stats available showing good usage of improved routes Anthony Wright warned SCC officers to be careful in dealings with the Highways Agency For example the path under the A14 did not meet its original specification The Highways Agency said they werenrsquot bound by agreements and claimed they were only obliged to install a BR Even at construction stage it hadnrsquot been possible to make the Highways Agency construct the crossing to the agreed standard Sustrans had repeatedly reported that the path couldnrsquot be used because of mud and effluent from pigs that are transported along the path This is still a highway and is maintained by SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION ndash SCC officers to follow this up 8 Highways Agency ndash Haughley Bends Improvements ndash Comment on

post inquiry non-motorised user audit for Haughley Bend development Andrew Woodin reported that the Highways Agency had done audits of NMU usage as required by the Public Inquiry inspector but are not happy with report that came out The Highways Agency will be consulting with SCC on the detailed design of NMU facilities SCC will consider how the junction can be improved and use Highways Agency consultation to look for the best solution David Barker said that following the PI the track from Stowmarket is no longer a BR but now a road maintained by SCC and felt a bridge for horses and cyclists was required Peter Tilley responded if this area is developed there will be an opportunity to discuss improvements ACTION - Peter Tilley will approach engineers and designers about improvement to Tot hill junction Anthony Wright said the existing path adjacent to the A14 is difficult for cyclists to use Travelling downhill is not so bad but coming up cyclists must keep left - within 25cm of juggernauts This is more dangerous in rain wind and conditions of poor visibility Andrew Woodin reminded SLAF this whole carriageway will become a cycle track Gordon Merfield would like to send a letter to his MP pointing out that his promises are not being fulfilled John Pearson said that whilst individual SLAF members could take action independently SLAF needed to follow their agreed actions and have decided to maintain dialoguecontact with the Agency

9 SLAF Annual Report 2006-07 ndash Comment and response from SCC (LAF 0720)

The annual report was presented to Cabinet by Guy McGreggor and was very well received A discussion on funding followed Peter Tilley reminded SLAF very little money comes from SCC for major improvements this funding is usually obtained elsewhere eg LTP Capital funding SLAF also considered IBC unitary status and whether they would have a separate SLAF or combine with SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION Andrew Woodin to look at LAF arrangements in other areas with unitary councils Discuss at next meeting

10 Blyth Estuary Draft Strategy ndash update comment response

SCC circulated the Environment Agencyrsquos flood management document that outlines their intention not to protect the Blyth Estuary area (apart from around Reydon ampand Walberswick) Natural England ampand the Environment Agency have conflicting remits Natural England has funding to develop Coastal Access but Environment Agency doesnrsquot intend to maintain routes claiming landowners are responsible for these

Bryan Collen noted this issue is much wider than the Blyth Estuary Julie Craven felt other issues eg housing must not deflect SLAF who must concentrate on ROW SLAF need to go in hard on this consultation as it is the first of its type Julie Craven pointed out that there might be safety issues with non-maintenance A large chunk of Coastal network may be lost with cul-de-sac routes lost completely SLAF need to publicise implications and campaign to make people aware of conflicting policies Peter Tilley said costing takes several factors into account with only broad economics being considered Microeconomics are being ignored The argument is clear and pragmatic but takes no account of local coastal implications Andrew Woodin said Coastal Access proposals will incorporate a roll-back strategy and suggests that on Blyth Estuary consultation SLAF should raise the problem of loss of wider ROW network Wait for Environment Agencyrsquos reply (see below) before deciding on action then deal with Coastal Access implications later (John Wayman left the meeting) ACTION ndash Peter Tilley will write to Environment Agency as an initial response pointing out the conflicts between the Coastal Access initiative and the Blyth Estuary strategy Ask what they are going to do about ROW stating loss of access in unacceptable Ask them to defer SLAFrsquos response until after the next meeting Invite them to the next meeting to discuss

11 Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Letter and comment from users comment and response

LAF 0801

Peter Tilley briefed SLAF on the background of this potentially highly desirable route which would give good access to schools and for the local community Despite discussions the landowner has refused to agree to upgrade to a bridleway from a footpath Wimpey who have an option on the land agree with development of the route It is also in the Parish Plan Peter Tilley said that SCC would consider making an Order for the upgrade SLAF members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement Julie Craven ndash Proposed Forum must liaise with landowner and if unsuccessful should advise SCC to make order Gordon Merfield ndash Seconded IN FAVOUR ndash 6 AGAINST ndash 2 ABSTENTION ndash 2 The motion was carried ACTION David Barker assist SCC in discussions with landowner

LAF 0801

12 Consultation on ldquoRight to Apply for Path Ordersrdquo response ndash

comment (LAF 0721)

The Forum made no further comments

13 Access to Nayland Fen ndash letter from user group ndash comment

Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site as it is common land Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates The Forum endorsed Catherinersquos decision not to replace the stiles ACTION Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council

14 Dates ampand Venues of Future Meetings

Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAFrsquos comments into account after their deadline Date of next meeting 17 January 2008 at Claydon

15 Any Other Business

Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk A project called lsquoGeesersquo in Norfolk won the top award On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter

16 Public question time

There were no questions from the public

END

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 3: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0801

Simon Hooton flagged up some key drivers to the new plan - sustainable Sustainable development ndash development makes a big

difference eg in the Haven Gateway area with 50000 new homes in 20 years where will the new population go for recreation

- - interest Interest in rural delivery ndash balancing the needs of urban

ampand rural communities - Climate change ndash the need to understand the behaviour of people

who want to enjoy the AONB and help them to understand their impact and responsibility

- Coastal management ndash with the coming of Coastal Access the public need to understand that the coast is a resource

- Influence of farming ampand forestry -Development makes a big difference particularly in the Haven

Gateway area ndash 50000 new homes in 20 years and where will the new population recreate

- ROWIP o Countryside access o Suffolk Partners

- Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) - Adverse influences - eg litter disturbance pressure of use Need

to find ways of minimising adverse influences - Tranquillity - AONB has to balance visitors ampand tranquillity - Transport

o Trying to encourage use of bus ampand train by visitors o Important to work with local tourist businesses eg Connect

scheme to encourage sustainability o Coast link service to Minsmere ampand Dunwich ndash very

popular - Multiple management areas like the Sandlings need integrated

approach - All major walks need upgrading Simon Hooton distributed lsquoSnape

Explorerrsquo leaflet and raised possibility of a walking festival in lsquoshoulderrsquo seasons

- Try to build on AONB branding May have lsquoYou are now inhelliprsquo signs Current ROW finger posts help already

- Volunteer ranger projects encourage people to get involved Simon Hooton concluded he would welcome SLAFrsquos response to the draft document and would also welcome to comments on the strategic environmental assessment John Wayman ndash doesasked whether Simon Hooton thought there would Simon think there will be funding to achieve objectives Simon Hooton responded that although money was tight he was relatively confident of finding funding The AONB has connections with various organisations and many sources of funding eg Haven Gateway Interreg the National Lottery and Connect DEFRA have contributed to the sustainable development fund

LAF 0801

Relatively confident theyrsquoll find funding Bryan Collen ndashpointed out that f Funding from Europe was likely to diminish ndash it may need be necessary to get more from the public Simon Hooton ndash agreed that there was a need to change the psyche of the public and convince them that they may have to contribute more Gordon Merfield expressed concern at the number of cars in the AONB and said that some people arewere worried concerned that car park charges are were not going into funding the facility being visited (Peter Tilley joined the meeting) The Forum discussed the need for an improved cycling infrastructure It was felt that large tractors and trailers were making cycling in the countryside difficult and dangerous and that saving money on cycle routes resulted in more injuries which in turn led to more costs in hospitals and emergency services

He asked whatrsquos happening about cycling ndash need infrastructure for cyclists ndash need to be safe Large tractors amp trailers make cycling difficultdangerous Wants to see cycle paths so people can leave cars behind

Peter Tilley responded reported that SCC is working on improved cycling routes but said that under the LTP it was easier to get funding for urban cycling than for recreational cycling Simon Hooton said he wndash Would like to receive a response from SLAF containing GMrsquos these comments The more these concerns are expressed the more they would be taken into account in plans John Pearson ndash The more cycles on the road the more accidents will happen This impacts on hospitals ndash costs incurred here The cost of cycle networks would be less than the cost of hospitalisation of injured people Annette Whybrow asked how access and conservation can could be balanced SH is responded he hoped to work with Natural England to promote positive aspects of visiting sites to promote best behaviour in the countryside and to understand the implication of behaviour eg letting dogs off leads Wardens need to be out and about at weekends promoting good behaviour Julie Craven was ndash Ppleased to see an emphasis on ICZM Would She would like to see SLAF kept closely involved with the AONB plan by maintaining good communications with them The Coastal Zone is going to be important over coming years

LAF 0801

SH responded he would like to strengthen links between SCampH AONB ampand SLAF as the lsquorelevant authorityrsquo body John Pearson thanked Simon Hooton and asked for him to come back annually to review progress He asked the Forum to feed back to their constituent organisations

5 Response to Proposals to improve access to the English coast ndash comment on letter and pro forma (LAF 0718)

Forum happy with letter and pro-forma submitted

6 A14 Joint working between Highways Agency and Suffolk County

Council ndash update by officers

Andrew Woodin updated SLAF on a meeting in August between SCC officers and the Highways Agency and their agents Atkins to discuss access severed by A14 generally and to discuss some specific sites

- Belstead ndash SCC are successfully negotiating improvements - Bramford ndash edge of Ipswich ndash Agency acknowledge problems

They wanted to re-route the path to an underpass but are now looking at other options including installing a bridge suitable for walkers and cyclists

- Bury St Edmunds - the Agency may undertake a feasibility study on a cycle bridge over the A14

- All routes over A14 ndash Atkins will review their earlier audit of NMU crossings ampand will involve SCC in this process They acknowledge the same consideration needs to be applied to all the crossings SCC will feed information into this process

Andrew Woodin felt progress was being made and SLAF had an opportunity to get more involved Catherine Osborne had spoken to the Atkins agent doing the survey Catherine will look at crossing points and put SCCrsquos view before Atkins do their survey ACTION Catherine Osborne to draft letter from SLAF to Highways Agency asking for involvementdialogue with them ACTION CO asked Forum members who had volunteered on this issue to meet to discuss Anthony Wright noted the Agency needs to acknowledge that low use of ROW crossing the A14 is a direct result of the road itself also this isnrsquot just about ROW but quiet lanes too Highways Agency didnrsquot take this into account

LAF 0801

John Pearson felt an ongoing positive dialogue is required that also looks at funding issues He would like to meet the Agency once a year to discuss progress and asked CO to keep SLAF involved in ongoing discussions It was generally agreed that previous success on Haughley Bends had resulted in more engagement from Highways Agency They are more amenable now so SLAF need to maintain dialogue Julie Craven asked if gaps and severance would be taken into account by Highways Agency Andrew Woodin responded Highways Agency priorities have changed over last few years Accessibility is now more of a priority Severance of routes and splitting of communities is now more important to them John Pearson expressed concern some s106 agreements were not working very well and SLAF need a better need understanding of them Andrew Woodin told SLAF that SCC could fund a member on s106 and planning training Peter Tilley explained that s106 are planning agreements made prior to submission of planning applications concentrating on highways and access to school There is on average a contribution from developers of pound150 - pound250 per house for cycle paths and ROW Anthony Wright said that changing requirements mean that s106 agreements can get out of date

7 Highways Agency ndash Rookery Crossroads consultation ndash comment by

Bryan Freemantle (LAF 0719)

Bryan Collen felt that analysis of usage after improvement may be useful in future negotiations Peter Tilley responded that the principle of analysis from LTP schemes could be used with the Highways Agency There are lots of stats available showing good usage of improved routes Anthony Wright warned SCC officers to be careful in dealings with the Highways Agency For example the path under the A14 did not meet its original specification The Highways Agency said they werenrsquot bound by agreements and claimed they were only obliged to install a BR Even at construction stage it hadnrsquot been possible to make the Highways Agency construct the crossing to the agreed standard Sustrans had repeatedly reported that the path couldnrsquot be used because of mud and effluent from pigs that are transported along the path This is still a highway and is maintained by SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION ndash SCC officers to follow this up 8 Highways Agency ndash Haughley Bends Improvements ndash Comment on

post inquiry non-motorised user audit for Haughley Bend development Andrew Woodin reported that the Highways Agency had done audits of NMU usage as required by the Public Inquiry inspector but are not happy with report that came out The Highways Agency will be consulting with SCC on the detailed design of NMU facilities SCC will consider how the junction can be improved and use Highways Agency consultation to look for the best solution David Barker said that following the PI the track from Stowmarket is no longer a BR but now a road maintained by SCC and felt a bridge for horses and cyclists was required Peter Tilley responded if this area is developed there will be an opportunity to discuss improvements ACTION - Peter Tilley will approach engineers and designers about improvement to Tot hill junction Anthony Wright said the existing path adjacent to the A14 is difficult for cyclists to use Travelling downhill is not so bad but coming up cyclists must keep left - within 25cm of juggernauts This is more dangerous in rain wind and conditions of poor visibility Andrew Woodin reminded SLAF this whole carriageway will become a cycle track Gordon Merfield would like to send a letter to his MP pointing out that his promises are not being fulfilled John Pearson said that whilst individual SLAF members could take action independently SLAF needed to follow their agreed actions and have decided to maintain dialoguecontact with the Agency

9 SLAF Annual Report 2006-07 ndash Comment and response from SCC (LAF 0720)

The annual report was presented to Cabinet by Guy McGreggor and was very well received A discussion on funding followed Peter Tilley reminded SLAF very little money comes from SCC for major improvements this funding is usually obtained elsewhere eg LTP Capital funding SLAF also considered IBC unitary status and whether they would have a separate SLAF or combine with SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION Andrew Woodin to look at LAF arrangements in other areas with unitary councils Discuss at next meeting

10 Blyth Estuary Draft Strategy ndash update comment response

SCC circulated the Environment Agencyrsquos flood management document that outlines their intention not to protect the Blyth Estuary area (apart from around Reydon ampand Walberswick) Natural England ampand the Environment Agency have conflicting remits Natural England has funding to develop Coastal Access but Environment Agency doesnrsquot intend to maintain routes claiming landowners are responsible for these

Bryan Collen noted this issue is much wider than the Blyth Estuary Julie Craven felt other issues eg housing must not deflect SLAF who must concentrate on ROW SLAF need to go in hard on this consultation as it is the first of its type Julie Craven pointed out that there might be safety issues with non-maintenance A large chunk of Coastal network may be lost with cul-de-sac routes lost completely SLAF need to publicise implications and campaign to make people aware of conflicting policies Peter Tilley said costing takes several factors into account with only broad economics being considered Microeconomics are being ignored The argument is clear and pragmatic but takes no account of local coastal implications Andrew Woodin said Coastal Access proposals will incorporate a roll-back strategy and suggests that on Blyth Estuary consultation SLAF should raise the problem of loss of wider ROW network Wait for Environment Agencyrsquos reply (see below) before deciding on action then deal with Coastal Access implications later (John Wayman left the meeting) ACTION ndash Peter Tilley will write to Environment Agency as an initial response pointing out the conflicts between the Coastal Access initiative and the Blyth Estuary strategy Ask what they are going to do about ROW stating loss of access in unacceptable Ask them to defer SLAFrsquos response until after the next meeting Invite them to the next meeting to discuss

11 Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Letter and comment from users comment and response

LAF 0801

Peter Tilley briefed SLAF on the background of this potentially highly desirable route which would give good access to schools and for the local community Despite discussions the landowner has refused to agree to upgrade to a bridleway from a footpath Wimpey who have an option on the land agree with development of the route It is also in the Parish Plan Peter Tilley said that SCC would consider making an Order for the upgrade SLAF members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement Julie Craven ndash Proposed Forum must liaise with landowner and if unsuccessful should advise SCC to make order Gordon Merfield ndash Seconded IN FAVOUR ndash 6 AGAINST ndash 2 ABSTENTION ndash 2 The motion was carried ACTION David Barker assist SCC in discussions with landowner

LAF 0801

12 Consultation on ldquoRight to Apply for Path Ordersrdquo response ndash

comment (LAF 0721)

The Forum made no further comments

13 Access to Nayland Fen ndash letter from user group ndash comment

Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site as it is common land Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates The Forum endorsed Catherinersquos decision not to replace the stiles ACTION Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council

14 Dates ampand Venues of Future Meetings

Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAFrsquos comments into account after their deadline Date of next meeting 17 January 2008 at Claydon

15 Any Other Business

Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk A project called lsquoGeesersquo in Norfolk won the top award On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter

16 Public question time

There were no questions from the public

END

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 4: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0801

Relatively confident theyrsquoll find funding Bryan Collen ndashpointed out that f Funding from Europe was likely to diminish ndash it may need be necessary to get more from the public Simon Hooton ndash agreed that there was a need to change the psyche of the public and convince them that they may have to contribute more Gordon Merfield expressed concern at the number of cars in the AONB and said that some people arewere worried concerned that car park charges are were not going into funding the facility being visited (Peter Tilley joined the meeting) The Forum discussed the need for an improved cycling infrastructure It was felt that large tractors and trailers were making cycling in the countryside difficult and dangerous and that saving money on cycle routes resulted in more injuries which in turn led to more costs in hospitals and emergency services

He asked whatrsquos happening about cycling ndash need infrastructure for cyclists ndash need to be safe Large tractors amp trailers make cycling difficultdangerous Wants to see cycle paths so people can leave cars behind

Peter Tilley responded reported that SCC is working on improved cycling routes but said that under the LTP it was easier to get funding for urban cycling than for recreational cycling Simon Hooton said he wndash Would like to receive a response from SLAF containing GMrsquos these comments The more these concerns are expressed the more they would be taken into account in plans John Pearson ndash The more cycles on the road the more accidents will happen This impacts on hospitals ndash costs incurred here The cost of cycle networks would be less than the cost of hospitalisation of injured people Annette Whybrow asked how access and conservation can could be balanced SH is responded he hoped to work with Natural England to promote positive aspects of visiting sites to promote best behaviour in the countryside and to understand the implication of behaviour eg letting dogs off leads Wardens need to be out and about at weekends promoting good behaviour Julie Craven was ndash Ppleased to see an emphasis on ICZM Would She would like to see SLAF kept closely involved with the AONB plan by maintaining good communications with them The Coastal Zone is going to be important over coming years

LAF 0801

SH responded he would like to strengthen links between SCampH AONB ampand SLAF as the lsquorelevant authorityrsquo body John Pearson thanked Simon Hooton and asked for him to come back annually to review progress He asked the Forum to feed back to their constituent organisations

5 Response to Proposals to improve access to the English coast ndash comment on letter and pro forma (LAF 0718)

Forum happy with letter and pro-forma submitted

6 A14 Joint working between Highways Agency and Suffolk County

Council ndash update by officers

Andrew Woodin updated SLAF on a meeting in August between SCC officers and the Highways Agency and their agents Atkins to discuss access severed by A14 generally and to discuss some specific sites

- Belstead ndash SCC are successfully negotiating improvements - Bramford ndash edge of Ipswich ndash Agency acknowledge problems

They wanted to re-route the path to an underpass but are now looking at other options including installing a bridge suitable for walkers and cyclists

- Bury St Edmunds - the Agency may undertake a feasibility study on a cycle bridge over the A14

- All routes over A14 ndash Atkins will review their earlier audit of NMU crossings ampand will involve SCC in this process They acknowledge the same consideration needs to be applied to all the crossings SCC will feed information into this process

Andrew Woodin felt progress was being made and SLAF had an opportunity to get more involved Catherine Osborne had spoken to the Atkins agent doing the survey Catherine will look at crossing points and put SCCrsquos view before Atkins do their survey ACTION Catherine Osborne to draft letter from SLAF to Highways Agency asking for involvementdialogue with them ACTION CO asked Forum members who had volunteered on this issue to meet to discuss Anthony Wright noted the Agency needs to acknowledge that low use of ROW crossing the A14 is a direct result of the road itself also this isnrsquot just about ROW but quiet lanes too Highways Agency didnrsquot take this into account

LAF 0801

John Pearson felt an ongoing positive dialogue is required that also looks at funding issues He would like to meet the Agency once a year to discuss progress and asked CO to keep SLAF involved in ongoing discussions It was generally agreed that previous success on Haughley Bends had resulted in more engagement from Highways Agency They are more amenable now so SLAF need to maintain dialogue Julie Craven asked if gaps and severance would be taken into account by Highways Agency Andrew Woodin responded Highways Agency priorities have changed over last few years Accessibility is now more of a priority Severance of routes and splitting of communities is now more important to them John Pearson expressed concern some s106 agreements were not working very well and SLAF need a better need understanding of them Andrew Woodin told SLAF that SCC could fund a member on s106 and planning training Peter Tilley explained that s106 are planning agreements made prior to submission of planning applications concentrating on highways and access to school There is on average a contribution from developers of pound150 - pound250 per house for cycle paths and ROW Anthony Wright said that changing requirements mean that s106 agreements can get out of date

7 Highways Agency ndash Rookery Crossroads consultation ndash comment by

Bryan Freemantle (LAF 0719)

Bryan Collen felt that analysis of usage after improvement may be useful in future negotiations Peter Tilley responded that the principle of analysis from LTP schemes could be used with the Highways Agency There are lots of stats available showing good usage of improved routes Anthony Wright warned SCC officers to be careful in dealings with the Highways Agency For example the path under the A14 did not meet its original specification The Highways Agency said they werenrsquot bound by agreements and claimed they were only obliged to install a BR Even at construction stage it hadnrsquot been possible to make the Highways Agency construct the crossing to the agreed standard Sustrans had repeatedly reported that the path couldnrsquot be used because of mud and effluent from pigs that are transported along the path This is still a highway and is maintained by SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION ndash SCC officers to follow this up 8 Highways Agency ndash Haughley Bends Improvements ndash Comment on

post inquiry non-motorised user audit for Haughley Bend development Andrew Woodin reported that the Highways Agency had done audits of NMU usage as required by the Public Inquiry inspector but are not happy with report that came out The Highways Agency will be consulting with SCC on the detailed design of NMU facilities SCC will consider how the junction can be improved and use Highways Agency consultation to look for the best solution David Barker said that following the PI the track from Stowmarket is no longer a BR but now a road maintained by SCC and felt a bridge for horses and cyclists was required Peter Tilley responded if this area is developed there will be an opportunity to discuss improvements ACTION - Peter Tilley will approach engineers and designers about improvement to Tot hill junction Anthony Wright said the existing path adjacent to the A14 is difficult for cyclists to use Travelling downhill is not so bad but coming up cyclists must keep left - within 25cm of juggernauts This is more dangerous in rain wind and conditions of poor visibility Andrew Woodin reminded SLAF this whole carriageway will become a cycle track Gordon Merfield would like to send a letter to his MP pointing out that his promises are not being fulfilled John Pearson said that whilst individual SLAF members could take action independently SLAF needed to follow their agreed actions and have decided to maintain dialoguecontact with the Agency

9 SLAF Annual Report 2006-07 ndash Comment and response from SCC (LAF 0720)

The annual report was presented to Cabinet by Guy McGreggor and was very well received A discussion on funding followed Peter Tilley reminded SLAF very little money comes from SCC for major improvements this funding is usually obtained elsewhere eg LTP Capital funding SLAF also considered IBC unitary status and whether they would have a separate SLAF or combine with SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION Andrew Woodin to look at LAF arrangements in other areas with unitary councils Discuss at next meeting

10 Blyth Estuary Draft Strategy ndash update comment response

SCC circulated the Environment Agencyrsquos flood management document that outlines their intention not to protect the Blyth Estuary area (apart from around Reydon ampand Walberswick) Natural England ampand the Environment Agency have conflicting remits Natural England has funding to develop Coastal Access but Environment Agency doesnrsquot intend to maintain routes claiming landowners are responsible for these

Bryan Collen noted this issue is much wider than the Blyth Estuary Julie Craven felt other issues eg housing must not deflect SLAF who must concentrate on ROW SLAF need to go in hard on this consultation as it is the first of its type Julie Craven pointed out that there might be safety issues with non-maintenance A large chunk of Coastal network may be lost with cul-de-sac routes lost completely SLAF need to publicise implications and campaign to make people aware of conflicting policies Peter Tilley said costing takes several factors into account with only broad economics being considered Microeconomics are being ignored The argument is clear and pragmatic but takes no account of local coastal implications Andrew Woodin said Coastal Access proposals will incorporate a roll-back strategy and suggests that on Blyth Estuary consultation SLAF should raise the problem of loss of wider ROW network Wait for Environment Agencyrsquos reply (see below) before deciding on action then deal with Coastal Access implications later (John Wayman left the meeting) ACTION ndash Peter Tilley will write to Environment Agency as an initial response pointing out the conflicts between the Coastal Access initiative and the Blyth Estuary strategy Ask what they are going to do about ROW stating loss of access in unacceptable Ask them to defer SLAFrsquos response until after the next meeting Invite them to the next meeting to discuss

11 Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Letter and comment from users comment and response

LAF 0801

Peter Tilley briefed SLAF on the background of this potentially highly desirable route which would give good access to schools and for the local community Despite discussions the landowner has refused to agree to upgrade to a bridleway from a footpath Wimpey who have an option on the land agree with development of the route It is also in the Parish Plan Peter Tilley said that SCC would consider making an Order for the upgrade SLAF members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement Julie Craven ndash Proposed Forum must liaise with landowner and if unsuccessful should advise SCC to make order Gordon Merfield ndash Seconded IN FAVOUR ndash 6 AGAINST ndash 2 ABSTENTION ndash 2 The motion was carried ACTION David Barker assist SCC in discussions with landowner

LAF 0801

12 Consultation on ldquoRight to Apply for Path Ordersrdquo response ndash

comment (LAF 0721)

The Forum made no further comments

13 Access to Nayland Fen ndash letter from user group ndash comment

Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site as it is common land Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates The Forum endorsed Catherinersquos decision not to replace the stiles ACTION Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council

14 Dates ampand Venues of Future Meetings

Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAFrsquos comments into account after their deadline Date of next meeting 17 January 2008 at Claydon

15 Any Other Business

Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk A project called lsquoGeesersquo in Norfolk won the top award On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter

16 Public question time

There were no questions from the public

END

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 5: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0801

SH responded he would like to strengthen links between SCampH AONB ampand SLAF as the lsquorelevant authorityrsquo body John Pearson thanked Simon Hooton and asked for him to come back annually to review progress He asked the Forum to feed back to their constituent organisations

5 Response to Proposals to improve access to the English coast ndash comment on letter and pro forma (LAF 0718)

Forum happy with letter and pro-forma submitted

6 A14 Joint working between Highways Agency and Suffolk County

Council ndash update by officers

Andrew Woodin updated SLAF on a meeting in August between SCC officers and the Highways Agency and their agents Atkins to discuss access severed by A14 generally and to discuss some specific sites

- Belstead ndash SCC are successfully negotiating improvements - Bramford ndash edge of Ipswich ndash Agency acknowledge problems

They wanted to re-route the path to an underpass but are now looking at other options including installing a bridge suitable for walkers and cyclists

- Bury St Edmunds - the Agency may undertake a feasibility study on a cycle bridge over the A14

- All routes over A14 ndash Atkins will review their earlier audit of NMU crossings ampand will involve SCC in this process They acknowledge the same consideration needs to be applied to all the crossings SCC will feed information into this process

Andrew Woodin felt progress was being made and SLAF had an opportunity to get more involved Catherine Osborne had spoken to the Atkins agent doing the survey Catherine will look at crossing points and put SCCrsquos view before Atkins do their survey ACTION Catherine Osborne to draft letter from SLAF to Highways Agency asking for involvementdialogue with them ACTION CO asked Forum members who had volunteered on this issue to meet to discuss Anthony Wright noted the Agency needs to acknowledge that low use of ROW crossing the A14 is a direct result of the road itself also this isnrsquot just about ROW but quiet lanes too Highways Agency didnrsquot take this into account

LAF 0801

John Pearson felt an ongoing positive dialogue is required that also looks at funding issues He would like to meet the Agency once a year to discuss progress and asked CO to keep SLAF involved in ongoing discussions It was generally agreed that previous success on Haughley Bends had resulted in more engagement from Highways Agency They are more amenable now so SLAF need to maintain dialogue Julie Craven asked if gaps and severance would be taken into account by Highways Agency Andrew Woodin responded Highways Agency priorities have changed over last few years Accessibility is now more of a priority Severance of routes and splitting of communities is now more important to them John Pearson expressed concern some s106 agreements were not working very well and SLAF need a better need understanding of them Andrew Woodin told SLAF that SCC could fund a member on s106 and planning training Peter Tilley explained that s106 are planning agreements made prior to submission of planning applications concentrating on highways and access to school There is on average a contribution from developers of pound150 - pound250 per house for cycle paths and ROW Anthony Wright said that changing requirements mean that s106 agreements can get out of date

7 Highways Agency ndash Rookery Crossroads consultation ndash comment by

Bryan Freemantle (LAF 0719)

Bryan Collen felt that analysis of usage after improvement may be useful in future negotiations Peter Tilley responded that the principle of analysis from LTP schemes could be used with the Highways Agency There are lots of stats available showing good usage of improved routes Anthony Wright warned SCC officers to be careful in dealings with the Highways Agency For example the path under the A14 did not meet its original specification The Highways Agency said they werenrsquot bound by agreements and claimed they were only obliged to install a BR Even at construction stage it hadnrsquot been possible to make the Highways Agency construct the crossing to the agreed standard Sustrans had repeatedly reported that the path couldnrsquot be used because of mud and effluent from pigs that are transported along the path This is still a highway and is maintained by SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION ndash SCC officers to follow this up 8 Highways Agency ndash Haughley Bends Improvements ndash Comment on

post inquiry non-motorised user audit for Haughley Bend development Andrew Woodin reported that the Highways Agency had done audits of NMU usage as required by the Public Inquiry inspector but are not happy with report that came out The Highways Agency will be consulting with SCC on the detailed design of NMU facilities SCC will consider how the junction can be improved and use Highways Agency consultation to look for the best solution David Barker said that following the PI the track from Stowmarket is no longer a BR but now a road maintained by SCC and felt a bridge for horses and cyclists was required Peter Tilley responded if this area is developed there will be an opportunity to discuss improvements ACTION - Peter Tilley will approach engineers and designers about improvement to Tot hill junction Anthony Wright said the existing path adjacent to the A14 is difficult for cyclists to use Travelling downhill is not so bad but coming up cyclists must keep left - within 25cm of juggernauts This is more dangerous in rain wind and conditions of poor visibility Andrew Woodin reminded SLAF this whole carriageway will become a cycle track Gordon Merfield would like to send a letter to his MP pointing out that his promises are not being fulfilled John Pearson said that whilst individual SLAF members could take action independently SLAF needed to follow their agreed actions and have decided to maintain dialoguecontact with the Agency

9 SLAF Annual Report 2006-07 ndash Comment and response from SCC (LAF 0720)

The annual report was presented to Cabinet by Guy McGreggor and was very well received A discussion on funding followed Peter Tilley reminded SLAF very little money comes from SCC for major improvements this funding is usually obtained elsewhere eg LTP Capital funding SLAF also considered IBC unitary status and whether they would have a separate SLAF or combine with SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION Andrew Woodin to look at LAF arrangements in other areas with unitary councils Discuss at next meeting

10 Blyth Estuary Draft Strategy ndash update comment response

SCC circulated the Environment Agencyrsquos flood management document that outlines their intention not to protect the Blyth Estuary area (apart from around Reydon ampand Walberswick) Natural England ampand the Environment Agency have conflicting remits Natural England has funding to develop Coastal Access but Environment Agency doesnrsquot intend to maintain routes claiming landowners are responsible for these

Bryan Collen noted this issue is much wider than the Blyth Estuary Julie Craven felt other issues eg housing must not deflect SLAF who must concentrate on ROW SLAF need to go in hard on this consultation as it is the first of its type Julie Craven pointed out that there might be safety issues with non-maintenance A large chunk of Coastal network may be lost with cul-de-sac routes lost completely SLAF need to publicise implications and campaign to make people aware of conflicting policies Peter Tilley said costing takes several factors into account with only broad economics being considered Microeconomics are being ignored The argument is clear and pragmatic but takes no account of local coastal implications Andrew Woodin said Coastal Access proposals will incorporate a roll-back strategy and suggests that on Blyth Estuary consultation SLAF should raise the problem of loss of wider ROW network Wait for Environment Agencyrsquos reply (see below) before deciding on action then deal with Coastal Access implications later (John Wayman left the meeting) ACTION ndash Peter Tilley will write to Environment Agency as an initial response pointing out the conflicts between the Coastal Access initiative and the Blyth Estuary strategy Ask what they are going to do about ROW stating loss of access in unacceptable Ask them to defer SLAFrsquos response until after the next meeting Invite them to the next meeting to discuss

11 Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Letter and comment from users comment and response

LAF 0801

Peter Tilley briefed SLAF on the background of this potentially highly desirable route which would give good access to schools and for the local community Despite discussions the landowner has refused to agree to upgrade to a bridleway from a footpath Wimpey who have an option on the land agree with development of the route It is also in the Parish Plan Peter Tilley said that SCC would consider making an Order for the upgrade SLAF members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement Julie Craven ndash Proposed Forum must liaise with landowner and if unsuccessful should advise SCC to make order Gordon Merfield ndash Seconded IN FAVOUR ndash 6 AGAINST ndash 2 ABSTENTION ndash 2 The motion was carried ACTION David Barker assist SCC in discussions with landowner

LAF 0801

12 Consultation on ldquoRight to Apply for Path Ordersrdquo response ndash

comment (LAF 0721)

The Forum made no further comments

13 Access to Nayland Fen ndash letter from user group ndash comment

Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site as it is common land Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates The Forum endorsed Catherinersquos decision not to replace the stiles ACTION Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council

14 Dates ampand Venues of Future Meetings

Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAFrsquos comments into account after their deadline Date of next meeting 17 January 2008 at Claydon

15 Any Other Business

Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk A project called lsquoGeesersquo in Norfolk won the top award On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter

16 Public question time

There were no questions from the public

END

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 6: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0801

John Pearson felt an ongoing positive dialogue is required that also looks at funding issues He would like to meet the Agency once a year to discuss progress and asked CO to keep SLAF involved in ongoing discussions It was generally agreed that previous success on Haughley Bends had resulted in more engagement from Highways Agency They are more amenable now so SLAF need to maintain dialogue Julie Craven asked if gaps and severance would be taken into account by Highways Agency Andrew Woodin responded Highways Agency priorities have changed over last few years Accessibility is now more of a priority Severance of routes and splitting of communities is now more important to them John Pearson expressed concern some s106 agreements were not working very well and SLAF need a better need understanding of them Andrew Woodin told SLAF that SCC could fund a member on s106 and planning training Peter Tilley explained that s106 are planning agreements made prior to submission of planning applications concentrating on highways and access to school There is on average a contribution from developers of pound150 - pound250 per house for cycle paths and ROW Anthony Wright said that changing requirements mean that s106 agreements can get out of date

7 Highways Agency ndash Rookery Crossroads consultation ndash comment by

Bryan Freemantle (LAF 0719)

Bryan Collen felt that analysis of usage after improvement may be useful in future negotiations Peter Tilley responded that the principle of analysis from LTP schemes could be used with the Highways Agency There are lots of stats available showing good usage of improved routes Anthony Wright warned SCC officers to be careful in dealings with the Highways Agency For example the path under the A14 did not meet its original specification The Highways Agency said they werenrsquot bound by agreements and claimed they were only obliged to install a BR Even at construction stage it hadnrsquot been possible to make the Highways Agency construct the crossing to the agreed standard Sustrans had repeatedly reported that the path couldnrsquot be used because of mud and effluent from pigs that are transported along the path This is still a highway and is maintained by SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION ndash SCC officers to follow this up 8 Highways Agency ndash Haughley Bends Improvements ndash Comment on

post inquiry non-motorised user audit for Haughley Bend development Andrew Woodin reported that the Highways Agency had done audits of NMU usage as required by the Public Inquiry inspector but are not happy with report that came out The Highways Agency will be consulting with SCC on the detailed design of NMU facilities SCC will consider how the junction can be improved and use Highways Agency consultation to look for the best solution David Barker said that following the PI the track from Stowmarket is no longer a BR but now a road maintained by SCC and felt a bridge for horses and cyclists was required Peter Tilley responded if this area is developed there will be an opportunity to discuss improvements ACTION - Peter Tilley will approach engineers and designers about improvement to Tot hill junction Anthony Wright said the existing path adjacent to the A14 is difficult for cyclists to use Travelling downhill is not so bad but coming up cyclists must keep left - within 25cm of juggernauts This is more dangerous in rain wind and conditions of poor visibility Andrew Woodin reminded SLAF this whole carriageway will become a cycle track Gordon Merfield would like to send a letter to his MP pointing out that his promises are not being fulfilled John Pearson said that whilst individual SLAF members could take action independently SLAF needed to follow their agreed actions and have decided to maintain dialoguecontact with the Agency

9 SLAF Annual Report 2006-07 ndash Comment and response from SCC (LAF 0720)

The annual report was presented to Cabinet by Guy McGreggor and was very well received A discussion on funding followed Peter Tilley reminded SLAF very little money comes from SCC for major improvements this funding is usually obtained elsewhere eg LTP Capital funding SLAF also considered IBC unitary status and whether they would have a separate SLAF or combine with SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION Andrew Woodin to look at LAF arrangements in other areas with unitary councils Discuss at next meeting

10 Blyth Estuary Draft Strategy ndash update comment response

SCC circulated the Environment Agencyrsquos flood management document that outlines their intention not to protect the Blyth Estuary area (apart from around Reydon ampand Walberswick) Natural England ampand the Environment Agency have conflicting remits Natural England has funding to develop Coastal Access but Environment Agency doesnrsquot intend to maintain routes claiming landowners are responsible for these

Bryan Collen noted this issue is much wider than the Blyth Estuary Julie Craven felt other issues eg housing must not deflect SLAF who must concentrate on ROW SLAF need to go in hard on this consultation as it is the first of its type Julie Craven pointed out that there might be safety issues with non-maintenance A large chunk of Coastal network may be lost with cul-de-sac routes lost completely SLAF need to publicise implications and campaign to make people aware of conflicting policies Peter Tilley said costing takes several factors into account with only broad economics being considered Microeconomics are being ignored The argument is clear and pragmatic but takes no account of local coastal implications Andrew Woodin said Coastal Access proposals will incorporate a roll-back strategy and suggests that on Blyth Estuary consultation SLAF should raise the problem of loss of wider ROW network Wait for Environment Agencyrsquos reply (see below) before deciding on action then deal with Coastal Access implications later (John Wayman left the meeting) ACTION ndash Peter Tilley will write to Environment Agency as an initial response pointing out the conflicts between the Coastal Access initiative and the Blyth Estuary strategy Ask what they are going to do about ROW stating loss of access in unacceptable Ask them to defer SLAFrsquos response until after the next meeting Invite them to the next meeting to discuss

11 Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Letter and comment from users comment and response

LAF 0801

Peter Tilley briefed SLAF on the background of this potentially highly desirable route which would give good access to schools and for the local community Despite discussions the landowner has refused to agree to upgrade to a bridleway from a footpath Wimpey who have an option on the land agree with development of the route It is also in the Parish Plan Peter Tilley said that SCC would consider making an Order for the upgrade SLAF members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement Julie Craven ndash Proposed Forum must liaise with landowner and if unsuccessful should advise SCC to make order Gordon Merfield ndash Seconded IN FAVOUR ndash 6 AGAINST ndash 2 ABSTENTION ndash 2 The motion was carried ACTION David Barker assist SCC in discussions with landowner

LAF 0801

12 Consultation on ldquoRight to Apply for Path Ordersrdquo response ndash

comment (LAF 0721)

The Forum made no further comments

13 Access to Nayland Fen ndash letter from user group ndash comment

Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site as it is common land Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates The Forum endorsed Catherinersquos decision not to replace the stiles ACTION Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council

14 Dates ampand Venues of Future Meetings

Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAFrsquos comments into account after their deadline Date of next meeting 17 January 2008 at Claydon

15 Any Other Business

Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk A project called lsquoGeesersquo in Norfolk won the top award On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter

16 Public question time

There were no questions from the public

END

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 7: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0801

ACTION ndash SCC officers to follow this up 8 Highways Agency ndash Haughley Bends Improvements ndash Comment on

post inquiry non-motorised user audit for Haughley Bend development Andrew Woodin reported that the Highways Agency had done audits of NMU usage as required by the Public Inquiry inspector but are not happy with report that came out The Highways Agency will be consulting with SCC on the detailed design of NMU facilities SCC will consider how the junction can be improved and use Highways Agency consultation to look for the best solution David Barker said that following the PI the track from Stowmarket is no longer a BR but now a road maintained by SCC and felt a bridge for horses and cyclists was required Peter Tilley responded if this area is developed there will be an opportunity to discuss improvements ACTION - Peter Tilley will approach engineers and designers about improvement to Tot hill junction Anthony Wright said the existing path adjacent to the A14 is difficult for cyclists to use Travelling downhill is not so bad but coming up cyclists must keep left - within 25cm of juggernauts This is more dangerous in rain wind and conditions of poor visibility Andrew Woodin reminded SLAF this whole carriageway will become a cycle track Gordon Merfield would like to send a letter to his MP pointing out that his promises are not being fulfilled John Pearson said that whilst individual SLAF members could take action independently SLAF needed to follow their agreed actions and have decided to maintain dialoguecontact with the Agency

9 SLAF Annual Report 2006-07 ndash Comment and response from SCC (LAF 0720)

The annual report was presented to Cabinet by Guy McGreggor and was very well received A discussion on funding followed Peter Tilley reminded SLAF very little money comes from SCC for major improvements this funding is usually obtained elsewhere eg LTP Capital funding SLAF also considered IBC unitary status and whether they would have a separate SLAF or combine with SCC

LAF 0801

ACTION Andrew Woodin to look at LAF arrangements in other areas with unitary councils Discuss at next meeting

10 Blyth Estuary Draft Strategy ndash update comment response

SCC circulated the Environment Agencyrsquos flood management document that outlines their intention not to protect the Blyth Estuary area (apart from around Reydon ampand Walberswick) Natural England ampand the Environment Agency have conflicting remits Natural England has funding to develop Coastal Access but Environment Agency doesnrsquot intend to maintain routes claiming landowners are responsible for these

Bryan Collen noted this issue is much wider than the Blyth Estuary Julie Craven felt other issues eg housing must not deflect SLAF who must concentrate on ROW SLAF need to go in hard on this consultation as it is the first of its type Julie Craven pointed out that there might be safety issues with non-maintenance A large chunk of Coastal network may be lost with cul-de-sac routes lost completely SLAF need to publicise implications and campaign to make people aware of conflicting policies Peter Tilley said costing takes several factors into account with only broad economics being considered Microeconomics are being ignored The argument is clear and pragmatic but takes no account of local coastal implications Andrew Woodin said Coastal Access proposals will incorporate a roll-back strategy and suggests that on Blyth Estuary consultation SLAF should raise the problem of loss of wider ROW network Wait for Environment Agencyrsquos reply (see below) before deciding on action then deal with Coastal Access implications later (John Wayman left the meeting) ACTION ndash Peter Tilley will write to Environment Agency as an initial response pointing out the conflicts between the Coastal Access initiative and the Blyth Estuary strategy Ask what they are going to do about ROW stating loss of access in unacceptable Ask them to defer SLAFrsquos response until after the next meeting Invite them to the next meeting to discuss

11 Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Letter and comment from users comment and response

LAF 0801

Peter Tilley briefed SLAF on the background of this potentially highly desirable route which would give good access to schools and for the local community Despite discussions the landowner has refused to agree to upgrade to a bridleway from a footpath Wimpey who have an option on the land agree with development of the route It is also in the Parish Plan Peter Tilley said that SCC would consider making an Order for the upgrade SLAF members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement Julie Craven ndash Proposed Forum must liaise with landowner and if unsuccessful should advise SCC to make order Gordon Merfield ndash Seconded IN FAVOUR ndash 6 AGAINST ndash 2 ABSTENTION ndash 2 The motion was carried ACTION David Barker assist SCC in discussions with landowner

LAF 0801

12 Consultation on ldquoRight to Apply for Path Ordersrdquo response ndash

comment (LAF 0721)

The Forum made no further comments

13 Access to Nayland Fen ndash letter from user group ndash comment

Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site as it is common land Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates The Forum endorsed Catherinersquos decision not to replace the stiles ACTION Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council

14 Dates ampand Venues of Future Meetings

Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAFrsquos comments into account after their deadline Date of next meeting 17 January 2008 at Claydon

15 Any Other Business

Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk A project called lsquoGeesersquo in Norfolk won the top award On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter

16 Public question time

There were no questions from the public

END

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 8: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0801

ACTION Andrew Woodin to look at LAF arrangements in other areas with unitary councils Discuss at next meeting

10 Blyth Estuary Draft Strategy ndash update comment response

SCC circulated the Environment Agencyrsquos flood management document that outlines their intention not to protect the Blyth Estuary area (apart from around Reydon ampand Walberswick) Natural England ampand the Environment Agency have conflicting remits Natural England has funding to develop Coastal Access but Environment Agency doesnrsquot intend to maintain routes claiming landowners are responsible for these

Bryan Collen noted this issue is much wider than the Blyth Estuary Julie Craven felt other issues eg housing must not deflect SLAF who must concentrate on ROW SLAF need to go in hard on this consultation as it is the first of its type Julie Craven pointed out that there might be safety issues with non-maintenance A large chunk of Coastal network may be lost with cul-de-sac routes lost completely SLAF need to publicise implications and campaign to make people aware of conflicting policies Peter Tilley said costing takes several factors into account with only broad economics being considered Microeconomics are being ignored The argument is clear and pragmatic but takes no account of local coastal implications Andrew Woodin said Coastal Access proposals will incorporate a roll-back strategy and suggests that on Blyth Estuary consultation SLAF should raise the problem of loss of wider ROW network Wait for Environment Agencyrsquos reply (see below) before deciding on action then deal with Coastal Access implications later (John Wayman left the meeting) ACTION ndash Peter Tilley will write to Environment Agency as an initial response pointing out the conflicts between the Coastal Access initiative and the Blyth Estuary strategy Ask what they are going to do about ROW stating loss of access in unacceptable Ask them to defer SLAFrsquos response until after the next meeting Invite them to the next meeting to discuss

11 Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Letter and comment from users comment and response

LAF 0801

Peter Tilley briefed SLAF on the background of this potentially highly desirable route which would give good access to schools and for the local community Despite discussions the landowner has refused to agree to upgrade to a bridleway from a footpath Wimpey who have an option on the land agree with development of the route It is also in the Parish Plan Peter Tilley said that SCC would consider making an Order for the upgrade SLAF members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement Julie Craven ndash Proposed Forum must liaise with landowner and if unsuccessful should advise SCC to make order Gordon Merfield ndash Seconded IN FAVOUR ndash 6 AGAINST ndash 2 ABSTENTION ndash 2 The motion was carried ACTION David Barker assist SCC in discussions with landowner

LAF 0801

12 Consultation on ldquoRight to Apply for Path Ordersrdquo response ndash

comment (LAF 0721)

The Forum made no further comments

13 Access to Nayland Fen ndash letter from user group ndash comment

Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site as it is common land Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates The Forum endorsed Catherinersquos decision not to replace the stiles ACTION Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council

14 Dates ampand Venues of Future Meetings

Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAFrsquos comments into account after their deadline Date of next meeting 17 January 2008 at Claydon

15 Any Other Business

Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk A project called lsquoGeesersquo in Norfolk won the top award On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter

16 Public question time

There were no questions from the public

END

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 9: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0801

Peter Tilley briefed SLAF on the background of this potentially highly desirable route which would give good access to schools and for the local community Despite discussions the landowner has refused to agree to upgrade to a bridleway from a footpath Wimpey who have an option on the land agree with development of the route It is also in the Parish Plan Peter Tilley said that SCC would consider making an Order for the upgrade SLAF members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement Julie Craven ndash Proposed Forum must liaise with landowner and if unsuccessful should advise SCC to make order Gordon Merfield ndash Seconded IN FAVOUR ndash 6 AGAINST ndash 2 ABSTENTION ndash 2 The motion was carried ACTION David Barker assist SCC in discussions with landowner

LAF 0801

12 Consultation on ldquoRight to Apply for Path Ordersrdquo response ndash

comment (LAF 0721)

The Forum made no further comments

13 Access to Nayland Fen ndash letter from user group ndash comment

Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site as it is common land Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates The Forum endorsed Catherinersquos decision not to replace the stiles ACTION Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council

14 Dates ampand Venues of Future Meetings

Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAFrsquos comments into account after their deadline Date of next meeting 17 January 2008 at Claydon

15 Any Other Business

Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk A project called lsquoGeesersquo in Norfolk won the top award On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter

16 Public question time

There were no questions from the public

END

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 10: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0801

12 Consultation on ldquoRight to Apply for Path Ordersrdquo response ndash

comment (LAF 0721)

The Forum made no further comments

13 Access to Nayland Fen ndash letter from user group ndash comment

Catherine Osborne had received a letter from Mr John Dowding asking for stiles on Nayland Fen to be replaced Catherine explained that funding is not available for this site as it is common land Therefore replacement of the stiles was not impossible particularly as they would have to be replaced with gates The Forum endorsed Catherinersquos decision not to replace the stiles ACTION Catherine Osborne to write to Mr Dowding asking him to approach his local council

14 Dates ampand Venues of Future Meetings

Ask Environment Agency to come to meeting to take SLAFrsquos comments into account after their deadline Date of next meeting 17 January 2008 at Claydon

15 Any Other Business

Peter Tilley announced that SCC were finalists for award particularly for Discover Suffolk A project called lsquoGeesersquo in Norfolk won the top award On behalf of SLAF John Pearson expressed a Vote of Thanks to Peter Tilley for his hard work enthusiasm and commitment to SLAF John Pearson and David Barker made a presentation of local history books to Peter

16 Public question time

There were no questions from the public

END

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 11: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

SCampH PartnershipJoint Advisory Committee Update on the Blyth Estuary Draft Flood Risk Management Strategy On 4th December 2007 Suffolk County Councilrsquos Cabinet considered the Environment Agencyrsquos Draft Strategy proposals Cabinet was asked to consider

bull Authorising the Director of Environment amp Transport to prepare a response to the draft strategy proposals jointly with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils by working with the Blyth Strategy Group and with local communities

bull That the draft strategy proposal of ldquoNo active interventionrdquo for the future maintenance of flood defences is considered unacceptable and that the following principles be taken up in responding to the strategy

a) That additional government funding is needed to provide adequate coast flood defence measures for the Suffolk coast and estuaries

b) That the development of flood risk management strategies be more integrated with wider coast and area planning and take full account of the assets and social and economic needs of the community

c) That local authorities are adequately compensated for where they have to incur additional highway and other infrastructure costs as a result of the withdrawal of flood defences

d) To work with the Environment Agency in seeking to determine an acceptable flood risk management strategy for the Blyth and the other Suffolk estuaries

bull For the County Council to seek the support of local MPs and lobby Government for additional national funding for flood defence and an integrated approach to coast and estuary management

Interests affected by the Strategy proposals include 170 residents likely to experience increased flooding landowners losing land residentsbusinesses who will have access and services disrupted The area could become less attractive to visitors with the loss of amenities including Rights of Way Loss of freshwater habitats to saline intrusion

Key Issues

bull The Draft Strategy proposal of ldquono active interventionrdquo with serious consequences for the character protection of property economy and road access

bull Major works and cost implications for the County Council in dealing with increased flooding of roads if the proposed strategy is implemented

bull The proposed option of ldquono active interventionrdquo in maintaining flood defences is partly due to lack of sufficient government funding to support adequate coastal flood defence Similar Strategies are likely to follow for the Alde and Ore and Deben Estuaries

bull The need for joint community leadership with Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in addressing the proposed Strategy and in working with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable longer-term option for flood risk management

Timescale The Environment Agency is seeking comments by 4 January 2008 It is suggested that an interim response be submitted asking for an extension of the consultation period to enable the County Council and the other local authorities to properly assess and respond

PSHIP PAPER

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 12: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

BLYTH STRATEGY GROUP

bull Suffolk County Council Waveney and Suffolk Coastal District Councils have formed the Blyth Strategy Group to provide community leadership in addressing the Blyth proposals The authorities wish to provide a joint considered and robust response and work with the Environment Agency in seeking an acceptable way forward

bull The strong need to press for greater government funding for flood defence to enable the Environment Agency to provide longer-term protection for the coast

bull In the face of climate change and sea level rise there is acceptance OF some reconfiguration of our coast defences Local authorities see it as essential that a more integrated approach is taken to planning and management of the coast and estuaries

bull Concern that the draft Strategy is not sufficiently integrated with the review of the Lowestoft to Felixstowe Shoreline Management Plan This policy document would consider the interaction between the estuaries and open coast It is a condition imposed by Defra that the SMP should review the overarching policies for the estuary

IMPACT OF THE STRATEGY PROPOSALS

Property

125 residential and commercial properties (170 residents) are within an area that would be subject to flooding An extensive area of farmland ndash mainly grazing land - will become subject to tidal inundation within the next 5 to 20 years

Roads

Roads are currently largely protected by river walls although the A12 is already subject to some infrequent flooding

Public Rights of Way

West of the A12 some Public Rights of Way are temporarily closed due to breaches in the Blyth walls The river wall alongside Robinsons Marsh Walberswick carries the Suffolk Coast Path Southwold Bailey Bridge is a vital community link saving a nine-mile trip between Walberswick and Southwold Each year thousands of visitors and residents walk the local paths All could be lost if floodwalls are not maintained

Business and Commerce

bull Frequent disruption of road access could have an impact on businesses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth as well as locally

bull The Southwold and Walberswick area is an important destination for many visitors who amongst other attractions come to appreciate the harbour sailing opportunities natural environment and Rights of Way network including the Suffolk Coast Path and Sandlings Walk routes

bull Southwold Harbour business will be affected by increased flooding and faster tides

Landscape and Biodiversity

bull The lower Blyth Estuary is within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty There will be impacts in terms of the loss of coastal grazing marshes valley meadows and the vernacular character of Southwold Harbour if these areas are replaced by inter-tidal landscapes

bull The Blyth Estuary is made up of estuarine and freshwater habitats Main conservation issues for the Blyth Estuary concern the loss of freshwater habitats and species and replacement by saltwater and inter-tidal ones There is an obligation on Government and the Environment Agency to prevent the deterioration of internationally designated sites It will be necessary to replace internationally designated coastal freshwater habitats elsewhere in Suffolk or further away prior to their loss to the sea Other habitats and County Wildlife Sites do not have to be compensated for There is danger of a net loss in wildlife conservation value of the estuary

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 13: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

We have overall responsibility for flood risk management in England and Wales Our aim is to reduce the threat of flooding to people and property whilst achieving the greatest environmental social and economic benefits in line with the Governmentsrsquo principles of sustainable development Over recent years there have been a number of major flood events which have increased the demand for resources In the face of such challenges we need to be sure we are getting the best value for money and this means making difficult decisions In many cases we will not be able to sustain the level of defence we have had in the past To help identify sustainable ways of managing defences in the future we are preparing flood risk management strategies in many areas

Managing change in the Blyth EstuaryOver past decades the Blyth Estuary has undergone significant change to which local people have adapted The estuary will continue to change over coming decades and climate change is likely to be the most important influence Sea levels are likely to rise by up to a metre this century and it is predicted that there will be more severe storms and tidal surges that will further threaten the flood defences

To date we have used public money to routinely manage many flood defences These defences are now nearing the end of their useful life and it will become increasingly difficult to maintain them in future or build them up in response to climate change We now need to make important decisions about the future management of the estuary

Over the last three years we have prepared a flood risk management strategy covering the next 100 years We have considered what is likely to be the most sustainable management option taking on board the impacts of climate change and likely costs and benefits associated with various options We have listened to the views of local people and interest groups and have also considered how important environmental assets in the estuary need to be managed

We have permissive powers to manage flood defences but it is our policy to withdraw maintenance from defences where the costs of maintaining them are greater than the benefitsFlood management strategies are also being developed for other estuaries and coastal frontages in Suffolk and Essex

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 14: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

What is the draft strategyThe map shows the likely future shape of the estuary over different periods of time

In response to our consultation in 2005 we have made some changes We have withdrawn the proposal for a sill in the vicinity of the Bailey Bridge and we no longer plan to undertake managed realignment of defences at Tinkers Marsh

Considering the predicted impact of climate change and rising sea levels and evaluating the likely costs and benefits we are not in a position to replace any of the flood banks around the estuary when they reach the end of their life This is partly an economic decision but the wider sustainability of the defences is also an issue

We will maintain the defences either side of the harbour downstream of the Bailey Bridge for the remainder of their life which we estimate to be about 20 years If any of these walls are subject to major breaches or significant deterioration within that period we will have to consider whether continued maintenance is justified This does not include the harbour walls that remain the responsibility of the harbour authority

The flood bank fronting Reydon Marsh is nearing the end of its life is in very poor condition and is on very poor foundations We will seek to maintain the bank for the next 5 years but it may become irreparable in that time We will also look at options for strengthening Buss Creek to help protect Town Marsh In the mean time we will be working with Suffolk County Council and others to investigate alternative ways of managing flood risk to roads and footpaths in this area

We will withdraw maintenance from flood banks and defences in the rest of the estuary

Above the A12 the defences on both banks have already failed We do not plan to rebuild or repair these banks Opportunities for habitat creation are being explored in this area We will look at this area in more detail to see whether local flood protection measures are needed for properties

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 15: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Strategy Implementation Plan

flood risk managementBlyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Item Description Location

years 1 to 5

1Investigate local flood protection measures for isolated properties on the margins of the floodplain

Any relevant areas including Walberswick The Denes and Blythburgh

2Maintain and investigate options for strengthening the embankment along the east bank of Buss Creek up to the recently rebuilt cross bank near Botany Marshes

Woodsend Marsh

3

Seek to maintain the existing defences along both banks of the River Blyth channel downstream from the Bailey Bridge to the mouth of the estuary (excluding the harbour mouth defences) in the short term (next 20 years)

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek marsh

4

Continued maintenance of Reydon embankment for 5 years subject to review in the event of significant damage Failure of the defence protecting Reydon marsh would potentially also flood Hen Reedbeds

Reydon Marsh

5 Withdrawal of maintenance

Bulcamp HouseUnion Farm MarshBlyford MarshTinkers Marsh Blythburgh EastBlowers MarshBlackheath

Short Term (5 Years)

6 Withdrawal of maintenanceReydon MarshHen Reedbeds

Medium Term (20 Years)

7Withdrawal of maintenance on defences downstream of the Bailey Bridge as they reach the end of their life

Havenbeach Marshes Town MarshesWoodsend MarshRobinsons MarshBuss Creek Marshes

8 Consider construction of a rock groyne at Gun Hill Southwold coastal frontage

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 16: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

What would be the consequences of this draft strategyIn the next few years we expect there to be little change to the majority of the estuary provided that there are no major storm surges An exception to this is upstream of the A12 where low defences protecting farmland have already failed This area will be more frequently flooded in the future and is likely to become a mixture of saltmarsh and mudflat in the lower areas with some freshwater habitats further upstream The A12 itself will be subject to more frequent flooding and we are working with Suffolk County Council to see how this may be resolved

Over the next 5-20 years the agricultural defences fronting Reydon and Tinkers Marshes are likely to fail to the point where they could not be repaired and this will result in significant change to the estuary Where this happens inundated farmland will become tidal This will obviously affect existing land-use but may provide new opportunities that we are keen to explore with landowners For example some areas may be suitable for the development of new wetland nature reserves that could provide a new focus for visitors to the area

More water will be drawn into the estuary on each tide and this will increase flows through the harbour This may impact on the way people use the river and the harbour for recreation and business

Failure of defences over the coming years will result in significant changes to the network of footpaths around the estuary

In accordance with our commitments under the European Union Birds Directive we will create a new reedbed to replace the area that will be lost at Hen Reedbeds

Will there be increased flooding to propertiesThe main defences that protect Walberswick are not reviewed by this strategy but we will continue maintainance at present Most properties in Walberswick that are protected from flooding today are not affected by this strategy However there are a small number of properties on the edge of Walberswick (behind the Robinsons Marsh bank) that are only protected from smaller storm surges These properties will be subject to increased flood risk There are also properties along The Denes and at Blythburgh that are at risk of more frequent flooding in the future

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 17: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Following adoption of the strategy our top priority will be to consider future flood risk changes to these properties and infrastructure In collaboration with relevant property landowners we will consider whether cost-effective solutions can be developed to provide localised flood protection

How will withdrawal of maintenance affect me as a landownerWhere we intend to withdraw maintenance from a bank that protects agricultural land we will discuss the implications with the landowner and subsequently issue a formal letter of our intention The letter will explain the period of time before we withdraw maintenance and will provide advice on future options for managing the land We are aware that some landowners may seek to maintain their walls themselves We will offer advice to landowners that wish to do so

Where can I find more detailed informationA Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which identifies the environmental impacts of the strategy A copy of this is available to view in local libraries at Southwold and Halesworth at the Environment Agency offices at Cobham Road Ipswich or can be downloaded from the Suffolk Estuarine Strategies website wwwsuffolkestuariescouk

How can I register my views on the draft strategyWe have tried to meet the concerns of stakeholders during preparation of this draft strategy but we are aware that what we are now proposing does not meet all aspirations Whilst economic constraints are unlikely to allow radical change to the final strategy we welcome your comments on the proposals We will take account of all comments received by Friday 4th January 2008 before finalising the strategy We hope your comments can help us develop low-cost approaches to reducing flood risk locally

You can write to us at Blyth Estuary The Environment Agency Kingfisher House Goldhay Way Orton Goldhay PE2 5ZR or email blythestuaryenvironment-agencygovuk

Blyth Estuary draft strategyflood risk management

wwwenvironment-agencygovuk

customer services line incident hotline floodline0845 988 11880800 80 70 6008708 506506

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 18: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Like

ly F

utur

e Es

tuar

y S

hape

Assu

mes

3rd

par

ties

do

not m

aint

ain

defe

nces

This

map

is re

prod

uced

from

Ord

nanc

e Su

rvey

mat

eria

l w

ith th

e pe

rmis

sion

of O

rdna

nce

Surv

ey o

n be

half

of

the

Cont

rolle

r of H

er M

ajes

tyrsquos

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

copy

Crow

n co

pyrig

ht

Una

utho

rised

repr

oduc

tion

infr

inge

s Cr

own

copy

right

and

m

ay le

ad to

pro

secu

tion

or c

ivil

proc

eedi

ngs

Envi

ronm

ent A

genc

y 1

0002

6380

200

7

Curr

ent s

prin

g tid

es

Sprin

g tid

es a

fter 5

yea

rs

Sprin

g tid

es b

eyon

d 20

yea

rs

GEAN0907-BNGF-E-P

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 19: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0803

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Onehouse ndash Chilton Way Upgrade of footpath to bridleway for cycle use Suffolk County Council is committed to improving the footpath between Onehouse and Stowmarket to encourage more sustainable and safer access between the two communities Local transport plan funding is available to achieve this Since the last meeting of the forum at which members felt one more representation should be made to the landowner in an effort to negotiate her agreement the county council has established that Wimpeys own most of the land in question and are in fact the key player in establishing an improved route (and are part of a consortium of other parties with an interest in the general development of the area) The county council has had discussions with Wimpeys and explained that it is committed to improving this sustainable link (eg by upgrading the footpath to a bridleway and improving the surface) and is also under pressure locally and through the Suffolk Local Access Forum to do so The county council has explained that if necessary it is prepared to implement a scheme against the wishes of the landowner but would rather achieve the improvement through negotiation if possible Wimpeyrsquos agent understood this position and because the existing route of the footpath is inconvenient to them if they are given permission to develop this land offered to send the county council a plan after Christmas showing an alternative route proposal for consideration The plan has not been received yet and Wimpeyrsquos have been given a reminder If Wimpeysrsquo proposal is worth further discussion then the county council will otherwise it will be necessary to use a compulsory mechanism (which will include compensation provisions) although that point has not been reached yet

END

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 20: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0804

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Title Correspondence

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

1 List of Streets

Both Suffolk County Council and SLAF have received the following queries from the British Horse Society about the List of Streets

-----Original Message----- From Patricia Regan [mailtoAccessbhsorguk]

Sent Wednesday November 21 2007 247 PM Subject List of Streets

Dear Local Access Forum Members I refer to the list of streets maintainable at public expense prepared under section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 I would be grateful if you could let me know - 1 Whether you are taking any steps to ensure that your local highway authority will record those historic public rights of way that are recorded on the List of Streets but not on the Definitive Map and Statement are put onto the Definitive Map and Statement as the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 does not provide for these to be preserved after the 2026 cut off date 2 Whether you have carried out an assessment of how many such routes your local highway authority has 3 If so how many routes does it have I look forward to hearing from you in due course Yours sincerely Mark Weston Director of Access Safety and Welfare The British Horse Society 01926 707 712 accessbhsorguk mailtoaccessbhsorguk

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 21: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0804

SCC Response LIST OF STREETS The inclusion of a public right of way on the Definitive Map and Statement is conclusive evidence of both the status and alignment of that public right of way The List of Streets is the local highway authorityrsquos record of all highways that are maintainable at public expense it is not a record of what legal rights exist over any highway Section 53 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides that on 1st January 2026 all historic rights of way that have not been recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement will be extinguished DEFRA have advised that under the legislation there is no exemption from the extinguishment of unrecorded rights over a way on the basis that it is shown on the List of Streets Therefore if historic public rights of way recorded on the List of Streets have not been added to the Definitive Map and Statement by the cut-off date of 2026 it will not be possible to add them to the Definitive Map and Statement after that date The types of public right of way affected by this are 1 Adopted urban footpaths (ie separate footpaths that are not part of a carriageway) 2 Some unclassified roads that fulfill the definition of a byway open to all traffic being unsurfaced and currently receiving little or no vehicular use Some of these routes are already recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement and some are the subject of claims others are currently only recorded on the List of Streets If such routes are not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement by 2026 it appears that these public rights will be lost although further inquiries will be made by Suffolk County Council to establish whether this is the case Whilst Suffolk County Council has not yet carried out a detailed assessment of the number of routes potentially affected and the resources required to show the routes on the Definitive Map the scale of the task is likely to run at least into the hundreds of individual routes rather than tens This work will be prioritised in line with ROWIP priorities

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 22: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0804

2 Lost Ways The following reply was sent by the Chairman of SLAF in response to Natural Englandrsquos Lost Ways Bulletin (attached)

-----Original Message----- From Jill Christley Sent Tuesday October 23 2007 308PM To lsquoLornaStaffordnaturalenglandorgukrsquo Cc lsquoSueShipstonnaturalenglandorgukrsquo lsquojowipearsonyahoocoukrsquo lsquodavidejbarkercoukrsquo Peter

Tilley Steve Kerr Andrew Woodin Subject Lost Ways

Dear Ms Stafford I write reference your Lost Ways bulletin of Sep 07 Whatever evidence the Lost Ways project unearths of public ROW which are not recorded on the def map I consider this should be prioritised by the local authority and used in the first instance as the basis for discussions with land managers to see if an outcome is achievable which improves the local network for the public but also has regard to the interests of the land manager This is the approach adopted in Suffolk when new evidence is presented of historic rights An authorityrsquos improvement plan should lay out its overall priorities and form the basis of the initial prioritisation of evidence The role of the LAF in Lost Ways should be at a strategic level to advise on policy and process and not at the individual route level Yours Sincerely Jill Christley SLAF Secretary on behalf of John Pearson Chairman

3 National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums

-----Original Message----- From Boyd Simon [mailtosimonboydcumbriaccgovuk] Sent Thursday December 06 2007 250 PM To East Midlands Regional Coordinator East of England Regional Coordinator North East Regional

Coordinator South East Regional Coordinator South West Regional Coordinator West Midlands Regional Coordinator Yorkshire amp Humberside Regional Coordinator

Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Dear LAF Regional Secretaries I hope you are well Please pass this on for information to the deputees within your regions (and anyone else who may want to update their Forums) on the meeting now organised for 240108 which will take place between Natural England and the 16 Local Access Forums listed to discuss the formation of a national body for LAFs Amy Nemes has already sent this out to the 16 attendees which were identified as the first choices Many thanks

Simon Cumbria LAF Secretary

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 23: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0804

----- Original Message ----- From Nemes Amy (NE) To grahamswendunfsnetcouk Cc Wood Andrew (NE) Sent Friday November 30 2007 407 PM Subject Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison

Natural England amp Local Access Forums Liaison I am very conscious that since the establishment of Natural England in October 2006 our contact with Local Access Forums has tended to be through our regions and that we have not had the strategic level discussion about either our relationship or specific areas of business I hope that you will appreciate that the business of establishing a new organisation is both complex and time consuming Inevitably this has meant that we have taken our eye off some of our key relationships I can assure you that we did not forget about you but I recognise that this is how it must have felt at times You will be aware that more recently I have been discussing these issues with Duncan Graham who has kindly acted as a spokesperson for your concerns I know that he will have kept you informed of the progress of our discussions I am delighted therefore to invite you to a round table meeting between Natural England and representatives of some of our key LAF contacts The meeting will be held at Natural Englands headquarters in Sheffield on Thursday 24 January 2008 at 1pm with lunch provided from 1230pm I will circulate an agenda closer to the event but you will be aware that Duncan and I have discussed the sort of ground that we ought to cover In broad terms I propose that we should address the management of our relationship the way in which Natural England intends to involve you in the development of our thinking on both policy and delivery and some specific items of business A full list of proposed attendees is attached I look forward to seeing you in the new year Best wishes Andrew Wood ltlt240108 NE_LAF Chairs mtgdocgtgt Amy Nemes PA to Andrew Wood Tel 01242 533 221 Mob 07810 630 559

John Dower House Cheltenham GL50 3RA

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only If

you have received it in error you have no authority to use disclose store

or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender

Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless

confirmed by a signed communication Whilst this email and associated

attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the

Natural England systems we can accept no responsibility once it has left

our systems Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored

andor recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for

other lawful purposes

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 24: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0804

Joint Natural England and LAF Chairs Meeting

Invitation list

North East

Pam Brooks Northumberland Joint LAF

Steve Scoffin Tees Valley Joint LAF

North West

Duncan Graham Cumbria LAF

Richard Toon Lancashire LAF

South West

Alistair Gordon Somerset LAF

Ray Newbigin Bath and North East Somerset Bristol City

and South Gloucestershire Joint LAF

West Midlands

Richard Gething Herefordshire LAF

David Boden Staffordshire Stoke on Trent

and Wolverhampton Joint LAF

East Midlands

Andrew McCloy Peak District LAF

Malcolm Bray Leicester City LAF

East of England

Liddy Lawrence Hertfordshire LAF

Bob Smith Peterborough LAF VChair

South East

Matthew Balfour Kent LAF

Chris Langford Hampshire LAF

Yorkshire amp Humberside

Hazel Armstrong East Riding and Hull Joint LAF

Edward Anderson North Lincolnshire LAF

Natural England

Andrew Wood Executive Director Evidence and Policy

Terry Robinson

Lucy Heath

Ciaran Gannon

END

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 25: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Local Access Forums and Discovering Lost WaysNatural England wants to ensure that the Discovering Lost Way (DLW) project delivers value for money public benefits and is in tune with what our stakeholders want To help us achieve this we are seeking the views of local access forums (LAFs) on the future scope and direction of the project If you are a LAF member please have a look at the questions on page 2 and provide us with your views We value the advice that LAFs can provide as we want our decisions to be properly informed

Legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 means that any historic rights of way not recorded1 on the definitive map by 2026 will be extinguished The Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asked the Countryside Agency to facilitate the researching of historic documents and claiming of unrecorded rights to prepare the way for this change Responsibility for the project was passed to Natural England in October 2006

During 2007 Natural England is conducting a review through a series of ldquoPathfinderrdquo projects and a programme of structured stakeholder engagement The purpose of the review is -

To evaluate the existing DLW delivery framework

To better define Natural Englandrsquos role in this work

To define the optimal and most cost effective approach to enable the delivery of identified public benefits

We are looking for solutions that are - Achievable amp realisticndash simple pragmatic

Integrated ndash locally relevant adding value works with partners

Effective amp efficient ndash Avoid waste focus on where we can obtain optimum benefit

Pathfinders As part of developing the way forward for the project we are testing several approaches to translating research into routes on the ground These lsquoPathfinder projectsrsquo are using research already completed in certain areas as well as trying out new approaches in other areas

The first two Pathfinder projects in Cheshire and Shropshire are using the results of completed research in the form of case files to examine how best to get discovered routes onto the map In Cheshire we are making a small number of applications for definitive map modification orders whereas in Shropshire we are examining how a local authority might use evidence without anyone making a formal application

Work in Nottinghamshire under Pathfinder 3 is examining how we might focus research so that we concentrate on getting evidence of routes that will provide the greatest public benefit We are also looking at how best to involve local people in this process

Pathfinder Project 4 in Herefordshire involves a sub-group of the local access forum helping to develop the base map before the Archive Research Unit enters the county This group will meet with local people (such as footpath users and parish councils) to establish local priorities and needs and will coordinate local research activity

Finally as part of Pathfinder 5 we are looking at ways that local people can be involved by

Talking to established local volunteer groups already engaged in lost ways research We want to see if their work could be built into the future development and delivery of the project

Ebulletin

Discovering Lost Ways

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

number 5 September 2007

Page 1 of 3

1 Defra intend to introduce regulations during 2007 that will safeguard all claimed routes from extinguishment

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 26: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Page 2 of 3

Seeking the views of local access forums on the scope and future direction of DLW and their role in the process

This will link in to other work underway in developing a database of surveying authorities to provide a resource of information reflecting local circumstances

The outputs from these projects will all contribute to the review at the end of this year to determine the way forward for the DLW programme

Is there a role for LAFs in DLWPathfinder 4 will give us an insight into the role that a LAF could effectively have in the project but we are keen through Pathfinder 5 to gauge a wider body of opinion on how LAFs could contribute to the delivery DLW so that it reflects local needs and circumstances

It will only be possible to talk directly to a small number of LAFs before the outcome of the review is reported to Ministers in December but we wish to extend the opportunity to all LAFs to comment on what they consider to be the scope and future direction of DLW We are particular interested in how you see your LAF engaging with the project

We have posed a series of questions that we would like you to consider and comment upon We are keen to capture your views not only on what the LAF could should be doing in response to the 2026 cut-off date but also on the contribution that lost ways could make to the overall access experience in your area

The purpose of these questions is to trigger discussion on the wide range of issues that surround the recording of historic rights of way and the management and maintenance of a network that meets todayrsquos needs We hope that you will think ldquooutside the boxrdquo and help us to identify and clarify the potential benefits (and disbenefits) of DLW and what needs to change to achieve these

The QuestionsIt is 2020 and you have just come back from a day out with friends using the rights of way in your favourite bit of countryside You are delighted with what you experienced Why ndash what did you experience How did the maps you used contribute to that experience

Given the current situation and procedures for recording routes on the definitive map what needs to change to enable you to enjoy your great day out in 2020

Local access forums have been set up to give advice on public access

What role do you see the LAF having in DLW

If this required the LAF becoming more involved in route specific discussions how could this be handled

What relationship do you see between DLW and the ROWIP

Deadline for commentsAs already mentioned we are required to report to Ministers in December on the operational delivery of the project post 200708 If you would like the views of your LAF to inform this report then your comments must be submitted to Natural England no later than 30 October We realise that given the tight timetable it might not be possible to consider this matter at your next meeting and it might be necessary to provide a response via correspondence

The report to Ministers is likely to be the start of a process so any comments received after the 30 October deadline will still be of value in determining how this work is taken forward by Natural England

Your comment should be sent to Lorna Stafford on the email below

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 27: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Stakeholder WorkshopsIn order to inform the review of DLW we are undertaking a programme of stakeholder engagement Through a series of three independently facilitated workshops we are gathering views from a wide range of interests looking at the options for delivering DLW and the roles that Natural England and partners could play In addition a Technical Working Group is also meeting to consider more detailed issues focussing on the researching process and feeding this into the review as well The knowledge interest and ideas from stakeholders will all help to inform and influence the future of DLW

DLW staff changesWelcome to Amanda Earnshaw who is now acting as Major Project Manager for DLW and is based in Newcastle Lorna Stafford is temporarily supporting the Stakeholder Engagement team in place of Victoria Nicholls who has left the team to continue her studies We also wish Eleanor Brown all the best in her new role in Geology

Contact detailsSueShipstonnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533302) (Mon-Weds)

LornaStaffordnaturalenglandorguk (tel 01242 533343)

Or write to Discovering Lost WaysNatural EnglandJohn Dower HouseCrescent PlaceCheltenhamGLOS GL50 3RA

Website address httpwwwnaturalenglandorgukleisureaccessdefaulthtm

We also have an information line for Discovering Lost Ways available for members of the public and volunteers Please encourage any volunteers that you know of who are interested in the project to register their interest with the information line using the contact details below

Email dlwcountrysidegovuk

Or write toDiscovering Lost WaysPO Box 725Belfast BT1 3YL

Tel 0845 60 50 148

Page 3 of 3

Ebulletin September 2007

wwwnaturalenglandorguk

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 28: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0805

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

A14 Trunk Road ndash Haughley Bends Improvement After the publication of the Draft Orders for the new road in March 2006 there was an objection period in accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of objections were lodged and a Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket with the Inspector making his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme in April 2007 The Deputy Regional Director Development and Infrastructure at the Government Office for the East Of England concluded the Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme put forward by the inspector would be carried out during the detail design stage and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that any recommendation arising from the audit that promotes consideration of non-motorised usersrsquo interests would be included in the final design of the scheme The Non-Motorised User Audit of the scheme has now been published and limited copies will be available at the meeting The audit consisted of i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision

to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007 bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the

Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006) bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations

on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 29: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0805

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-Motorised Users iii Further consultations with the interested partiesuser groups including those shown below Suffolk County Council (SCC) Officers including Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Suffolk Local Access Forum SUSTRANS Anthony Wright Landowners and Utilities Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine conditions by car and on foot v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49 The effect of the audit may be summarised as

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 30: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0805

bull The route from Bury Road as far as Shepherdrsquos Lane which was to be a bridleway is now a road

bull Tothill junction All that is lsquonewrsquo is some fencing (18 m height) to protect the bridleway up on to the junction roundabout from the safety barrier and the embankment On the overbridge there will be a combined footcycleway on the west side equestrians will use the strip at the edge of the carriageway to ensure separation from the bridge parapet whose height has not changed After the next roundabout pedestrians and cyclists will be able to cross on to the NMU route before Fishponds Way equestrians should continue on the carriageway to the Fishponds Way junction and then on to the NMU route

bull Minor amendments to the design of eg barriers on the NMU route bull Minor changes to the widths of pedestrian cycle equestrian and verge

widths within the NMU route the effect of which is to meet the design standards of 3m for equestrians and 3m for mixed pedestrian and cycle use

The county council gave the report author some general feedback on the design of the report which it felt needed to summarise the changes and that the headers ldquoAction takenrdquo were confusing as often no action has been taken following the PI and that the report does not appear to explain why it was commissioned in the first place

Appendix 1 correspondence between David Barker and David Ruffley MP

END

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 31: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Dec

embe

r 20

07

Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

A14

Haughley New Street

to Stowmarket Improvement

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 32: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User Audit

Report

Audit at Detailed Design Stage

December 2007

Produced for

Highways Agency

Prepared by

Mouchel

Knights House

2 Parade

Sutton Coldfield

West Midlands

B72 1PH

T 0121 355 8949

F 0121 355 8901

E mouchelcom

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 33: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

i

Document Control Sheet

Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report

Revision C

Status Issue

Control Date 10 December 2007

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

A Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

B Draft Keith Lewis 0907 O Garland 0907 O Garland 0907

C Draft Keith Lewis 1107 O Garland 1107 O Garland 1107

C Issue Keith Lewis 1207 O Garland 1207 O Garland 1207

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

Highways Agency Roger Hawkins

Michael Povey

1

(Draft AampB)

1 (Draft C amp Issue C)

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 34: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

ii

Contents

Document Control Sheet i

Contents ii

Tables iv

Foreword 1

1 Introduction 2

11 Overview 2

12 Scope of the NMU Audit 2

2 Objectives and Design Features 6

3 Public Inquiry 10

31 Introduction 10

32 Objections 10

321 Public Footpath 37 10

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11

325 Alternative NMU routes 12

326 Shepherds Lane 12

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 12

331 Public Footpath 37 12

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 35: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iii

335 Alternative NMU routes 14

336 Shepherds Lane 15

4 Items raised in this Audit 16

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities 16

42 Design Of The New NMU Route 17

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way 18

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction 19

45 Footpath 2 20

46 Shepherds Lane 20

5 Audit Team Statement 22

Appendix A Drawings 23

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 36: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

iv

Tables

1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024 3

2 Consultations with interested parties user groups 4

3 Objectives and design features 6

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 37: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

1

Foreword

This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways

Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket

Improvement scheme It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client

in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report Mouchel Parkman

Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the

performance of the services required by the HA and MPL shall not be liable except to the

extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence and this report

shall be read and construed accordingly

This report has been prepared by MPL No individual is personally liable in connection

with the preparation of this report By receiving this report and acting on it the client or

any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract tort for

breach of statutory duty or otherwise

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 38: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

2

1 Introduction

11 Overview

This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried

out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme

The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD

4205 ldquoNon-Motorised User Auditsrdquo (DMRB 525)

An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 4205 by the Design Team

at the Preliminary Design Stage It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders

in March 2006 The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the

Detailed Design Stage in August 2007

The Design Team comprised of

bull Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) CEng MICE

bull Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) IEng AMICE

bull Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering

12 Scope of the NMU Audit

The audit consisted of

i An examination of the lsquoNMU Contextrsquo report that was prepared at Preliminary Design

Stage The report was considered to be still valid although the following material

changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006

and are included in the updated report

bull Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of Statersquos decision to

proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007

bull Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel

Parkman traffic model (July 2006) Refer to Table 1 below

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 39: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

3

Section of road Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2009)

Estimated two-way

flow AADT (2024)

De-trunked A14 ndash Haughley New Street to

Quarries Cross

887 1240

De-trunked A14 ndash Quarries Cross to

Fishponds Way

1484 1952

De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to

Stowmarket

9543 11505

Proposed A14 ndash Haughley Bushes

Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction

40466 51813

Proposed A14 ndash Tot Hill Junction to eastern

limit of the Scheme

42853 55159

Table 1 Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT ndash 2009 and 2024

bull The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the

public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006 The locations for

the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009SI032 A appendix A) were

selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the

proposed improvement Each survey recorded the number and approximate age

range of people using the footpath network The condition of the footpaths was

also documented The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public

Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref 717647OR38 and 717647OR48

bull Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September

2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site This closure is a

temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site

should be managed

bull Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115 Following the Public

Inquiry the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed and a decision

letter was issued 130706 Construction is expected to start at the beginning of

2008 It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 40: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

4

ii A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non-

Motorised Users

iii Further consultations with the interested parties user groups shown in Table 2 below

Suffolk County Council (SCC) Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young )

Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels)

Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin)

Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime)

Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams)

Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson)

Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins)

Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax)

Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard)

Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines)

Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg)

Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate)

Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville)

Waste Operations Manager (Adam Smith)

Assistant Waste Services Manager (Howard Mottram)

Suffolk Local Access Forum

SUSTRANS Anthony Wright

Landowners George Wimpey Limited (solicitor Michael Orlick David Boswell WSP)

Bevansrsquo agent

Testers

Gammers

Also corresponded with other landowners but they did not raise concerns relation to the NMU Audit

Utilities BT

Other utilities were corresponded with but did not have concerns relating to the NMU Audit

Public Inquiry in relation to the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Suffolk Access Forum Ramblersrsquo Association The British Horse Society The Stowmarket and District Green Party Mr Rowson Laurence Homes George Wimpey UK Limited and Mrs Ann Woodward

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 41: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

5

Issues not directly relating to NMU Haughley Parish Council Wetherden Parish Council Mr Robert Smith supported by Mr Barry Gibbs and Mr Ian Carr Mr R M J Pedge Mr and Mrs Tester Mr Robert Cooke

Other parties corresponded with but who have not raised issues relating to the NMU Audit

Association of British Drivers

Countryside Agency

David Ruffley (MP)

East of England Development Agency

English Nature (now part of Natural England)

Environment Agency

Federation of Suffolk Byway and Bridleway Groups

Harleston and Shelland PC

Haughley PC

Open Spaces Society

RSPB

Wetherden Traffic Committee

Mid Suffolk District Council (Stephen Andrews)

Table 2 Consultations with interested parties user groups

iv Site visits by Paul Corbett a member of the Design Team who visited the scheme

location on 3 occasions between 2nd July and 10th September 2006 Inspections were

carried out during the hours of daylight at the weekend and during the week in fine

conditions by car and on foot

v A lsquolostrsquo Public Footpath was reinstated in December 2006 It starts at the junction of

footpath 42 and the A14 and runs north across Moor Bridge then north east to join the

C401 Haughley and will be known as footpath 49

Drawing 718009SI032A in appendix A shows a scheme layout plan with references to

the locations of the issues identified in this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 42: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

6

2 Objectives and Design Features

The NMU Context Report recommended eleven key scheme objectives for non-motorised

users which were accepted by the Highways Agency These objectives and the design

features that have been incorporated to satisfy them have been included in the Detailed

Design as described in Table 3 below

Objective Design Feature

Provide a safe route for cyclists between Haughley and Stowmarket

Fishponds Way is a local distributor road that connects Haughley to the existing A14 eastbound carriageway Cyclists currently share the use of the road with vehicular traffic without separate on-carriageway cyclist facilities Based on the traffic model and the Public Usage Footpath Survey it is predicted that the forecast vehicle and cycle flows on Fishponds Way to be low enough to safely maintain the existing provisions

The section of the existing 20m wide shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket will be upgraded The section of the A14 adjacent to this will also be de-trunked and form part of the link road between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which will reduce the amount of vehicular traffic and traffic speeds along this section

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

Two crossings of the new A14 are to be provided with one of these routes giving direct access to the picnic site at Quarries Cross

1) Footway facilities will be provided along the eastern side of the realigned Haughley Road which will be taken below the new A14 through an underpass Public Footpath 2 will be diverted onto this footway system immediately south of the underpass

Haughley Road will link with the former westbound carriageway of the de-trunked A14 in the form of a staggered ghost-island junction with the opposing minor road being The Folly Facilities will be provided to enable NMUs to cross the de-trunked A14 at this location

A new access from Haughley Road to the existing entrance of the picnic site at Quarries Cross will also be provided This will be located between the underpass and the staggered junction described above

Table 3 Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 43: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

7

Objective Design Feature

Provide a route between villages on either side of the existing A14 and to Quarries Cross Picnic Site for non-motorised users that is separate from the trunk road

(Continued)

2) A shared NMU facility will be provided along the western side of the overbridge across the new A14 at Tot Hill junction North of the new A14 it will be connected to the upgraded shared cyclewayfootway facility to be provided between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket This facility will also connect to the proposed segregated NMU facility (with provisions for equestrians cyclists and pedestrians) that will run between Fishponds Way and Haughley New Street along the route of the de-trunked eastbound carriageway

South of the new A14 the shared NMU facility will connect to the new bridleway that is to run adjacent to the southern boundary of the new trunk road between Tot Hill junction and Shepherds Lane The bridleway will then link to the new public highway to be constructed between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road A new public footpath will extend from Tot Hill junction to Public Footpath 37

Separate the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network from the trunk road traffic

As described above NMU crossings of the new A14 will be separate from the trunk road An NMU facility for pedestrians and cyclists will be created along the length of the de-trunked A14 to the north of the new A14

To the south of the new A14 a new section of public footpath will create a pedestrian route from FP37 in the west joining to a new bridleway with cyclist and equestrian rights from Tot Hill junction to Shepherds Lane in the east The route will connect with a new public highway between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road which will give access for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Integrate the local PRoW with the wider network and with the Gipping Valley Countryside Project

Pedestrians

The two public footpaths (No2 and 37) that are crossed by the route of the proposed scheme connect with the wider PRoW network In addition the proposed NMU facilities will facilitate access to the wider PRoW network

It was ascertained from Suffolk CC that the Gipping Valley Countryside Project has ceased but the public footpath network still exists The promoted long distance path for the Gipping Valley starts near Stowmarket railway station following a south-east direction alongside the River Gipping towards Ipswich

Cyclists

The proposed NMU facilities will be linked via Haughley Road to the National Cycle Network Route 51 towards the south-west of the proposed scheme Route 51 currently runs from Oxford in the west through Harleston and to Colchester and Felixstowe in the east

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 44: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

8

Objective Design Feature

Equestrians

The proposed bridleway along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will provide a route for equestrians segregated from road traffic which connects to the existing Bridleway 38

Improve safety for vulnerable NMUs between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket by providing off road routes

The proposed NMU provisions on the former eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket will be an off-carriageway route

Following the Public Inquiry the Inspector recommended the Draft Side Roads Order was modified in relation to the NMU route south of the new A14 between Tot Hill junction and Bury Road The Secretaries of State accepted the recommendations and the section between Shepherds Lane and Bury Road was modified from bridleway status to public highway This will serve as an access road for the properties on Shepherds Lane to Stowmarket

Ensure that all informal crossings at junctions along the NMU route are upgraded to current standards including signing to alert drivers to the possibility of NMUs crossing

This has been carried out during the detailed design stage in consultation as appropriate with Suffolk CC

Introduce a continuous safe off road route for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket utilising the former eastbound carriageway where possible

A continuous safe off road route will be provided for both cyclists and pedestrians between Haughley New Street and Stowmarket which utilises the de-trunked eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way and upgrades the existing shared cyclewayfootway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket

Introduce a segregated section of bridleway on the former eastbound carriageway to connect Fishponds Way to Haughley New Street This would allow equestrians access to this route without proceeding along a high speed road

The de-trunked A14 eastbound carriageway between Haughley New Street and Fishponds Way will be utilised to provide a segregated equestrian route which will also be connected to Bridleway 38

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 45: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

9

Objective Design Feature

Improve accessibility of facilities at Stowmarket particularly for people who do not have access to a car

The proposed new NMU routes and upgraded facilities will allow improved NMU links between the villages to the west of Stowmarket This will make the amenities at Stowmarket more accessible particularly for people who do not have access to a car It will also improve accessibility to other facilities in the region via the public transport network at Stowmarket

Encourage the use of sustainable travel

The proposed NMU provisions included in the scheme will allow greater opportunity for non-motorised forms of travel thereby encouraging the use of sustainable travel

Review NMU signing requirements with Suffolk County Council

Further discussions have taken place with Suffolk CC during the detailed design stage

Table 3 (contrsquod) Objectives and design features

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 46: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

10

3 Public Inquiry

31 Introduction After the publication of the Draft Orders in March 2006 there was an objection period in

accordance with statutory process At the end of this objection period a number of

objections had been lodged therefore the Draft Orders had to be subject to a Public

Inquiry The Public Inquiry took place in November 2006 in Stowmarket 1 The Inspector

made his recommendations to the Secretaries of State regarding the scheme In April

2007 the Secretaries of State announced the decision to proceed with the scheme subject

to the Inspectorrsquos recommendations

Only the objections relevant to NMU proposals are presented in this report

The numbered alternatives were worked up by the Highways Agency before the Public

Inquiry2 the others were received after the deadline but were still discussed at the inquiry

and therefore presented here The paragraph references are for the Inspectorrsquos report to

the Secretaries of State

32 Objections 321 Public Footpath 37

There was concern over plans that part of Footpath 37 was to be lsquostopped uprsquo between

the northern boundary of the new trunk road and the southern boundary of the de-trunked

A14 and diverted A number of alternatives were suggested and examined at the Public

Inquiry in November 2006

bull Retaining current alignment and providing an at-grade crossing (Alternative 8a

paragraph 6413)

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing a footbridge(Alternative 5a

paragraph 644)

bull Upgrading FP37 to a cycle path and providing a bridge over the new A14 and

detrunked A14 to bridleway 38 (Alternative 11 paragraph 6107)

1 Public Inquiry for A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement is ref DPI01674)

2 The numbering of the alternatives has been kept consistent with the Inspectorrsquos report Not all the alternatives were relevant to NMU and have been omitted from this report

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 47: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

11

bull Retaining the current alignment and providing an underpass (Alternative 5b

paragraph 645)

bull Stopping up FP37 north of FP4 junction and providing an alternative new route

along field edges to Tot Hill junction (Alternative 6 paragraph 647)

322 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction

Concern was raised over the level of provision of NMU facilities across the overbridge at

Tot Hill Junction (653 6103) It was felt that the NMU provision would not meet the

objective in terms of accessibility (653)

A number of requests were made (paragraph 655)

bull The western verge of the dumb-bell junction to be widened to 38m to allow better

separation between non-motorised users and motorised traffic

bull Raising the parapets to 18m high

bull Appropriate fencing to be provided for equestrian use to segregate the verge from

the carriageway

bull Pegasus crossings to be provided on both west-facing slip roads

bull Signal-controlled crossings of the slip roads should be provided(6103)

323 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

Two other NMU crossings of the trunk road were suggested

bull Concern was raised about the removal of the ability for pedestrians to cross the

A14 at-grade between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane (Alternative 8

paragraph 6414)

bull There was concern about equestrians crossing the A14 trunk road using Tot Hill

junction and a suggestion of extending the new bridleway along the south-western

side of the scheme along the route of the diverted FP37 and providing a bridleway

bridge across the new A14 (Paragraph 663)

324 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads

There was concern that there would be insufficient forward visibility for westbound drivers

at Quarries Cross to make the crossroads safe for NMU (Paragraph 6103) Options put

forward were

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 48: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

12

bull The provision of cycle bridges over the road at Quarries Cross and opposite

Footpath 37 (Alternative 9 and 11 paragraphs 6105 and 6107)

bull A Pegasus crossing should be provided at Fishponds Way to allow safe equestrian

access to and from the new non-motorised user route on the existing eastbound

carriageway of the A14 (Paragraph 655)

325 Alternative NMU routes

bull Close FP35 between Shepherds Lane and FP45 Create new FP from junction of

FP16 and FP45 to the proposed bridleway to link Tot Hill junction with the

remainder of Bury Road (Alternative 7b paragraph 6411)

bull Create a new footpath between the confluence of FP16 and FP45 and the

proposed bridleway giving a choice of routes (Alternative 7c paragraph 6412)

bull Provide a new bridleway from Rush Green via London Lane and the diverted FP37

to Tot Hill junction This together with the proposed south side bridleway from Tot

Hill to Bury Road would provide a south side traffic free route to schools and into

the town centre and could in time be linked to Moorbridge Road its footpath and

the Haughley Bushes accommodation bridge to Haughley New Street(Alternative

10 paragraph 6106)

326 Shepherds Lane

There were objections to the Side Roads Order as there were concerns about Shepherds

Lane and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway status The route

would serve as a vehicular route to four farms and there was concern that a bridleway

would be of insufficient width and may not be maintained to the standard required for this

purpose

33 Inspectorrsquos Recommendations 331 Public Footpath 37

TA 9105 states the level of NMU provision should be appropriate to the expected number

of users The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys produced no evidence

to show any pedestrian usage of Footpath 37 or high numbers of pedestrians using those

public footpaths at the southern end of Footpath 37 that would suggest the possibility of a

suppressed demand The 200102 Atkins NMU Crossing Study (Appendix D of the NMU

Context Report) also found no evidence of pedestrians crossing the trunk road tofrom

Footpath 37

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 49: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

13

The Inspector found that the evidence demonstrated that the route was not used and

there was no evidence that it would be the scheme diversion of Footpath 37 would be

reasonably convenient when compared to the existing routes of which Footpath 37 forms

a part (963)

The Inspector recommended that no further action need be taken in respect of

alternatives 5a5b6 (96456) He concluded that crossing the A14 trunk road at grade

would be dangerous and therefore alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

Alternative 11 is discussed in 334 below

332 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction

The Inspector found that Suffolk Local Access Forum identified various matters which they

considered to be shortcomings in the design of the proposed Tot Hill junction in particular

in relation to equestrians The British Horse Society also considered the Tot Hill junction to

be unsafe for equestrians and suggested a new bridleway bridge to the west of Tot Hill

junction

The Highways Agency considered that it was unlikely that there would be lsquoreasonable

demandrsquo for equestrian use of the bridge Tot Hill junction even though they proposed a

bridleway to that junction The HA considered that equestrians would use the carriageway

on the bridge but the bridleway from Bury Road would end at the westbound on-slip at

the junction requiring equestrians proceeding on the carriageway toward the junction to

ride against the traffic flow (972)

The Inspector considered that the proposed bridleway from Bury Road to Tot Hill junction

from where equestrians would proceed to the new route provided for them on the existing

A14 road would be consistent with the County Councilrsquos Draft Rights of Way Improvement

Plan (974) He considered that it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between

the western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use The bridge at the Tot hill junction could provide a cost-

effective way of allowing that (983) The alternative bridleway bridge suggested by

British Horse Society did not address how it would connect to highways to the north-east

of the route of the scheme and should not be pursued

333 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road

The Inspector concluded that there was no existing pedestrian access facility across the

A14 between Shepherds Lane and Spikes Lane or evidence of current or potential

demand

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 50: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

14

The scheme would provide alternative safer grade-separated crossings to the east at

Stowmarket and the new Tot Hill Junction to the west of this point These would provide a

safer but longer route and therefore a reasonably convenient alternative route to the

existing one The Inspector concluded that at-grade crossing of the A14 trunk road would

be dangerous and alternative 8 should not be pursued (9613)

The Inspector queried how the proposed bridleway bridge would connect to highways to

the north-east of the route of the scheme and concluded that the proposal should not be

pursued

334 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads

The Inspector found that the forward visibility would be sufficient for the proposed local

road speed of 85kph (91112) There was no evidence of cycle traffic currently crossing

Quarries Cross junction or evidence of future cycle traffic volumes The Inspector found

no justification for a cycle bridge at Quarries Cross and recommended that alternative 9

should not be pursued (9112)

The Inspector found no evidence of need for a cycle bridge opposite Footpath 37 and as

Footpath 37 leads from the A14 only to Footpaths 3 and 4 would be of little use as a cycle

route On the basis of evidence the Inspector concluded that alternative 11 should not be

pursued (9114)

The Inspector made no comments regarding a Pegasus crossing at Fishponds Way

335 Alternative NMU routes

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7b and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There were also counter objections of encroachment

onto farm land and disrupting a circular walk The scheme proposals were reasonably

convenient

The HA would be unable to promote alternative 7c and there was no evidence of

willingness by SCC to promote it There was no evidence of want or need for alternative

7c

The Inspector concluded that no further action need be taken in respect of alternatives 7b

and 7c

The Inspector concluded that alternative 10 would provide an additional cycle route from

Stowmarket to the west in addition to that which the scheme would provide There was no

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 51: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

15

evidence of current or future need of alternative 10 On the basis of evidence the

Inspector concluded that alternative 10 should not be pursued

336 Shepherds Lane

The Inspector compared the convenience for users of the proposed route with the

convenience for those now using the route that would be replaced The users currently

have use of a road of a particular width and quality of alignment maintained in adequate

condition by the local highway authority and giving access in a particular way to the

highway network nearby If the alternative route failed to reach comparable standards in

those respects it would be less convenient

The Secretaries of State agreed with the Inspectorrsquos recommendations that there would

be merit in retaining Shepherds Lane as all-purpose highway and connecting it by a new

road to the residual section of Bury Road

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 52: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

16

4 Items raised in this Audit

41 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities Issue

Concerns were raised over the potential misuse of the proposed NMU facility along the

former eastbound carriageway and on land adjacent to the south side NMU routes These

included use of the area for camping by itinerant travellers fly-tipping and motorcycling

bull There was a request to narrow the hardened track on the former eastbound

carriageway

bull There was a request to supply a barrier on the proposed south side bridleway

bull The nature of access barriers at NMU crossing points was discussed with SCC

with a request for metal gates with protected hinges as wooden barriers could be

easily cut

Action taken

A survey along the proposed route was undertaken in 2006 and potential problem areas

were identified

The hardened track on the former eastbound carriageway has to be wide enough to

accommodate maintenance vehicles and is discussed in 42 Design Of The New NMU

Route

In accordance with the land ownersrsquo wishes there are plans to provide an accommodation

barrier adjacent to the south side bridlewayaccess route between Shepherds Lane and

the south roundabout to deter users from straying onto adjacent fields

Design proposals have been prepared to address the potential misuse of NMU facilities

On the former eastbound carriageway plans include earth bunding fencing motor cycle

access deterrent gates horse stiles and metal lockable access gates to prevent

unauthorised access by motorised vehicles A similar gating system is proposed to

prevent misuse of the bridlewayaccess route west of Shepherds Lane The upgraded

footwaycycleway east of Fishponds Way to Stowmarket is mainly adjacent to the

carriageway but bollards will be used to prevent access by motor vehicles to areas where

appropriate

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 53: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

17

42 Design Of The New NMU Route Issue

The preliminary designs included a fence in the verge to act as a deterrent to

unauthorised motor vehicles gaining access to the hard surface route

Action Taken

This was rejected after further analysis of potential problem areas and alternatives put

forward including earth bunding fencing motor cycle inhibitors horse stile and lockable

access gates at appropriate points (see 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU

Facilities)

Issue

There were discussions with SCC about whether the cycleway and footway should have

different coloured surfacing

Action Taken

It was decided surface markings would be sufficient to provide significant distinction

between the footway and cycleway

Issue

It was suggested that the proposed width for the hard surfaced cyclewayfootway on the

former eastbound carriageway was excessive and a lesser width of 3m was requested

This request related to concerns of potential misuse of the facility by motorised vehicles

and trespass on neighbouring property The design proposals for the access barriers are

outlined in 41 Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

Action Taken

In the Scheme Assessment Report the preliminary design proposed 2m effective cycle

way 15m effective width footway 1m verge and 25m effective width bridleway The hard

surface would be on the north side to allow farmers to use the route to access their fields

The former eastbound carriageway will be utilised to form the new NMU route This places

some restrictions on the width available as the new route must where possible utilise

existing drainage and not infringe upon existing utilities in the verge The existing

eastbound carriageway is of variable width with a minimum of just under 7m The design

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 54: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

18

of the new NMU route must meet current standards within the constraints of the former

eastbound carriageway It is proposed to retain any existing kerbing and footway on both

sides of the former eastbound carriageway where feasible

The cyclewayfootway on the former eastbound carriageway will also serve as an access

route for utility companiesrsquo vehicles and for landowners to access fields The facility has

to be wide enough to accommodate maintenance vehicles on both the straight and curved

sections of the route and allow passage of a wheelchair or adult and helper (900mm and

1200mm respectively Department for Transport Inclusive Mobility) The utility companies

require a 35m of hard surface to allow an access route for vehicles for maintenance

The cyclewayfootway will also be adjacent to an equestrian route TA 9005 (DMRB 635

paragraph 714) states the acceptable minimum width of an equestrian route is 3m to

allow horses to pass It also states that it is preferable to separate different types of NMU

by 10m but an acceptable separation is 05m The acceptable minimum width of a

segregated facility should be 3m consisting of 15m cycle route and 15m pedestrian

route

To accommodate the different needs the existing eastbound carriageway will be utilised

for a segregated facility 3m wide consisting of 15m pedestrian route next to existing

kerbing and 15m cycle route with a median hard strip of 05m for safety between the

cycle route and the equestrian route This will provide the required 35m hard surface for

maintenance vehicles The remainder of the carriageway will be planed out and mixed

with topsoil to form the surface for the equestrian routes (as advised in lsquoA Guide to

Surfacing of Bridleways and Horse Tracksrsquo published by BHS) and will be of variable width

but a minimum of 3m The NMU route will be a minimum of 65m wide to fit within the

current boundaries

43 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way Issue

The results of the 2006 Public Footpath Usage Surveys showed very low pedestrian

movements at Quarries Cross and no evidence was given of expected cycle or equestrian

volumes this coupled with the low predicted traffic flows would not support the installation

of light controlled crossings Fishponds Way marks the start of the equestrian route west

to Haughley New Street there is no equestrian route on the eastern side of Fishponds

Way or on the detrunked A14

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 55: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

19

Action Taken

TA 9105 ldquoProvision for Non-Motorised Usersrdquo sets out in Table 61 the criteria for

suitability of informal at-grade rights of way crossings For a single carriageway with AADT

two way flow of below 8000 an informal at-grade rights of way crossing is normally

appropriate The Folly Fishponds Way and the detrunked A14 local road all have traffic

forecast flows of considerably less than 8000 in the design year of 2024 therefore

informal at-grade rights of way crossings are considered appropriate These will all be

designed to meet current standards including the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act

Holding areas for horses have been included in the detailed design of the crossing of The

Folly at Quarries Cross junction The proposed access barriers at Haughley New Street

Quarries Cross junction Fishponds Way Shepherds Lane and along the improved

footwaycycleway between Fishponds Way and Stowmarket are described in 41

Potential Misuse of Proposed NMU Facilities

44 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction Issue

Concern was raised at the Public Inquiry over the level of provision of NMU facilities

across the overbridge at Tot Hill Junction (see section 332 ) The Inspector did not give

details about how these concerns should be addressed He did however make the

following observations

bull The Inspector noted that for equestrians to travel from the proposed bridleway

from Bury Road across the Tot Hill junction using the carriageway they would have

to proceed against the traffic flow (972)

bull The Inspector felt it ought to be possible to ride a horse in safety between the

western end of the proposed bridleway that would lead from Bury Road and other

routes suitable for equestrian use and that the bridge at Tot Hill junction could

provide a cost-effective way of allowing that (983)

Action Taken

The bridge cross section will be in accordance with TD 2705 A cyclewayfootway is

proposed on the western side of the bridge and the parapet height will be appropriately

sized The cyclewayfootway will link to the proposed southern bridleway and access

road and the cyclewayfootway facility along the de-trunked eastbound carriageway at Tot

Hill

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 56: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

20

The bridge will have paved verges 25m wide a carriageway 73m wide with 1m edge

strips It is proposed to utilise the western side paved verge as a cyclewayfootway The

cyclewayfootway is proposed on the western side of the link road only to join up with the

new NMU routes to the north and south of the junction

The forecast traffic flows for the slip roads indicate they are suitable for informal crossings

To address the issue of any equestrians travelling across Tot Hill junction from Bury Road

proceeding against the traffic flow whilst using the carriageway it is proposed that they use

a combined NMU route on the southside of the westbound on-slip from the bridleway to

the south roundabout where they join the carriageway to cross the link road (see Drawing

718009SI034A Appendix A) The combined NMU route to the south roundabout would

have post and rail fences on both sides The fence would separate equestrians from the

safety barrier at the edge of the carriageway and NMU from the embankment The paved

verge on the western side of the link road will be clearly signed as a footwaycycleway

and equestrians will proceed on the carriageway or edge strip at least 25m from the

parapet

The grade separated junction at Tot Hill will provide a new safer crossing of the A14 for

non-motorised users It will also connect the new NMU route from Bury Road on the south

side of the A14 to the new and improved NMU facilities on the north side of the A14

45 Footpath 2 Issue

The new A14 trunk road will cut across Public Footpath 2 running south west between

Quarries Cross junction and Moorbridge Farm

Action Taken

Public Footpath 2 from Moorbridge Farm will be stopped up where it joins the diverted

Haughley Road on the south west side of the underbridge There will be steps and a ramp

with landings between the field and the highway Pedestrians will then proceed to

Quarries Cross junction via new footway on the north east side of the diverted Haughley

Road

46 Shepherds Lane Issue

At the Public Inquiry an objection was raised to the Draft Side Roads Order for Shepherds

Lane and the bridleway and the new private access route to Bury Road having bridleway

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 57: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

21

status The original proposals were for a south side bridleway from Bury Road to the

South roundabout extending southwards down Shepherds Lane (The northern part of

Shepherds Lane would be stopped up so it would no longer be accessible from the trunk

road)

Action Taken

As a result of the Public Inquiry the design was modified to retain bridleway status west of

Shepherds Lane and for the proposed bridleway east of Shepherds Lane to be a new

highway and the retained section of Shepherds Lane to remain highway

Though a width of 48m for Shepherds Lane and the access route was discussed at the

Public Inquiry the Inspector did not specify the design details At subsequent meetings

Suffolk County Council and landowners requested widths varying between 33m with

passing spaces to 48m with passing bays

After examining the Inspectorrsquos report and taking legal advice the Highways Agency

decided on a width of 48m

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 58: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report

718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2doc

copy Mouchel 2007

23

Appendix A

Drawings

Drawing Number 718009SI032 A Layout Plan with references to IssuesActions Taken

(NB numerical references refer to numbering in Section 4 of the report)

Drawing Number 718009SI034 A NMU Route at Tot Hill Junction

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END

Page 59: Suffolk Local Access Forum · Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting

LAF 0806

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Meeting Date 17 January 2008

Authorcontact Andrew Woodin

Ipswich Unitary Status and Local Government Boundaries At the end of last year and following further investigation into the case put forward by Ipswich Borough Council the Government announced that it was not proceeding with a unitary council on the Ipswich Borough Council boundary The Government further announced that it would invite the Boundary Committee to review local government boundaries for all of Suffolk - as well as Norfolk which it is already looking at The county council has begun discussions with the Boundary Committee about how they will approach the review of local government structures and feedback suggests this will not be a quick process It may take until at least 2010 to see a clearer picture The county council will continue delivering services in Ipswich over that period including developing the definitive map for Ipswich Protecting and maintaining rights of way will remain the responsibility of Ipswich Borough Council under the highways agency agreement The county council will continue to work closely with IBC officers on developing the Ipswich definitive map to process orders to record known priority rights of way and to ensure rights of way are given due regard in the planning process The highways agency agreement which nominally expires in April 2009 but can be extended will be reviewed in discussion with the borough council and the review will include rights of way The discussions will be in the context of an ongoing review of local government in Suffolk Given the termination of the recent Ipswich unitary status proposals the matter of a separate local access forum for the town does not arise

END