A259 ROUTE IMPROVEMENT STUDY · 2013. 3. 5. · approximately 6 miles of the A259 and 14 key junctions. 1.1.1 The study reviews the need for improvements to the A259 up to a forecast

February 2013

A259 ROUTE IMPROVEMENT STUDY

West Sussex County Council

A259 Route Improvement Study

285358N-PTG

Prepared for West Sussex County Council

County Hall Chichester PO19 1RH

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff

www.pbworld.com

Report Title : A259 Route Improvement Study PIMS Number : Report Status : Final Job No : 285358N-PTG Date : February 2013

DOCUMENT HISTORY AND STATUS

Document control

Prepared by Richard Clarke & Dan Hyde Checked by (technical) Colin McKenna

Approved by Colin McKenna Checked by (quality assurance) Colin McKenna

Revision details

Version Date Pages affected Comments

1.0 February 2013 All First Draft

2.0 February 2013 All Final

AUTHORISATION SHEET

Client: WSCC Project: A259 Route Improvement Study Address:

PREPARED BY Name: Richard Clarke / Dan Hyde Position: Transport Planner / Senior Transport Planner Date:

AGREED BY Name: Colin McKenna Position: Project Director Date: February 2013

AUTHORISED FOR ISSUE Name: Colin McKenna Position: Project Director Date: February 2013

DISTRIBUTION

ACCEPTED BY Name: David Marsh Position: Principal Planner Date: February 2013

ACCEPTED BY Name: Position: Date:


A259 RouteImprovement - Study Report - Final.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff February 2013 for West Sussex County Council

CONTENTS Page

1 Executive Summary 1

2 Introduction and background 3 2.1 Background 3 2.2 Previous & Parallel Studies 3 2.3 Approved Highway Schemes 4 2.4 Objective for this study 4 2.5 Approach to the study 4 2.6 Report Structure 5

3 Traffic Analysis 6 3.1 Objective of the Traffic Analysis 6 3.2 How the traffic analysis was undertaken 6 3.3 2012 Base Flows 8 3.4 2028 Base Flows 8 3.5 2028 ‘with Development’ Flows 10 3.6 A259 Link Performance Assessment 13 3.7 A259 Link Assessment Summary 19 3.8 A259 Junction Performance Assessment 20 3.9 A259 Junction Assessment Summary 27

4 Environmental Review & Constraints Plan 28 4.1 Objective of the Environmental Review 28 4.2 How the Environmental Desktop Review was undertaken 28 4.3 Walkover Survey 29 4.4 Survey Results 30 4.5 Recommendations for Construction & Design Stages 32 4.6 Summary 35

5 Safety Review 37 5.1 Whole Route Summary 37 5.2 Recommendations 38

6 Route Improvements 40 6.1 Stage 1 Road Safety Audit 40 6.2 A259 Link Improvements 41 6.3 A259 Junction Improvements 44

7 Preferred Route Improvement Summary 52 7.1 Link Improvement Summary 52 7.2 Junction Improvement Summary 54

8 Land Take Assessment 56 8.1 Objectives of the Land Take Assessment desktop review 56 8.2 How the Land Assessment was undertaken 56 8.3 Findings and Recommendations 56


A259 RouteImprovement - Study Report - Final.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff February 2013 for West Sussex County Council

9 Cost Estimates 57

10 Key Risks and Issues 58

11 Conclusions 62 11.1 General Overview 62 11.2 Recommendations (Preferred Option Summary) 62 11.3 Expected Benefits of Preferred Option A259 Package 64 11.4 Next Steps 64

Appendices 65

Appendix A – Junction Images Appendix B – Environmental Constraints Plan Appendix C – Desktop Safety Review Appendix D – Road Safety Audit & Designers Response Appendix E – Scheme Options Drawings Appendix F – Preferred Option Drawings Appendix G – Junction Model Outputs Appendix H – Cost Esitmates Appendix I – Data Collection Note (S1) Appendix J – Evidence for Improvements Note (S3) Appendix K – Historic Scheme Proposals Appendix L – Scheme Option Drawings (OS MasterMap) Appendix M – Perferred Option Drawings (OS MasterMap)


A259 RouteImprovement - Study Report - Final.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff February 2013 for West Sussex County Council - 1 -

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0.1 Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) has been commissioned by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) under the IESE framework contract to undertake an initial design study looking at improvements for the A259 within the Arun District. The Joint East Arun Area Committee (JEAAC) has identified concerns about the ability of the A259 to support anticipated future transport demand, including the implications of recent significant retail permissions and planned growth identified through the emerging Local Plan.

1.0.2 This study focuses on the section of the A259 which runs from the River Arun in the west and extends to and includes the Goring Crossways in the east. This equates to approximately 6 miles of the A259 and 14 key junctions.

1.1.1 The study reviews the need for improvements to the A259 up to a forecast year of 2028 and develops initial designs for highways improvements (where required). Arun has a substantial amount of growth forecast, including the Courtwick Lane and North of Littlehampton sites. In addition to its role as part of the County’s strategic network and a key traffic distributor for the Arun District, the A259 within the study area is likely to also play an important role in facilitating broad locations of growth identified through the emerging Local Plan.

The review established that improvements will be required on three links and at seven junctions. This was confirmed by the JEAAC H&T sub-group during a presentation and discussion meeting in November 2012. A list of the specific links and junctions, along with a summary of the proposed Preferred Option improvements is provided below:

Links:

J5 – 6 (Worthing Road) – Future Fitzalan Link Road/ A284 Lyminster Bypass Roundabout to Body Shop Roundabout – Dualling of the current single carriageway section between J5–6 (similar to that proposed for the eastern section of the existing WSCC approved Worthing Road Improvement Scheme. The need for improvements between J4-5 (Worthing Road: Wick Roundabout to future Fitzalan Link Road/ A284 Lyminster Bypass Roundabout) is not proposed as part of this study.

J9 – 11 (Roundstone Bypass Road) – Station Road Roundabout to A280 Roundabout – It is proposed that dualling of the current single carriageway section between J9-11. The proposal is similar to the approved WSCC Roundstone Bypass Improvement Scheme but with a shared pedestrian/ cycle path on southern side of the carriageway.

An option for dualling the A259 Littlehampton Road westbound from Goring Crossways junction to just west of Ferring Lane has been produced but this is not recommended to be taken forward at this stage. Link assessment work indicates the need is marginal (PM peak only).

Continued on to next page…….



Junctions:

J1 – Bridge Road Roundabout – It is proposed that localised entry widening (flare lanes) is provided on the two A259 entry arms to the roundabout.

J4 – Wick Road Roundabout– It is proposed that localised entry widening (flare lane) is provided on the A259 eastbound entry arm and spiral road markings on circulatory lanes.

J6 – Body Shop Roundabout – It is proposed that localised entry widening (flare lane) is provided on the A259 eastbound entry arm. It is also suggested that developer proposals as part of the NL SDA (dwg. WYGLITTLEHAMPTON.1/37 rev A) are also taken forward. These include revised spiral and destination markings and associated entry lane adjustments.

J9 – Station Road Roundabout – It is proposed that localised entry widening (flare lanes) are provided on both the Station Road approaches (north and south arm), along with the dualling of the A259 westbound arm.

J10 - Roundstone Lane Roundabout – It is proposed that the A259 is dualled in both directions.

J11 – A259/ A280 Roundabout – It is proposed that this roundabout is amended through localised widening of the A259 eastbound entry along with the dualling the link leading up to it from the Roundstone Lane Roundabout. As part of this proposal the roundabout diameter is also increased slightly.

J14 – Goring Crossways – It is proposed that the current priority roundabout is upgraded to a signalised roundabout on all approaches except for Titnore Lane which is proposed to remain a give-way. Localised widening is proposed on the A2032 Littlehampton Road, A259 Goring Street and Titnore Lane entries.

1.0.2 It is also proposed that the pedestrian/ cycle crossings listed below are improved or

adjusted as part of the Preferred Option Scheme Package outlined above.

Existing Pelican crossing immediately east of Wick Roundabout (J4) is proposed

to be upgraded to a Puffin crossing

Existing Puffin crossing mid-way between the future Fitzalan Link Road/ A284

Lyminster Bypass Roundabout (J5) and Body Shop Roundabout (J6) to be

amended due to proposed dualling

Existing Toucan crossing immediately west of Body Shop Roundabout (J6) to be

re-located further west due to proposed dualling and junction improvements

Existing Pelican crossing mid-way between Station Road Roundabout (J9) and

Roundstone Lane Roundabout (J10) to be upgraded to Toucan crossing. It is

suggested that this proposal could form a standalone option or remain tied to the

proposed dualling between J9–10.

Existing at-grade crossing at Goring Crossways (J14), southern arm, to be re-

located further south and upgraded to Puffin crossing as part of the proposed

roundabout signalisation.



2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.1 Background

2.1.1 Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) has been commissioned by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) under the IESE framework contract to undertake an initial design study looking at improvements for the A259 within the Arun District. The Joint East Arun Area Committee (JEAAC) has identified concerns about the ability of the A259 to support anticipated future transport demand, including the implications of recent significant retail permissions and the emerging Arun Local Plan.

2.1.2 The District of Arun lies between the Chichester District in the west, the Horsham District to the north and the Worthing Borough to the east. This section of the A259 through Arun runs parallel to the A27 which is part of the Highways Agency’s Strategic Road Network (SRN) and provides access to a number of settlements such as Littlehampton, Wick, Angmering, East Preston and Ferring, as well as providing a route between Bognor Regis and Worthing, and beyond.

2.2 Previous & Parallel Studies

2.2.1 In 2009, MVA Consultancy were appointed by Adur District Council (ADC) to assess their LDF proposals using the strategic area-wide West Sussex County Transport Model (WSCTM). The study looked at a future year of 2026 (in the AM peak only) and had two main objectives:

To establish the absolute and relative impacts of potential strategic development locations on the road and rail networks in Arun District and beyond; and

To confirm where transport infrastructure improvements are likely to be required

2.2.2 The results from this study have been used to validate the findings of the Need for Improvements Note produced and submitted by PB prior to this final report (discussed in more detail under PB’s approach to the study).

2.2.3 In parallel to PB’s commission, WSP UK Ltd has been appointed by ADC to undertake an assessment of Strategic Development Locations (SDLs) within the district, using an updated version of the WSCTM. The aim of their project is to assess the impact of the SDLs on the highway network and to formulate a mitigation strategy. Where possible PB and WSP have liaised with each other to discuss each other’s emerging results but the nature of the assessment work undertaken by each party is distinctly different. The major difference between the two approaches is the type of traffic model used, but it should also be note that WSP are only testing the AM peak period whereas PB has assessed both the AM and PM peaks.

2.2.4 WSP are conducting an area-wide study using ‘cordon area modelling’ which is designed to predict the impact of area wide road-based trip diversion and route choice. These effects are critical to understanding the impacts major traffic schemes and development proposals across a wide-area, and must be modelled by strategic models.

2.2.5 PB’s study area is much smaller and is required to undertake option testing that looks at the impact of geometric and signal staging design modifications at individual junctions so has used ‘junction design models’. These models are sensitive to small



changes in junction layout and/ or signal control but cannot predict the impact of driver re-routing, nor can they predict changes in travel mode.

2.3 Approved Highway Schemes

2.3.1 There are two major long-standing WSCC approved road schemes within the study area that have been taken account of as part of this study. Drawings of the approved schemes can be found in Appendix K.

A259 Worthing Road – on-line improvements to Worthing Road between the Wick and Body Shop Roundabouts. Eastern section: standard dual carriageway (including a cycle path). Western section: single running lanes with service lane to provide access to properties on the southern side and parking bays on northern side.

A259 Roundstone Bypass - widening of existing single carriageway section of A259 between B2140 Station Road and A280 Angmering Bypass to dual carriageway standard.

2.4 Objective for this study

2.4.1 ADC are currently preparing their Local Plan evidence base to support their development proposals and need to understand the requirements for, and the feasibility of, a route improvement scheme along the A259. The objectives of the study are therefore to:

Identify, evaluate and propose route improvement options to accommodate existing and proposed traffic flows up to 2028

Recommend a preferred route improvement solution for the A259

2.5 Approach to the study

2.5.1 The first step was to undertake a review of currently available traffic data on the WSCC and Adur Local Plan databases to determine whether further data collection was required. The review concluded that sufficient traffic flow data was available to undertake the study but only limited Journey Time (JT) and delay information was currently available. We proposed to undertake surveys using GPS data loggers to provide this information, a summary of the method and results collected can be found in the ‘Data Collection Note’ first issued in November 2012 and provided in Appendix I of this report.

2.5.2 Using the existing traffic flow information and newly acquired journey time data, an initial high-level first tranche assessment was subsequently undertaken with the aim of creating a short list of links and junctions that when future traffic growth was taken into account were predicted to be operating with congestion pressures in 2028. A summary of this assessment is outlined in the ‘Evidence for Improvements Note’ which is included in Appendix J of this report.

2.5.3 The note concluded that four links and seven key junctions could potentially be operating with congestion pressures and further detailed analysis was required to a) confirm the need for improvement and b) determine appropriate improvement schemes where required. It is the detailed analysis of these links and junctions that is the subject of this final report.



2.6 Report Structure

2.6.1 The report contains the following sections:

Traffic Analysis – detailed assessment of existing and forecast traffic conditions and confirmation of the need for improvement on the links and junctions short-listed in the Evidence for Improvements Note

Baseline Environmental Review – overview of the desktop environmental study undertaken along the route

Desktop Safety Review – an overview of the collisions recorded along the route in the last 5 years, key findings, and recommendations for further working

Improvement Scheme Option Testing – assessment of potential schemes to resolve capacity issues on the links and junctions confirmed as requiring measures

Preferred Route Improvement Strategy – summary of Preferred Option schemes at each link and junction, land take requirements, costs, and key risks and issues

Conclusions & Recommendations



3 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

3.1 Objective of the Traffic Analysis

3.1.1 The Evidence for Improvements Note established that the road links and junctions listed below will potentially experience capacity limitations by the forecast year of 2028. The note therefore proposed that further more detailed analyses was required to a) confirm the need for improvements and b) identify and develop schemes to resolve any capacity issues where required.

Links:

Between Wick Roundabout (J4) and Body Shop Roundabout (J6)

Between Station Road Roundabout (J9) and Roundstone Lane Roundabout (J10)

Between Roundstone Lane Roundabout (J10) and A280 Roundabout (J11)

Between A280 Roundabout (J11) and Goring Crossways Roundabout (J14)

Junctions:

Bridge Road Roundabout (J1)

Wick Roundabout (J4)

Body Shop Roundabout (J6)

Station Road Roundabout (J9)

Roundstone Lane Roundabout (J10)

A280 Roundabout (J11)

Goring Crossways Roundabout (J14)

3.1.2 A map showing the locations of road links and junctions is provided in Figure 1 and aerial images of each junction are provided in Appendix A.

3.1.3 Full justification for only including the links and junctions listed above can be found in the Evidence for Improvements Note (provided within Appendix J of this report).

3.2 How the traffic analysis was undertaken

3.2.1 The work undertaken within the Evidence for Improvements Note represented a high-level first tranche assessment of future link and junction performance in which ‘blanket’ TEMPRO1 growth was applied to traffic flows.

3.2.2 In order to confirm the need for improvements and then test options (where required) a more detailed assessment was undertaken in which the traffic impacts of specific developments in the study area were considered.

3.2.3 Sections 3.3 – 3.5 sets out the methodology used for determining 2012 Base, 2028 Base and 2028 ‘with Development’ traffic flows.

1 TEMPRO is a program that provides projections of growth over time for use in local and regional transport models. Part of the role of TEMPRO is to act as a nationally-consistent benchmark distribution of growth in planning data and trip ends. This benchmark allows consistency between different parts of the country when justifying transport proposals.



Figure 1 – Road Link & Junction Locations

Link/ Junction Reference Bridge Road Roundabout J1 Wick Roundabout J4 Fitzalan Link Road Roundabout J5 Body Shop Roundabout J6 Station Road Roundabout J9 Roundstone Lane Roundabout J10 A280 Roundabout J11 Goring Crossways Roundabout J14

J4 J6

J11 J9 J10

J1

J14

J5

J4-6 Link

J11-14 Link

J10-11 Link

J9-10 Link



3.3 2012 Base Flows

3.3.1 The 2012 Base flows are intended to represent the existing traffic flows in the study area and provide a common base year for which predictions of future traffic conditions can be made.

3.3.2 These were generated using the most recent turning count survey data available within Transport Assessments (TAs) submitted with various planning applications within the study area. The survey data from the TAs invariably identify the AM and PM peaks as 08:00-09:00 and 17:00-18:00 so it is these hours that have been used in the traffic analysis for this study.

3.3.3 For Junctions 1, 4 and 6 the most recent survey data was contained within the Wick Site (Morrison’s) TA which was recorded in 2010; for Junctions 9, 10 and 11 the West End Nursery TA provides flows from 2012; and for Junction 14 the Northbrook College development included turning counts from 2010.

3.3.4 In order to generate a common 2012 base year (where required) the survey data has been factored up using TEMPRO (NTM adjusted - Dataset 62 - urban trunk road). Table 3-1 displays the factors used. Junction 14 is within the Worthing Borough so the geographical area within TEMPRO was changed accordingly.

Table 3-1 – TEMPRO 2012 Base factors

Factor

Geographical Area Forecast Year AM PM

Littlehampton (45UC1) 2011-2012 1.0069 1.0073 Worthing (45UH1) 2011-2012 1.0075 1.0073

3.4 2028 Base Flows

3.4.1 The 2028 Base flows represent a prediction of future traffic flows that take into account general background traffic growth but not traffic generated from specific known developments.

3.4.2 The information that is available within the TAs has meant that in order to generate the 2028 Base flows the study area has been split into two sections; the ‘West Section’ (Junctions 1, 4, and 6) and the ‘East Section’ (Junctions 9, 10, 11, and 14). Two different methodologies have been developed for each section, a summary of which is provided below:

West Section

3.4.3 For links and junctions on the western side of the study area extensive traffic analysis work was undertaken as part of the North Littlehampton Strategic Development Area (NL SDA) planning application, using a network modelling tool called S – Paramics.

3.4.4 The benefits provided by using results from a network model (as opposed individual junction models) is that when the ‘with Development’ traffic flows are considered the traffic re-assignment that is likely to result from the Fitzalan Link Road (proposed as part of the NL SDA) and Lyminster Bypass is taken into account (these schemes are



discussed in more detail in Section 3.5). The network model also allows for dynamic route choice based on journey time and cost.

3.4.5 Results from the model up to a future year of 2026 are provided in the Transport Assessment Addendum produced by Mayer Brown (October 2011). For the purposes of this study the 2026 Base flows from the document2 were factored up to 2028 using TEMPRO to generate our own 2028 Base flows. Table 3-2 displays the factors used.

East Section

3.4.6 No network modelling was undertaken within any of the TA’s submitted for developments on the eastern side of the study area so a ‘first principles’ approach was used i.e. the 2012 Base flows were factored to 2028 using TEMPRO.

3.4.7 The turning movements associated with the majority of committed development in the area, however, are known so alternative planning assumptions were applied within TEMPRO to avoid double-counting. This involves deducting the households and jobs generated by the known development in the area from TEMPRO’s 2028 future year assumptions.

3.4.8 For Junctions 9, 10 and 11 the predicted development flows associated with the West End Nursery and Roundstone Lane developments (150 and 195 dwellings respectively) are known and assumptions have been made regarding the residential traffic generation and distribution of the Angmering SDA (490 dwellings).

3.4.9 On this basis it was assumed that all the major known housing development in the Angmering area had been taken account of so only 200 dwellings were added to the base total number of households in TEMPRO to generate the 2013-2028 growth factors. The 200 dwelling figure was taken from the Arun District Councils latest Local Plan3 and represents the number of houses proposed within Littlehampton through Neighbourhood Development Plans (for which no traffic data is available).

3.4.10 In terms of employment, it has been assumed that any increase in jobs in the East Section will be solely linked to the Angmering SDA. No specific traffic data is available for the employment element of the site (3,500 sqm) so 210 jobs were added to the base ‘total jobs’ figure in TEMPRO (an average number of employees for B1 development of a similar size taken from the TRICS database) Table 3-2 displays the resultant factors used.

3.4.11 A similar approach was used for Junction 14. The flows associated with the Northbrook College and West Durrington developments (117 and 700 dwellings respectively) are known so the future households figure was reduced to reflect this. As far as we are aware, no major employment is proposed as part these developments so the future jobs total was left unchanged. Table 3-2 displays the factors used.

2 Figures 3.11 & 3.29 3 Table 13.2



Table 3-2 – TEMPRO 2028 Base factors

Factor

Geographical Area Junction Forecast Year AM PM

Littlehampton (45UC1) J1 – J6 2027-2028 1.0120 1.0133 Littlehampton (45UC1) J9 – J11 2013-2028 1.1418 1.1521 Worthing (45UH1) J14 2013-2028 1.1900 1.1921

3.5 2028 ‘with Development’ Flows

3.5.1 The 2028 ‘with Development’ flows represent a prediction of future traffic flows that take into account background traffic growth (2028 Base flows) but also factor in traffic generated from committed developments and strategic sites within the study area. A summary of the methodology applied to each geographical section is provided below:

West Section

3.5.2 For Junctions 1, 4 and 6, the 2028 with Development flows have been generated using the 2026 ‘with Development’ results from the North Littlehampton Strategic Development Area Transport Assessment Addendum4. These 2026 traffic flows take into account the NL SDA and the approved Courtwick Lane housing sites and were factored up to 2028 using TEMPRO (see Table 3-2).

3.5.3 As noted previously these flows take into account traffic re-assignment from the Fitzalan Link Road and Lyminster Bypass. The Fitzalan Link Road runs from the A259 near Highdown Drive to Fitzalan Road and includes a new roundabout junction on the A259 between Wick Roundabout and the Body Shop Roundabout. The Lyminster Bypass runs northwards from the A259 (just to the northeast of the A259/ Harting Road junction), through the allotments, over the railway line and Toddington Lane, and then continues northwards across the Black Ditch floodplain and then rejoins the A284 Lyminster Road close to Lyminster village.

3.5.4 A CAD drawing that included both schemes is provided in Need for Improvements Note5.

3.5.5 The NL SDA work was undertaken prior to the Wick Site application being submitted so these development flows have therefore been added separately using data from the associated TA.

East Section

3.5.6 For Junction 9, 10, 11 and 14, the 2028 with Development flows have been generated by combining the 2028 Base flows (generated using the methodology described in Section 3.4) with the predicted development flows from TAs submitted with development proposals in the area.

4 Figures 3.17 and 3.35 5 Appendix F of



3.5.7 As noted previously, trip generation and distribution assumptions have been made for the residential element of the Angmering SDA (490 dwellings) to predict development flows. This has been achieved by factoring up the total trip generation figures from the West End Nursery and Roundstone Lane TAs (345 dwellings) and distributing them using the same Census methodology proposed with the West End Nursery TA (assuming access is via Water Lane).

3.5.8 Table 3-3 provides a summary of the developments considered as part of the detailed traffic analysis, along with details of traffic assessment work submitted with their planning applications. A general map and a table summary of all the major development in the study area (that includes those listed in Table 3-3) can be found in of the Evidence for Improvements Note which is included in Appendix J.

3.5.9 It should be noted at this point that it has been assumed that the trip generation and distribution methodologies used in the traffic assessment work submitted with the various planning applications has been assumed to be robust.

3.5.10 Using appropriate link and junction assessment techniques, Sections 3 and 6 go on to use the 2012, 2028 Base, and 2028 with Development flows to confirm the findings of the Evidence for Improvements Note, and (where required) development improvement schemes to resolve capacity issues.



Table 3-3 – Committed Development Summary

Development Residential Employment/ Other Traffic Data

Junctions Assessed

Base Year

Future Year Tested in TA

General Comments

Courtwick Lane 600 4,000 sqm J1 J1 2008 2026 J1 Bridge Rd RbtB1, B2 and B8 J2 J2 J4 Wick Rbt

J3 J3 J5 Fitzalan Link Rd RbtJ4 J4 J6 Body Shop Rbt

J9 Station Rd RbtWick Site (Morrison's) - 4,744 sqm Retail J1 J1 2010 2016 No off-site highway schemes proposed J10 Roundstone Ln Rbt

3,368 sqm Office (extant) J3 J3 J11 A280 RbtJ4 J4 J14 Goring CrosswaysJ6 J6

1,460 13,000 sqm commercial J1 -100 bed hotel J4 J4 2008 2016 & 202660 bed care home J5 J53,500 sqm local shops J6 J6420 pupil school1,500 sqm health club

West Durrington 700 Community building J14 J14 2010 2015 & 2020SchoolDoctor's surgerySports and play areas

Northbrook College 117 Car showroom J14 J14 2010 2015 & 2017Care Home

Roundstone Lane 150 - J9 J9 2011 2013 & 2017 No off-site highway schemes proposedJ10 J10J11 J11

West End Nursery 195 - J9 J9 2012 2017J10 J10J11 J11

Angmering SDA 490 89,500 sqm (site as whole)3,500 sqm

n/a No information on development traffic impact available

B1c, B2 & B8Windroos Nursery 91 - n/a TA concludes a neutral traffic impact

ASDA - n/a TA concludes a neutral traffic impact

Worthing College 265 - n/a No junctions assessed within the TA are in the A259 study area

North Littlehampton SDA

Food Superstore (575 parking spaces)

700 and 1,000 dwelling tested in TA. 700 dwelling figures used in this studyJunction improvement proposed at J14. See Appendix F of Evidence for improvements Note for further details

Junction improvement proposed at J14 in TA but works understood to be no longer going ahead

TA discusses potentially widening the A259 westbound approach from 7m to 8m to mitigate development impact

Various junction improvements (J4 & J6) + new link road proposed. See Appendix F of Evidence for improvements Note for further details

New access on to A259 proposed + mitigation at J1, J4 & J6. See Appendix F of Evidence for improvements Note for further details



3.6 A259 Link Performance Assessment

3.6.1 In order to assess link performance in detail, the flows generated by using the methodology set out previously have been combined with link capacities to generate a Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC). An RFC is a widely used performance measure that provides an indication of whether a link or junction is likely to experience congestion/ delay.

3.6.2 The RFC figures provided in the results have been colour coded green, amber, or red. An RFC of less than 85% (green) represents a link predicted to be operating well within theoretical capacity with little congestion/ delay. Anywhere between 85% and 99% (amber) represents a link operating within theoretical capacity but may result in some congestion/ delay. Whilst a link with RFC figures of 100% or above (red) is operating above theoretical capacity and is likely to result in significant congestion/ delay.

3.6.3 The link capacities have been derived from the Department for Transport’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Traffic Capacity of Urban Roads document (TA 79/99)6. The document sets out the types of urban roads and the features that distinguish between them and affect their traffic capacity, and gives a flow capacity for each road type described.

3.6.4 Initially the Evidence for Improvements Note used link capacities primarily taken from the MVA strategic study carried out in 2009 for ADC, however when assessed in more detail they were considered to be too restrictive and not representative of the actual nature of the link, so DMRB criteria was used to determine independent capacity figures.

3.6.5 A sensitivity test was agreed with WSCC for the western side of the study area (the road links and junctions between Bridge Road Roundabout and the Body Shop Roundabout) as part of standard practice and to better understand the potential implications for variation in flows due to re-routing. As noted previously, results for this area are based on outputs from a network model used within the North Littlehampton Strategic Development Area TA Addendum. The link and junction turning movements in the 2028 with Development scenario have been factored up by 5%.

3.6.6 A sensitivity test for the eastern side was not considered necessary as the first principle approach provides a robust assessment in itself (i.e. does not factor in traffic re-assignment).

3.6.7 Link performance results have been provided for the following scenarios:

2012 Base

2028 Base

2028 ‘with Development’

2028 ‘with Development’ + 5% sensitivity allowance (link between Junction 4 and 6 only)

6 Table 1 and Table 2



Link between Wick Roundabout (J4) & Body Shop Roundabout (J6) (A259 Worthing Road)

3.6.8 Due to the Fitzalan Link Road/ A284 Lyminster Bypass proposed as part of the NL SDA (which includes a new roundabout junction on the A259) the Junction 4 – 6 link has been split in two. The new junction, the Fitzalan Link Road/ A284 Lyminster Bypass Roundabout has been assigned the label Junction 5 (J5) so the two new links are J4-5 and J5-6.

3.6.9 A CAD drawing showing the Fitzalan Link Road scheme can be found in the Evidence for Improvements Note7 in Appendix J.

3.6.10 Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 provide a summary of the results. The capacity for both link assessments has been assumed to be 1,300 vehicles per hour per direction (Urban All Purpose (UAP) 3 road type – 7.3m carriageway width).

3.6.11 DMRB describes a UAP 3 road type as being “variable standard road carrying mixed traffic with frontage access, side roads, bus stops and at-grade pedestrian crossings”.

Table 3-4 - J4-5 Link Assessment

3.6.12 The results show that the J4-5 link is currently (2012) operating well within theoretical capacity with only the eastbound direction in the PM peak operating at >85%).

3.6.13 In the 2028 Base scenario the link continues to operate well within capacity in the AM peak (in both directions). For the eastbound direction in the PM peak, however, the RFC goes beyond theoretical capacity ( 100%).

3.6.14 In the 2028 with Development scenario the link continues to operate well within capacity in the AM peak (in both directions) and the inclusion of the Fitzalan Link Road/ A284 Lyminster Bypass, with the subsequent re-assignment of traffic, resolve the eastbound capacity issues in the PM peak.

7 Appendix F of

0 - 85%> 85% 100%

EB WB EB WBAM 928 1025 71% 79%PM 1112 965 86% 74%

EB WB EB WBAM 1010 1091 78% 84%PM 1299 1086 100% 84%

EB WB EB WBAM 895 1032 69% 79%PM 1142 1101 88% 85%

EB WB EB WBAM 940 1084 72% 83%PM 1200 1156 92% 89%

J4-J5

Flows RFC2012 Base

2028 Base

2028 with Dev (inc. Fitzalan Link)

2028 with Dev + 5%



3.6.15 The 5% sensitivity test indicates that in the AM peak the link will continue to operate well within capacity (in both directions). In the PM peak the link is predicted to operate at a >85% capacity level, but within theoretical capacity.

3.6.16 Capacity improvements are therefore not considered to be required for the western section of A259 Worthing Road (Wick Roundabout to the impending Fitzalan Link Road/ A284 Lyminster Bypass Roundabout).

3.6.17 It is, however, proposed that the existing Pelican crossing immediately east of Wick Roundabout (J4) is upgraded to a Puffin crossing. This will provide benefits to both Motorised and Non Motorised Users due to a reduction of lost green time and improved detection of crossing users.

Table 3-5 – J5-6 Link Assessment

3.6.18 The results show that the J5-6 link is currently (2012) operating well within theoretical capacity in the westbound direction (in both peak periods). In the eastbound direction the link is operating at a >85% capacity level.

3.6.19 In the 2028 Base scenario the link is operating around or above theoretical capacity in both directions and in both peak periods. The highest RFC (118%) occurs in the eastbound direction, in the PM peak.

3.6.20 In the 2028 ‘with Development’ scenario the reassignment of traffic due to the Fitzalan Link Road cause RFCs on all links (in both peak periods) to increase substantially. The RFCs in the PM peak in particular see a large increase, with the eastbound and westbound directions at 130% and 121% respectively.

3.6.21 In the 5% sensitivity test the link RFCs increase further for both directions and in both peak periods. The maximum value occurs in the eastbound direction in the PM peak (137%).

3.6.22 Based on these results capacity improvements are considered to be required for the eastern section of A259 Worthing Road (impending Fitzalan Link Road/ A284 Lyminster Bypass Roundabout to the Body Shop Roundabout).

EB WB EB WBAM 1187 1073 91% 83%PM 1270 1056 98% 81%

EB WB EB WBAM 1432 1288 110% 99%PM 1540 1369 118% 105%

EB WB EB WBAM 1448 1447 111% 111%PM 1695 1571 130% 121%

EB WB EB WBAM 1520 1520 117% 117%PM 1780 1650 137% 127%

J5-J6

Flows RFC2012 Base

2028 with Dev (inc. Fitzalan Link)

2028 Base

2028 with Dev + 5%



Link between Station Road Roundabout (J9) & Roundstone Lane Roundabout (J10) (A259 Roundstone Bypass Road W)

3.6.23 Table 3-6 provides a summary of the results for the link assessment between Junction 9 and 10. The link assessment has assumed a capacity of 1,590 vehicles per hour per direction (UAP1 road type – 7.3m carriageway width).

3.6.24 DMRB describes a UAP 1 road type as being “high standard single/ dual carriageway road carrying predominantly through traffic with limited access”.


3.6.25 The results show that the J9-10 link is currently (2012) operating well within theoretical capacity in both directions and in both peak periods.

3.6.26 In the 2028 Base scenario the link is operating within capacity in both directions in the AM peak but close to capacity in the PM peak (91% eastbound and 94% westbound).

3.6.27 In the 2028 ‘with Development’ scenario the situation remains more or less the same with RFCs on the eastbound and westbound directions (in the PM peak) rising to 95% and 98% respectively.

3.6.28 Based on these results capacity improvements are considered to be required for the western section of the A259 Roundstone Bypass.

3.6.29 It should be noted that the link assessment has not picked up congestion currently experienced on the eastbound A259 approach to Junction 9. The congestion is thought to be primarily caused by traffic calming measures upstream of the northbound exit of the roundabout rather than a lack of link capacity; therefore the results are considered robust and fit for purpose.

EB WB EB WBAM 801 1100 50% 69%PM 1261 1303 79% 82%

EB WB EB WBAM 915 1256 58% 79%PM 1453 1501 91% 94%

EB WB EB WBAM 950 1337 60% 84%PM 1513 1553 95% 98%

J9-J10

2012 BaseFlows RFC

2028 Base

2028 with Development



Link between Roundstone Lane Roundabout (J10) & A280 Roundabout (J11) (A259 Roundstone Bypass Road E)

3.6.30 Table 3-7 provides a summary of the results for the link assessment between Junction 10 and 11. Once again the link assessment has assumed a UAP1 road type with a capacity of 1,590 vehicles per hour per direction.


3.6.31 The results show that the J10-11 link is currently operating within theoretical capacity in both peaks and in both directions.

3.6.32 In the 2028 Base scenario the link is operating at a >85% capacity level in all but the AM peak westbound direction. In the PM peak (in both directions) the link is now operating close to capacity with a maximum RFC of 96% in the westbound direction.

3.6.33 In the 2028 ‘with Development’ scenario the RFCs continue to rise with the westbound direction in the PM peak operating above capacity (101%).

3.6.34 Based on these results capacity improvements are considered to be required for the eastern section of the A259 Roundstone Bypass.

Link between A280 Roundabout (J11) & Goring Crossways Roundabout (J14) (A259 Littlehampton Road)

3.6.35 The capacity of the westbound carriageway between Junction 11 and 14 varies along its length but can broadly be separated into two halves so the link assessment has been split into a ‘west of Langbury Lane’ and ‘east of Langbury Lane’ appraisal. Table 3-8 and Table 3-9 provide a summary of the results.

3.6.36 The link capacity for the ‘west of Langbury Lane’ assessment has assumed a capacity of 3,200 vehicles per hour in both directions. The ‘east of Langbury Ln’ assessment has assumed a capacity of 1,860 vehicles per hour in westbound direction (UAP1 Single road type) and 3,200 vehicles per hour in the eastbound direction (UAP2 Dual road type).

3.6.37 DMRB describes a UAP 2 road type as being “good standard single/ dual carriageway road with frontage access and more than two side roads per km”.

EB WB EB WBAM 1197 1056 75% 66%PM 1249 1325 79% 83%

EB WB EB WBAM 1367 1206 86% 76%PM 1439 1527 91% 96%

EB WB EB WBAM 1463 1257 92% 79%PM 1493 1611 94% 101%

J10-11

2012 BaseFlows RFC

2028 Base




Table 3-8 – J11-14 Link Assessment (west)

Table 3-9 – J11-14 Link Assessment (east)

3.6.38 The results for the ‘west of Langbury Lane’ assessment indicates that the link currently operates well within capacity and will continue to do so even when 2028 background traffic growth and development traffic is taken into account.

3.6.39 The results for the ‘east of Langbury Lane’ assessment indicates that the link currently operates well within capacity but 2028 background traffic growth and development traffic causes the link to operate close to theoretical capacity (westbound) although only in the PM peak (95% and 96% respectively).

3.6.40 Based on these results capacity improvements are not considered necessary for the link between A280 Roundabout and Goring Crossways Roundabout (both east and west of Langbury Lane).

3.6.41 However, following a request by the JEAAC H&T sub-group to investigate further a scheme to re-dual the westbound section, a preliminary design was drawn up which can be found in Appendix E (dwg: HW-SK-202) and Appendix L (dwg: HW-SK-252).

3.6.42 Through this initial design work it was concluded that the challenge of integrating the scheme with Ferring Lane did not justify the marginal need for capacity, in only the PM peak.

EB WB EB WBAM 1482 976 46% 31%PM 1227 1257 38% 39%

EB WB EB WBAM 1692 1114 53% 35%PM 1414 1448 44% 45%

EB WB EB WBAM 1820 1194 57% 37%PM 1510 1561 47% 49%

J11-14west of

Langbury Ln

2012 BaseFlows RFC

2028 Base


EB WB EB WBAM 1655 1227 52% 66%PM 1390 1486 43% 80%

EB WB EB WBAM 1970 1460 62% 79%PM 1657 1771 52% 95%

EB WB EB WBAM 1979 1492 62% 80%PM 1686 1786 53% 96%

2012 BaseFlows RFC

2028 Base


J11-14east of

Langbury Ln



3.7 A259 Link Assessment Summary

3.7.1 Table 3-10 below provides a summary of the A259 link assessment, highlighting where measures are thought to be required to address highway capacity issues resulting from both background traffic growth and proposed ADC Local Plan development (up to 2028).

Table 3-10 – Link Assessment Summary

Link 2028 ‘with Development’ Performance Summary Measures Needed

J4 – J5 Predicted to operate within capacity, largely due to Fitzalan Link Road/ Lyminster Bypass traffic reassignment

No

J5 – J6 Predicted to be operating over capacity in both directions and in both peak periods

Yes

J9 – J10 Predicted to be operating close to capacity in both directions in PM peak

Yes

J10 – J11 Predicted to be operating close to or above capacity in both directions and in both peak periods

Yes

J11 – J14 West

Predicted to be operating within capacity in both directions and both peak periods

No

J11 – J14 East

Predicted to be operating within capacity in all but PM peak westbound in which RFC reaches 96%

No

3.7.2 It can be seen that the detailed traffic analysis confirms the need for improvements at three of the six links indentified in the first tranche assessment. Section 6 goes on to investigate measures to resolve the capacity issues on the A259 links highlighted above.



3.8 A259 Junction Performance Assessment

3.8.1 The following section provides a summary of the junction model results using the flows generated from the methodology set out previously.

3.8.2 For the initial junction assessment the ARCADY 8 module of TRL’s Junctions 8 modelling package has been used. The software package is an industry standard tool for predicting capacities, queues and delays at roundabouts.

3.8.3 It should be noted that, in the absence of turning count data for each 15 minutes within the AM and PM peaks, the ARCADY models have used the ‘One Hour’ traffic profile type. In this setting the program constructs peak synthesised demand profiles for each arm by estimating the flow parameters. This effectively creates a peak period within the modelled peak hour and is generally considered to provide robust results.

3.8.4 As with the link assessment (and for the same reasons) a 5% sensitivity test for junctions on the western side of the study area has been undertaken. Junction performance results have been provided for the following scenarios:

2012 Base

2028 Base

2028 ‘with Development’

2028 ‘with Development’ + 5% sensitivity allowance (Junctions 1, 4 & 6 only)

3.8.5 RFC figures from the junction assessment have not been colour coded but the same operating bands apply. An RFC of less than 85% represents a junction approach operating well within theoretical capacity with little congestion/ queuing. Anywhere between 85% and 99% represents an approach operating within theoretical capacity but may result in some congestion/ queuing. A junction approach with RFC figures of 100% or above is operating above theoretical capacity and is like to result in significant congestion/ queuing.

3.8.6 It should also be noted that delay figures provided in the following tables are provided in the unit of decimal minutes, not minutes and seconds.



Table 3-11 - Bridge Road Roundabout Assessment (J1)

3.8.7 The 2012 results for Junction 1 show that it currently operates well within capacity in both peak periods and on all approaches.

3.8.8 When 2028 background traffic growth is added, all but the A259 Bridge Road approach in the PM peak (99%) operate well within theoretical capacity.

3.8.9 When development traffic is added to the 2028 background growth the situation remains more or less the same but due to traffic reassignment predicted as part of the Wick Site development the RFCs reduce on some approaches but the A259 Bridge Road approach in the PM peak remains close to capacity at 97%.

3.8.10 In the 5% sensitivity test, in the PM peak, the A259 Bridge Road approach now operates above theoretical capacity (102%) and the B2187 Bridge Road approach has reached 88%.



Table 3-12 - Wick Roundabout Assessment (J4)

3.8.11 The 2012 results for Junction 4 show that it currently operates well within capacity, in both peak periods, and on all approaches. This is also the case when 2028 background traffic growth is added to the junction.

3.8.12 When development traffic is added to the 2028 background growth, the Hawthorn Road approach reaches 93%.

In the 5% sensitivity test the Hawthorn Road approach operates above theoretical capacity (107%) and the eastbound and westbound A259 approaches reach 90% and 89% respectively.



Table 3-13 – Body Shop Roundabout Assessment (J6)

3.8.13 The 2012 results for Junction 6 show that it currently operates well within capacity, on all approaches and in both peak periods.

3.8.14 When 2028 background traffic growth is added, all but the A259 Worthing Road approach (in both peak periods) operates at >85%, but is within theoretical capacity (91% and 93% respectively).

3.8.15 When development traffic is added to the 2028 background growth the situation remains similar, although the A259 Worthing Road approach in the PM peak operates above theoretical capacity (104%).

3.8.16 In the 5% sensitivity test the A259 Worthing Road approach operates above theoretical capacity in both peak periods, with all other approaches still remaining to operate well within capacity.



Table 3-14 - Station Road Roundabout Assessment (J9)


3.8.18 When 2028 background traffic growth is added, the Station Road southbound (PM) and A259 westbound approaches (AM and PM) operate at >85% capacity levels but are within theoretical capacity.

3.8.19 When development traffic is added to the 2028 background growth the Station Road southbound (PM) is predicted to operate above theoretical capacity (106%) and both the A259 westbound approach and Station Road northbound approaches (AM and PM) operate at >85% capacity levels, but are within theoretical capacity.

3.8.20 Like the link assessment, the junction assessment has not replicated congestion currently experienced on the eastbound A259 approach to Junction 9. As noted previously the congestion is thought to be primarily caused by traffic calming measures upstream of the northbound exit of the roundabout, rather than a lack of junction entry capacity. It has been assumed that the issue will be resolved outside of this study therefore no attempt to manipulate the models to replicate the congestion has been made.



Table 3-15 – Roundstone Lane Roundabout Assessment (J10)


3.8.22 When 2028 background traffic growth is added, the A259 eastbound and westbound approaches (PM) operate at >85% capacity level but are within theoretical capacity (both at 88%).

3.8.23 When development traffic is added to the 2028 background growth the situation remains the same but the RFCs on the A259 eastbound and westbound approaches (PM) rising to 89% and 91% respectively.

Table 3-16 – A280 Roundabout Assessment (J11)

3.8.24 The 2012 results for Junction 11 show that all arms, with exception of the A259 eastbound approach (AM and PM) currently operate well within capacity. The eastbound approach is operating close to capacity in the AM and PM peaks (99% and 94% respectively).



3.8.25 When 2028 background traffic growth is added, the A259 eastbound approach now operates above theoretical capacity (117% and 110% respectively) and the Old Worthing Road approach (AM) reaches a >85% capacity level (89%).

3.8.26 When development traffic is added to the 2028 background growth the situation remains similar, although the RFC on the A259 eastbound approach (AM and PM) rises to 129% and 117% respectively, and the Old Worthing Road increases to 97%.

Table 3-17 – Goring Crossways Assessment (J14)

3.8.27 The 2012 results for Junction 14 show that all arms, with exception of the A259 eastbound approach, currently operate within capacity. The eastbound approach is operating above capacity in the AM peak (102%).

3.8.28 When 2028 background traffic growth is added, all arms of the junction operate close to or above theoretical capacity. The highest RFCs occur on the A259 eastbound (AM) and Titnore Lane approaches (PM) (126% and 120% respectively).

3.8.29 When development traffic is added to the 2028 background growth the majority of arms operate above theoretical capacity, with the RFCs on the A259 eastbound (AM) and Titnore Lane approaches (PM) both reaching 127%.



3.9 A259 Junction Assessment Summary

3.9.1 Table 3-18 below provides a summary of the junction assessment, highlighting where measures are thought to be required to address capacity issues resulting from the background traffic growth and proposed development.

Table 3-18 – Junction Assessment Summary

Junction 2028 ‘with Development’ Performance Summary Measures Needed

Bridge Road Roundabout (J1)

A259 northbound approach in PM peak approaching capacity (97%)

In 5% sensitivity test A259 northbound above capacity (102%)

Yes

Wick Roundabout (J4)

Hawthorn Rd entry in PM peak approaching capacity (93%)

In 5% sensitivity test Hawthorn Rd entry in PM peak above capacity (107%) and A259 eastbound approaching capacity (90%) in PM peak

Yes

Body Shop Roundabout (J6)

A259 eastbound approach in both peak periods is at or approaching capacity (95% and 104% respectively)

In 5% sensitivity test A259 reaches 101% and 110% respectively

Yes

Station Road Roundabout (J9)

Station Rd southbound in PM peak above capacity (106%)

Station Rd northbound (AM and PM) approaching capacity (97% and 90% respectively)

A259 westbound approach in AM and PM approaching capacity (94% and 95% respectively)

Yes

Roundstone Lane Roundabout (J10)

A259 eastbound and westbound entries approaching capacity in PM peak (92% and 91% respectively)

Yes

A280 Roundabout (J11)

A259 eastbound approach above capacity in AM and PM peak (129% and 117% respectively)

Old Worthing Rd (AM) approaching capacity (97%)

Yes

Goring Crossway (J14)

All entries operating close to, or above capacity – longest queues occurring on Titnore Ln (AM), A259 Goring St (PM) and A259 eastbound (AM)

Yes

3.9.2 It can be seen that the detailed traffic analysis confirms the need for improvements at all of the junctions identified in the first tranche assessment. Section 6 goes on to investigate measures to resolve the capacity issues at the A259 junctions.



4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & CONSTRAINTS PLAN

4.1 Objective of the Environmental Review

4.1.1 Before investigating potential options to resolve the traffic issues identified in Section 3, it was first necessary to undertake a desk study (which included an initial site visit) to better understand the environmental constraints in the study area. The purpose of the review was to identify potential environmental risks at an appropriate level of detail for the option identification stage, and make recommendations for any further survey and/ or mitigation requirements that may be required at a later stage. The desktop study evaluated:

Existing environmental constraints in the surrounding area;

The potential for previously unidentified environmental constraints;

The presence of any designated and/ or protected sites or features; and

The potential for protected species within the site or the surrounding area;

4.1.2 It should be noted that the environmental review is of a high-level nature, appropriate

for a feasibility study and does not constitute a statutory environmental impact assessment.

4.2 How the Environmental Desktop Review was undertaken

4.2.1 A desk top study review was undertaken to identify environmental constraints within 5km of the A259 within Arun. The desk study used data sources including Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC)8, Environment Agency (EA) website9 and the Arun Local Plan (2003)10. The following environmental constraints were identified:

Townscape, landscape and visual receptors;

Sensitive air quality receptors;

Noise and vibration receptors;

Non Motorised Users;

Cultural heritage features;

Water resources and flood risk;

Soils and geology; and

Nature conservation

8 MAGIC - http://magic.defra.gov.uk/ 9 Environment Agency - http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ 10 Arun Local Plan (2003) - http://www.arunlocalplan.net/HTML/Inset/insetframeset_a.html



4.2.2 The ecological desktop study recorded the presence/ proximity of any statutory designated sites and any non-statutory designated sites within 5km of the A259 within Arun. The desktop study included a search using the MAGIC website for the following statutory designated sites:

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC);

Special Protection Areas (SPA);

Ramsar Sites;

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);

National Nature Reserves (NNR); and

Local Nature Reserves (LNR)

4.3 Walkover Survey

4.3.1 A walkover survey was undertaken by two PB environmental specialists and an ecologist on 13th November 2012. It was not possible to access the whole study area, and as such, the area surrounding the alignment was assessed from strategic vantage points, and supplemented by information from aerial imagery.

4.3.2 The ecological site visit identified the main ecological constraints, but it did not include a Phase 1 Habitat Survey due to the time constraints, and because it would not have been cost effective to undertake one for the whole alignment and surrounding area. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey should be undertaken once the preferred option has been selected and progressed though detailed design, so it can focus on the locations that are likely to be affected by the improvements.

4.3.3 PB environmental and ecological specialists undertook a broad assessment of the environmental and ecological value of the site and immediate surroundings, and undertook a high-level assessment of the potential impact of any works, as appropriate to this early stage of the design.

4.3.4 The PB ecologist assessed the ecological value of the site and recorded notable or protected species identified on site or within the immediate surroundings (where visibility and access allowed). The limitations to the survey are summarised in Table 4-1.



Table 4-1 – Limitations Initial Site Survey

Limitation Reason Constraint Action

A full environmental walkover survey of the alignment and surrounding study area was not undertaken as part of the site visit

The extent of the A259 to be assessed, time limitations

A full assessment for evidence of protected species could not be completed

Further surveys, focused on the locations along the A259 that will be improved, will enable a full assessment of the potential for protected species to be made at a later stage in the programme

The site was visited over the period of one day and did not include specific ecological surveys

Only a preliminary site visit was required at this stage

Seasonal variations were not observed

The characteristics of the site and option identification stage of the project are such that the site visit is considered sufficient. However, a Phase 1 Habitat Survey is likely to be required once the highway improvements have been selected. This can be undertaken during the development of the detailed design

Exact extent of the proposed works is unknown at this stage

The proposed programme of highway works and construction techniques are currently being selected and developed

Difficult to assess if protected species will be affected by the works as timings and exact areas unknown

Further surveys will enable a full assessment of the potential for protected species to be made at a later stage in the programme when the full extent of works is known – see recommendations section below

4.4 Survey Results

4.4.1 The environmental constraints identified by the desk study and site visit are summarised below. A map of the constraints is provided in Appendix B.

Townscape/ Landscape and Visual Receptors – The land adjacent to the A259 is characterised by a mixture of urban areas and agricultural land. There is natural screening due to existing vegetation, which is found mostly to the south of the highway, and buildings that are present are set back from the road along the majority of the alignment. The entrance to Highdown Historic Park and Gardens is located on the A259, although the gardens are set back from the road. There are no Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty located within the 500m study area.

There are a number of visual receptors that could be affected by any works including users of residential properties, listed buildings, recreational areas and footpaths on both sides of the highway.

Air Quality – The main potential air quality receptors within the study area are the users of nearby residential buildings, footpaths, schools and hospice. There are ten schools and a hospice within the 500m study area. The nearest schools are Lyminster Infant School and Cornfield school, which are located adjacent to the A259. St Barnabas House Hospice is located approximately 450m from the A259. There are no Air Quality Management Areas within the study area.



Noise and Vibration – two Important Areas (IAs) were identified on the A259 corridor within the Brighton Agglomeration Noise Action Plan from DEFRA:

- Wick Roundabout and Worthing Road westbound approach

- West Cottages (Ferring)

The users of the nearby schools, hospice, residential buildings, footpaths and listed buildings are also potential sensitive noise and vibration receptors

Motorised and Non Motorised Users – There are a number of footpaths located in close proximity to the road, some of which run parallel to the A259. Key cycle routes along the corridor include:

- National Cycle Route 2 (South Coast Cycle Route) from Goring Crossways (J14) to Angmering Bypass (J11)

- Segregated cycle/ pedestrian path from Station Road (J9) to Sainsbury’s Access

- Shared cycle/ pedestrian path from Hangleton Lane to Eldon Way

- A route crosses the A259 on Roundstone Bypass at the puffin crossing between Station Road Roundabout (J9) and Roundstone Lane Roundabout (J10).

Cultural Heritage – There are nineteen listed buildings located within the study area, the nearest two are located immediately adjacent to the A259. The entrance to Highdown Historic Parks and Gardens is located adjacent to the A259, although the gardens are located approximately 300m to the north of the alignment. There are no Scheduled Monuments or World Heritage Sites located in the 500m study area.

Water Resources and Flood Risk – Environment Agency (EA) flood risk maps show that parts of the A259 are located within designated flood zones. Some parts areas are located within flood zone 3, an area which is assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding11. Most of the study area is located within a principal aquifer, which the Environment Agency defines as a solid permeable layers of rock or drift deposits that usually provides a high level of water storage12.

Soils and Geology – The majority of the alignment is located within Grade 1 agricultural land as shown on the MAGIC database. This is land classified by Natural England as excellent quality and very good quality agricultural land and is termed Best and Most Versatile under the DEFRA Agricultural Land Classification. Parts of this Grade 1 agricultural land have already been developed. The land adjacent to, and underneath the A259 is likely to have been previously disturbed during the construction of the highway. There may be some potential for contamination in this previously disturbed land.

Nature Conservation – The South Downs National Park is located within 500m of the road corridor – the A259 east of Hangleton Lane to Goring Crossways forms the southern boundary of the National Park.

There are several areas of ancient woodlands located within the 5km study buffer of the A259. The nearest area is approximately 750m north of Goring Crossways (Street’s Copse). West Beach Local Nature Reserve and Climping Beach Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are located to the south of the A259 and west of Littlehampton; they overlap, and lie adjacent to each other. This area is one of the few remaining undeveloped coastlines between Brighton and Bognor Regis and is characterised by its sand dunes, vegetated shingle, sand flats and patches of

11 Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) - http://www.environment-

agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/NPPF_technical_guidance_published_27Mar2012.pdf 12 Environment Agency - http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/117020.aspx



saltmarsh. Arundel Park SSSI and ‘Arun Valley’ Important Bird Area are located on the northern edge of the 5km study area. There are no Ramsar sites, Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas or Sites of Nature Conservation Importance located within the 5km radius.

A variety of habitats surround the A259, such as species-rich hedgerows, plantation and semi-natural broad-leaved woodland, standing water, running water, amenity grassland, semi-improved grassland, scrub, introduced shrub, hard-standing, buildings, wet and dry ditches and arable fields.

4.5 Recommendations for Construction & Design Stages

Townscape and Visual Receptors 4.5.1 During construction, there will be a temporary adverse visual impact on residential

areas, the setting of nearby listed buildings and users of the footpaths. However, the magnitude will depend on the duration of the works, the location and size of construction and storage area, and any temporary screening provided. There are unlikely to be significant adverse visual impacts on Highdown Historic Park and Gardens due to existing natural screening.

4.5.2 Any road widening and junction improvements are likely to require the removal of some of the existing vegetation adjacent to the A259, which will increase the visibility of the A259. Consideration should be given to retaining vegetation, where possible, and using landscaping to reduce the visual impacts.

4.5.3 Highway improvements could have a visual impact on nearby sensitive receptors, this will depend on the nature of the proposed works, including the layout, street furniture, signage and landscaping. The characteristics of the local environment should be taken into consideration during the development of the detailed design.

Air Quality

4.5.4 Any proposed works may have some potential to result in temporary localised air quality and dust impacts on nearby properties, schools, the hospice, and listed buildings during construction. This will depend on the highway improvements proposed, construction methods and equipment. Best practice measures should be employed during construction to minimise the potential for air quality impacts, and set out in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Construction traffic should be kept at a minimum in order to avoid construction traffic movements near residential properties.

4.5.5 It should be noted that there can also be positive benefits for air quality as a result of implementing highway improvement schemes due to reduced congestion. The residual air quality impacts during operation will need to be considered further during the development of the detailed design.

Noise and Vibration

4.5.6 Construction works have the potential to have a temporary noise and vibration impact, which could have an adverse impact on IAs identified by DEFRA, nearby properties, local schools, listed buildings and the hospice. The magnitude of the impact will depend on many factors including: the methods used during construction, duration of the works and the time of day/ night the works are undertaken. Measures to reduce noise impacts will be considered at the detailed design stage and set out in the CEMP. Where possible, consideration should be given to the selection of low noise



generation construction methods and equipment. Further noise mitigation will include giving the users of nearby properties advanced notice of the commencement of construction works, and establishing a complaints procedure.

4.5.7 Due to the close proximity of the highway to residential properties and listed buildings, it will be important to consider vibration impacts and, where appropriate, to use construction techniques with a lower vibration impact.

Motorised and Non-Motorised Users

4.5.8 Road closures or diversion routes are likely to be required during the construction works, which will have an adverse impact on road users, who can be expected to have significantly longer journeys. Additionally, consideration needs to be given to footpath users and the potential reduced access to nearby shops and services due to road closures.

4.5.9 Careful programming will be required to keep road closures to a minimum, consideration will be given to reducing impacts through the use of night time closures. Suitable diversion routes will be established for the duration of any road closures that may be required, and road users should be given advance notification.

4.5.10 Any proposed schemes will also need to take into account facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, retaining and improving them where possible.

Cultural Heritage

4.5.11 Proposed works could have negative impacts on listed buildings due to direct vibration and air quality impacts, and indirect impacts on the setting of listed buildings. The two nearest listed buildings (both North Barn) are located immediately adjacent to the A259 just west of Goring Crossways, so particular consideration will need to be given to visual, vibration, and air quality impacts on the listed buildings during any proposed works to this junction.

4.5.12 There is low potential to affect any known archaeological remains, as there are no ancient scheduled monuments located within the study area. The potential to affect any previously undiscovered archaeology will need to be considered further during the development of the detailed design, particularly where road widening is proposed.

Water Resources and Flood Risk

4.5.13 Best practice measure will be required during construction to minimise the risk of accidental spills, and materials should be stored away from any nearby watercourses. These should be set out in a CEMP.

4.5.14 The majority of any proposed junction and highway improvements are likely to be located outside the flood zone, with the potential exception of Junction 1 (Bridge Road Roundabout). Particular consideration at the detailed design stage will therefore need to be given to this flood risk during the development of the any schemes around this junction.

Soils and Geology

4.5.15 Any proposed works that require land take will need to consider whether it is land that is classified as Grade 1 agricultural land. However, much of this land is narrow strips between the existing A259 and the urban area, which are unlikely to be suitable for



agricultural use. Materials should be stored appropriately and any bare areas of ground restored, if required. There was insufficient information available to assess the potential for soil contamination; this will need to be considered in more detail at a later stage.

Nature Conservation

4.5.16 The species specific recommendations based on the desk study and field survey results are summarised in Table 4-2 below.

Table 4-2 – Protected Species Summary of Recommendations

Species Recommendations

General Following the confirmation of the final scope of works it is recommended that a targeted Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey with a detailed desk study (including protected species records and non-statutory designated sites) is undertaken within the area to be impacted by the proposed works to inform the requirement of further surveys and proposed mitigation.

Badger The banks of the A259 are considered suitable habitat for badger; it is recommended that a targeted badger survey is undertaken, which can be carried out at the same time as the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

Bats During the site visit a number of mature trees were recorded on the road verges and roundabouts, the trees supported suitable features such as cracks, rot holes, woodpecker holes and splits within the bark. Following the confirmation of the final scope of works further detailed surveys of the trees may be required to determine if bats are using the trees as roosts.

Water vole A river and a number of wet ditches that may be suitable for water vole were identified within the 500 m buffer area. Dependant on the confirmation of the final scope of works further detailed water vole surveys may be required to establish presence/ likely absence of this species.

Otter A river and a number of wet ditches that may be suitable for otter were identified within the 500 m buffer area. Dependant on the confirmation of the final scope of works further detailed otter surveys may be required to establish presence/ likely absence of this species. Surveys for water voles and otters can be undertaken together.

White-clawed crayfish

A river and a number of wet ditches that may be suitable for white-clawed crayfish were identified within the 500 m buffer area. Dependant on the confirmation of the final scope of works further detailed white-clawed crayfish surveys may be required to establish presence/ likely absence of this species.

Dormice A number of well connected species-rich hedgerows and established plantation woodland were recorded along the road verges and within the wider surrounding area. Following the confirmation of the proposed scope of works, should any of the hedgerows or established plantation woodland be impacted further detailed surveys for dormice would be required.

Birds The requirement for detailed bird surveys will be informed by the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. If the works are proposed during the bird breeding season (March to September inclusive) it is recommended that a check for nesting birds be undertaken, and/ or an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) be present prior to, and during any vegetation clearance.



Species Recommendations

Reptiles The steep banks of the A259 are considered suitable habitat for the common species of reptiles, particularly slow worm and common lizard. Following the confirmation of the final scope of works and the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey detailed reptile surveys may be required.

Amphibians The review of aerial imagery highlighted a number of water bodies that may be suitable to support Great Crested Newts (GCN) within 250m of the A259. Following the confirmation of the final scope of works and the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey detailed GCN surveys may be required.

Invertebrates The habitats contained within the site and buffer area are considered suitable to support common and widespread invertebrate species. Following the confirmation of the final scope of works and the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey detailed invertebrate surveys may be required.

Floral Species

The habitats contained within the buffer area are considered suitable to support common and widespread floral species. Following the confirmation of the final Scope of works and the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey detailed botanical surveys may be required.

4.6 Summary

4.6.1 In summary, the environmental review has not identified any insurmountable issues that would hinder any highway improvement proposals but has identified a number of constraints and provided recommendations, which are summarised in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3 – Summary Environmental Review Recommendations

Constraint Recommendation

Townscape & Visual Receptors

Highway improvements could have a visual impact on nearby sensitive receptors, this will depend on the nature of the proposed works, including the layout, street furniture, signage and landscaping. The characteristics of the local environment should be taken into consideration during the development of the detailed design.

Air Quality Best practice measures should be employed during construction to minimise the potential for air quality impacts, and set out in a CEMP.

Noise & Vibration Measures to reduce noise impacts should be considered at the detailed design stage and set out in the CEMP. Where possible, consideration should be given to the selection of low noise generation construction methods and equipment. Further noise mitigation could include giving the users of nearby properties advanced notice of the commencement of construction works, and establishing a complaints procedure.



Constraint Recommendation

Motorised & Non-Motorised Users

Careful programming will be required to keep road closures to a minimum, consideration should be given to reducing impacts through the use of night time closures. Suitable diversion routes should be established for the duration of any road closures that may be required, and road users should be given advance notification.

Any proposed schemes will also need to take into account facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, retaining and improving them where possible.

Cultural Heritage Particular consideration will need to be given to visual, vibration, and air quality impacts on the listed buildings during any proposed works to Junction 14 (Goring Crossways)

Water Resources & Flood Risk

Particular consideration at the detailed design stage will need to be given to this flood risk during the development of the any schemes around Junction 1 (Bridge Road Roundabout)

Soils & Geology Any proposed works that require land take will need to consider whether it is land that is classified as Grade 1 agricultural land

Nature Conservation

Need for an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey once the preferred option has been selected, during the development of the detailed design



5 SAFETY REVIEW

5.0.1 A high-level evaluation of existing collisions and associated causes, occurring along the length of the study area, has also been undertaken to inform the development of potential highway improvement schemes.

5.0.2 To undertake the review Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data was provided by WSCC for the latest five year period; between 01/07/2007 and 30/06/2012. A plot of the recorded PICs along with a full assessment of the route, on a link and node (junction) basis, from Bridge Road Roundabout in the west through to Goring Crossways in the east, can be found in Appendix C.

5.0.3 Each collision has been analysed to better understand major contributing factors and then tabulated by category. Please note that a single collision may fall into multiple categories or conversely may not fall into one of the categories chosen for the assessment. Therefore the numbers of collisions assigned to all the categories tallied in the Whole Route Summary table below and those included in the Appendix C may not equal the total number of collisions stated. For example, one collision may have occurred in wet and dark conditions and involved a cyclist.

5.0.4 The categories that have been chosen for the safety assessment have been selected based on their ability to help inform the development of potential highway schemes.

5.1 Whole Route Summary

5.1.1 Along the A259 between the River Arun up to and including the Goring Crossways there have been a total of 151 collisions reported over the five year period. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the categories assigned to each accident.

Table 5-1– Total Collisions

KSI Wet Dark Peds Cycles P2W

Single Vehicle

Collisions Assigned to Category

13 36 5 33 26 38 22

% of total 8 21 3 19 15 22 13

5.1.2 It can be seen from Table 5-1 that the four major accident categories (in descending order) are Powered-2-Wheelers (P2W), followed by wet accidents, then those involving pedestrians and cyclists.

5.1.3 Taking the route as a whole, it is recommended that the following items are considered by the local highway authority in compiling individual work programmes for the area:

Lighting (qualit

Documents

A259 ROUTE IMPROVEMENT STUDY · 2013. 3. 5. · approximately 6 miles of the A259 and 14 key junctions. 1.1.1 The study reviews the need for improvements to the A259 up to a forecast