Meeting documents

Return to Items for Decision

ITEM CMDT1

CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT – 6 OCTOBER 2006

A415 ROUTE IMPROVEMENT

Report by Head of Transport

1. On 21 February 2006 the Cabinet regarding resolved that a route improvement of the A415 between A40 and A34 should be included as part of the County Council’s Longer Term Strategy for transport improvements. That report picked up the recommendations which had been made following the completion of the Transport Networks Review (TNR) study and had subsequently been subject to consultation.

History

2. The Route Improvement was to include a number of schemes which had all been previously considered separately but which would now be considered together and which would consequently have a greater impact. The TNR saw this scheme as being necessary as a result of increased traffic levels predicted on the A415 in the near future as traffic sought to divert away from the congested networks in the Oxford area. The improvement would include: Marcham Bypass, Kingston Bagpuize Link Road, Newbridge Replacement, Standlake/Brighthampton Bypass. On-line improvements elsewhere on the route would also need to be considered.
3. Funding for a scheme of this size would critically depend upon gaining the support of the Regional Transport Board (RTB) through the Regional Prioritisation Process. The Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) controlled by the RTB provides the only means whereby large projects (i.e. cost > £5 million) can be funded where these cannot attract sufficient developer contributions, or where other specific sources of outside funding were unlikely. An RFA prioritisation process had taken place in 2005 to determine priorities for investment for 2006-2011. This process had also committed some funding in 2011-2016 where implementation of approved schemes extended into that period.
4. Marcham Bypass had been put forward for RFA support for the 2006-2011 period but had not been assessed as having sufficient priority to attract funding. It was considered at that time that, providing the rules remained the same, a larger scheme with a wider range of benefits would stand a better chance of attracting funding in future RFA rounds.

  Regional Funding Allocation beyond 2011

5. The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) published a framework for prioritising schemes for beyond 2010/11 in July 2006. In the accompanying letter bids were invited solely from schemes which have "been identified as being necessary to support delivery of the South East Plan" and stressing the importance that schemes demonstrate "the linkage between the investment proposal and, where appropriate, the relevant sub-regional spatial strategy."
6. Given this emphasis it would be difficult to put together a submission for the A415 Route Improvement that is likely to achieve a high prioritisation score. It would, for instance, probably only score positively in 8 of the 17 criteria outlined in the prioritisation framework and in none of what are likely to be the most important criteria – those related to schemes which enable the South East Plan (housing) growth.
7. It was therefore not considered worthwhile to prepare and submit a prioritisation bid for the scheme in this round. While this would technically only rule out the scheme for the 2011-2016 period it is likely that the prioritised schemes would also take up a large proportion of any funds available in the subsequent period (as indeed was the case in the previous round). It is also likely that the emphasis on schemes which are directly needed to deliver the Regional Plan will be retained in future rounds.
8. This calls into question whether this part of the TNR strategy is now deliverable. If the improvement is not deliverable then an early decision will ensure that no unnecessary, or ultimately wasted, work on identifying the elements of this strategy is undertaken. In the programme outlined in the LTP report this work was due to take place in the immediate future. As was stated in the February Cabinet report if schemes are removed from the programme then it is important that their protection is removed in order to avoid ongoing blight issues. The Council currently has protected lines for three schemes along the route. Marcham Bypass is dealt with below; the lines for Kingston Bagpuize Link Road and Cokethorpe Bends would be removed from protection if this route improvement was abandoned.
9. Without the upgrade of the A415 the most effective way of minimising problems on the route is a combination of measures to manage congestion on the A34 and measures to reduce the attractiveness of the A415. In the longer term the suitability of the A415 as a whole to remain as a Principal ("A"-class) Road may need to be considered.
10. A Regional Prioritisation Bid has been prepared for the Access to Oxford strategy which includes the first part of a long term strategy for the A34 (which includes introducing an "Intelligent Transport System" including variable message signing and interactive speed management) and a wider study to determine a post-2016 approach for improving the A34 through Central Oxfordshire. The Access to Oxford Strategy also includes considering the Northern Approaches to Oxford – which will include consideration of our long term ambitions for the A40. It is unclear at the moment to what extent these measures would need to be re-enforced by capacity reductions on the A415. The need for these should be re-assessed either in the light of improved predictions of the impact of the Access to Oxford programme and/or following its introduction.

Retained Elements

11. Marcham Bypass – the justification for this part of the Improvement was not related to traffic growth but with the environmental impact of the current traffic levels on the village. The likely cost of the scheme (> £14 million) means that the County Council cannot fund the bypass from its own resources. However, funding opportunities may arise from the Upper Thames Reservoir (if this is proceeded with by Thames Water) and in relation to post-2016 developments in the Wantage & Grove area. It is therefore considered that the line protection for this scheme should be retained, at least until these issues become clearer. In the February report to the Cabinet it was mentioned that Frilford Parish Council had put forward an alternative route for the eastern section of the bypass. An evaluation of the relative benefits of this scheme, as opposed to the currently preferred scheme, would need to be undertaken if the prospects for delivering the scheme improve but pending such a study should not be included in the protected route. Oxfordshire Highways has been commissioned to look at on-line measures which could be put in place as a shorter term solution to the problems in Marcham, or as an alternative if funding for the bypass is not forthcoming.
12. Newbridge – The current crossing, a Listed Structure and Scheduled Ancient Monument, is failing and has had a temporary weight limit recently placed upon it. However it is considered that this will not arrest deterioration in the structure and that the only long term solution is to build a replacement structure on a new line. Allowance for a replacement structure has been made within the LTP-funded Maintenance Programme for 2010/11. There is considerable local concern that the removal of the constraint caused by the present traffic signal controlled single-lane crossing will increase traffic levels along the A415, particularly the numbers of heavy goods vehicles. In the absence of the improvement of the route as a whole it is considered that the development work for the new crossing should be widened to include consideration of these issues and, if they should prove to be valid, to identify any mitigation measures which would be necessary to counter any such effects. This could take the form of retaining single file "shuttle working" on the crossing, even if the structure built was capable of two-way operation, retaining the weight limit or building in restraint measures elsewhere on the route to counter any increase in capacity.

Legal Implications

13. The protection of a road improvement line from development does expose the County Council to claims for blight. Such a claim is currently being made against the Council by the owners of one property in Kingston Bagpuize. It is to reduce the possibilities of such claims being made that the general principle was established in Planning Policy Guidance that protection should only be given to schemes where there is a reasonable expectation that they could be delivered within the current planning horizon. This principle guided the decision in February to remove protection of all those schemes which were not to be included in the longer term improvement programme and, in this report, to remove protection on the lines for Kingston Bagpuize and Cokethorpe Bends.

Sustainability Implications

14. The route improvement would have allowed for an increase in the amount of travel in the county which if it occurred would have had negative implications for the amount of CO₂ emissions. However, the abandonment of the scheme may mean that overall there will be increased congestion in the future with a consequent increased amount of pollution both overall and in specific locations. The improvement would have brought particular benefits to residents in Standlake and Kingston Bagpuize which are unlikely to be realised with the abandonment of the scheme.

Financial and Staff Implications

15. The development of the A415 route improvement would have required a considerable investment, both financially and in staff time. Central Government rules require that promoting authorities provide at least ten percent of the total cost of a scheme if it is to be eligible for central funding support. In practice this level of funding would be required to develop a scheme sufficiently to make a funding bid. It is likely that the scheme would have cost around £50 million, although this would depend on the exact routes chosen, meaning that a minimum Council investment of £5 million would need to be demonstrated.
16. The abandonment of the A415 route improvement will mean that staff resources can be concentrated more on developing schemes which are more likely to be achievable and therefore provide better value for money for the resources invested in them.
    
    
    (Statement for Decision)
    

1. remove the A415 route improvement from the County Council’s Longer Term Transport Improvement Programme;
2. cease to protect the lines for the Kingston Bagpuize Link Road and Cokethorpe Bends Improvement;
3. instruct officers to take into account the need to not attract additional traffic onto the A415 when evaluating options for the new river crossing at Newbridge; and
4. approve the continued protection of the Marcham Bypass.

STEVE HOWELL
Head of Transport

Background papers: Nil

Contact Officer: Roger O’Neill Tel: 01865 815659

September 2006

Return to TOP