From:	Trotter, Andy
Sent:	18 May 2012 16:08
To:	'Chapman, Gregg'
Cc:	Beardon, Sarah; Dooley, Robin
Subject:	11/02729/OUTN - Land at former Shepherd's Spring Junior School, Smannell Road, Andover

Sensitivity:	Confidential

Follow Up Flag:	Follow up
Flag Status:	Red

Attachments:	Y0369-120512-RevA-lay-by access.pdf; Y0369-111108-LOCATION Rev A.pdf
Gregg,
Further to the recent emails on the above, I am pleased that the recently submitted addendum to the Transport Assessment, prepared by JMP, has resolved the Highway officers' concerns regarding the Smannell Road / Newbury Road roundabout.

As regards the outstanding issue around the existing lay-by, this was outlined in the email from David Wilson to you dated 01 May as follows: 
"The discussion over access arrangements follows concern raised by Andover Town Council about potential conflict between an eastbound car on Smannell rd pulling into the lay-by, coming into conflict with a car exiting the new development approaching the give way. This potential conflict would be removed if the lay-by entrance was separate from the access road serving the development site."
It is also mentioned in the Officer Report, available on your Council's web site, as follows: 
"8.25 An amended plan has been requested to ensure that the new road layout will be such that it addresses the potential conflict between cars exiting the access and cars entering Smannell Road lay-by.  The Highways Officer confirms no objection to the use of the access for the proposed and existing development subject to this plan being received, and the recommendation reflects the need for such a plan."   

It is further noted that the recommendation of the Officer's Report is to: 
"DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Building subject to the submission of an amended plan in respect of the access to the development at Smannell Road/the lay-by on Smannell Road, then OUTLINE PERMISSION"

The specific concern raised by the Town Council is acknowledged but, even if the existing lay-by access is relocated, it is clearly not possible to remove entirely the risk of a collision between a vehicle pulling out of the proposed side road onto Smannell Road where the driver of that vehicle wrongly assumes that an on-coming vehicle, approaching along Smannell Road from the west, is intending to turn into the side road.  Indicators do occasionally fail to cancel, and, as made clear in the Highway Code (Para 104) it behoves anyone pulling out of a side road not to assume that a flashing indicator alone means an on-coming vehicle will be turning into the side road.  

However, with advice from Hampshire County Council Engineering Consultancy, a number of options have been examined to address the potential conflict highlighted by the Town Council in the light of known constraints.  These constraints include the fact that the existing lay-by is insufficiently wide to allow both parking and two-way traffic, and that the retention of the available parking space within the lay-by is likely to be considered important to parents and others visiting the Children's Centre and nursery.   

An option of relocating the lay-by entrance further to the north, so that it is taken off the proposed site access road beyond the junction radius, is considered impracticable.  Not only would entering the lay-by from Smannell Road through the Children's Centre site require four 90 degree turns, which may dissuade many drivers from using the lay-by,  it would also encroach within the Children's Centre operational site where, as a consequence of this application, essential staff parking is to be relocated as shown in Drawing No. Y0369-31-ajt, dated 18.01.12.  Providing access to the lay-by through the proposed staff car park in the Children's Centre would both prejudice security and safety within the Centre and deny access to the public lay-by when the Centre was closed and the staff car park gate locked. 
 
An option of reversing the traffic flow in the lay-by, so that its entrance is at its eastern end and its exit is into the site access road junction is equally problematic.  Some eastbound cars would have to cross the centre line of Smannell Road to enable the 180 degree turns into and out of the lay-by, which would create a different potential vehicle conflict.  In addition, such turns into the lay-by would require its entire width to be free of any obstructions, which would mean a loss of several parking spaces at the eastern entrance of the lay-by.  Reversing the traffic flow in the lay-by would require new signage at the entrance and exit, and possibly a Traffic Regulation Order, and there may be a period of confusion as drivers get used to the new arrangement, which could also create conflict around the site access road junction with Smannell Road.

The option of separating the lay-by entrance as suggested in the Officer Report is illustrated in the attached Drawing No. Y0369-120512 (Rev A).  

Relocating the lay-by entrance further to the east along Smannell Road, just beyond the junction radius, would enlarge the footway around the junction and improve matters for pedestrians.  It would also remove those westbound vehicles turning off Smannell Road into the lay-by from the site access junction. 
Whilst it would not entirely remove potential conflict for cars emerging from the site access road, for the reason mentioned above, it would remove the potential conflict raised by the Town Council that a southbound car approaching Smannell Road from the residential development could face the prospect of another car cutting "in front (it) to park in the lay-by".
However, because the lay-by can only operate as a one-way route, the further east along Smannell Road that its entrance is relocated, the greater the potential loss of parking spaces within the lay-by.  Therefore, in order to minimise any loss of parking space within the lay-by, a new entrance is shown within 20 metres (centre line to centre line) of the existing site access road junction and the drawing indicates that less than 3 metres of the available parking space within the lay-by would be lost (to the benefit of pedestrians) in creating the new access.  This represents less than half of a parking space and, given that the parking bays are not delineated,  such a minor loss of available parking space may not in reality reduce the number of cars that currently can be accommodated in the lay-by. 

I also attach a revised location plan (Dwg. No. Y0369-111108-Rev A) to include the lay-by within the red line application boundary.

I trust that this email and the attached drawings comply with the requirements set out in the Officer's Report on the above planning application and will now enable it to be determined by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 31 May.

With regards,
 
Andrew Trotter Dip TP (Dist), MA (Urban Design), MRTPI
Senior Planner and Urban Designer
Planning, Architecture and Urban Design
T: 01962 84 6113
E: andy.trotter@hants.gov.uk
www.hants.gov.uk/propertyservices

"A modern business delivering public services"

HCC Property Services, The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire. S023 9DS