THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK CLASSIFIED ROAD) SIDE ROADS ORDER 2013 THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2013 THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (No 2) 2014 EXCHANGE LAND CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL CATEGORY LAND SUMMARY PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF PHILIP PATERSON BSc, CEng, MICE, MCIHT ON BEHALF OF NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL IN RESPECT OF
1. Scope of Evidence 1.1. This document presents a summary of my main proof of evidence that is contained within document NSC/211 and the supporting appendices in document NSC/2/2. These documents set out the background to the scheme design and engineering for the South Bristol Link road (the Scheme). 1.2. I will set out the design standards applied to the Scheme and will explain the rationale behind the alignment, including a discussion on alternatives considered for specific elements. I will then describe the junctions to be incorporated along the length of the Scheme and the minor junctions and accesses to be included and the measures provided for pedestrians and cyclists. My evidence then continues with a brief summary of the engineering that underpins the Scheme and a commentary on necessary Departures from Standard. My evidence is concluded with a response to scheme layout and engineering matters raised by objectors. 2. Design Standards 2.1. The design objectives for the Scheme are: i. To design a road and associated facilities that comply with current design standards, resulting in a road that is accessible, effective and safe for all users. ii. To minimise the environmental impact of the Scheme whilst achieving the overall objectives. iii. To design the facilities with due consideration to all user groups, including those driving the route and those cycling or walking along or across the route. iv. To design the Scheme with due consideration to those adjacent to the route and who will be impacted upon by the road and its associated facilities. v. To design the route with due consideration to the views expressed by stakeholders, from statutory consultees to local residents and businesses. all
2.2. The overarching design standards are those contained within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges published by the Highways Agency. These have been supplemented by project specific geometric design criteria. A summary of the standards are included in Appendix 1 and typical cross-sections are illustrated in Appendix 2. 3. The Alignment 3.1. The alignment of the Scheme is shown in Appendix 3. The Scheme commences at a new roundabout junction with the A370 and heads in a south easterly direction to a crossing beneath the Bristol to Taunton railway line, passing over Longmoor Brook and including a signalised junction at Brookgate. The Scheme is a single carriageway to Brookgate and bus lanes are then introduced. A shared use walking and cycling facility is provided to the east of the road. 3.2. A dedicated bus link runs from the Brookgate junction in a northerly direction to connect to the Aston Vale to Temple Meads scheme and then to the Park and Ride. 3.3. From the railway crossing the Scheme runs to the west of Colliter's Brook, passing to the east of Hanging Hill Wood, before crossing the brook and climbing to a signalised roundabout junction with the existing A38. The bus lanes end at this junction. The shared use facility is maintained to the east. 3.4. From the A38 the Scheme heads in an easterly direction as a single carriageway, before joining the alignment of the existing Highridge Green prior to a signalised junction with Highridge Road. The shared use facility is retained. 3.5. The Scheme then follows the existing King Georges Road, which is widened to provide for a central median strip to facilitate crossing of the road. The shared use facility is provided on the northern side with a footway to the south. 3.6. From Queens Road the Scheme continues as a single carriageway through the ReseNed Corridor to a signalised junction at Hareclive Road, with the shared 2
facility to the north and a footpath to the south. A wide median strip has been included to facilitate crossing of the road and lessen the impact of the carriageway. 3.7. From Hareclive Road the Scheme connects to the existing Cater Road roundabout, with the shared facility to the north. A central median strip has been included to facilitate turning to the commercial properties, access to all of which is retained. 4. Alignment Options Considered 4.1. From the A370 to the A38, alternative alignments were considered as illustrated in Appendix 4. This culminated in the selection of Option 4 on account of a lower impact on existing landfills and reduced overall environmental impact. 4.2. The location where the Scheme crosses the railway line was fixed based on a consideration of existing strategic watermains, existing structures beneath the railway and the facilities associated with the landfill site. Alternatives are presented in Appendix 5. 4.3. Between the A38 and Highridge Road, the alignment was varied, as shown in Appendix 6, from the pre-consultation alignment in response to comments received from stakeholders and to reduce the impact on the common. 4.4. For the sections in King Georges Road, the ReseNed Corridor and between Hareclive Road and Cater Road roundabout, the alignment was essentially fixed by existing premises and infrastructure. However, in developing the Scheme, a number of layout options were examined within each section to ensure that the needs of all road users and those adjoining the Scheme were fully considered. 5. The Major Junctions 3
5.1. The rationale for the designs has been developed from a consideration of four factors as follows: i. Junction footprint / land requirement ii. Pedestrian / cyclist provision iii. Traffic handling capacity / congestion iv. Route choice 5.2. In order to maintain capacity at the junctions while providing optimum pedestrian facilities and reduced junction footprints, it was necessary to restrict certain movements through some of the junctions. This, however, was only considered where convenient alternative routes choices were available. 5.3. A roundabout is proposed for the junction with the A370 and the location is essentially fixed by a consideration of existing infrastructure. A dedicated left turn lane is included for traffic heading out of Bristol but wishing to access the Scheme. 5.4. At Brookgate a signalised junction is proposed. An option, as shown in Appendix 7, to pre-signal the bus lane was examined but was not considered necessary. 5.5. At the A38, signalised cross-roads and roundabouts were considered, as shown in Appendix 8, with the latter being proposed on account of better handling the high predicted right turn on to the A38 southbound from the Scheme. The junction layout was developed to consider the adjacent Castle Farm and the existing lime kilns, which will be retained within the roundabout. 5.6. At Highridge Road and Queens Road, signalised cross-road junctions are proposed. Options were considered in terms of the crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, as illustrated in Appendices 9 and 10 respectively. 5.7. At Hareclive Road, a number of options were considered, as shown in Appendix 11. These varied the number of turning movements available to traffic in conjunction with the facilities for pedestrians, with a view to determining an acceptable junction in terms of capacity while minimising the footprint of the 4
junction. The proposed layout, Option 3A, restricts all but one turning movement but convenient alternatives are available. 5.8. The performance of all of the major junctions in terms of capacity is covered in the evidence of Robert Thompson (NSC/3/1). 6. Minor Junctions and Accesses 6.1. As part of the Scheme development, the need to provide access to various adjacent land holdings and minor roads was considered. Requirements were discussed with individual landowners and the provision is presented on the drawings in Appendix 3. 6.2. The interaction of the Scheme with Public Rights of Way is presented by Elaine Bowman (NSC/11/1). 6.3. Since the submission of the Planning Application, discussions with Network Rail have established a preference for maintenance areas immediately adjacent to the Scheme and hence the revised arrangements presented in Appendix 12 are proposed. 6.4. Since the Planning Application there have also been amendments to a number of accesses to private land. These were included in the Side Roads Order and are illustrated in Appendices 13 and 14. 6.5. In conclusion, the construction of the Scheme will affect a number of private means of access. However, in all cases reasonably convenient alternative means of access are proposed under the Scheme. 7. Provision for Pedestrians and Cyclists 5
7.1. Due regard has been taken of constructive suggestions received during the extensive consultation exercise. Suggested improvements relating to connectivity to existing facilities, ease of passage along the Scheme and transverse severance have been incorporated as an integral part of the Scheme, resulting in a high level of senice. 8. Scheme Engineering 8.1. My full proof of evidence presents a description of the engineering that underpins the scheme layout, with consideration of geotechnics, drainage, structures and lighting. 8.2. The detailed design of the Scheme will need to address the crossing of the landfill sites shown on Appendix 6. However, I am satisfied that the design of the Scheme to date has made adequate provision of land for appropriate construction techniques. 8.3. Drainage has been a key consideration in developing the Scheme. Affected watercourses and flood zones are shown in Appendices 15 and 16. The risk assessment undertaken has concluded that the Scheme has a good level of protection against flooding and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. 8.4. The surface water drainage provision within the Scheme has been considered under a number of catchments. The catchments and the attenuation facilities to be incorporated in each are set out in Appendix 17. 8.5. A number of structures are required to carry the Scheme over watercourses, to retain the road beside watercourses or to protect existing pipes and culverts. General arrangement drawings for all of these structures are included in Appendices 18 to 22. 8.6. Street lighting will be provided at the junctions in the rural area then throughout the Scheme in the urban area from the Highridge Road junction to Cater Road roundabout. 6
9. Departures from Standards 9.1. In developing the Scheme to the level of detail required for the planning submission it has been appropriate and necessary to include five Relaxations and eight Departures from the standards set out in section 3. These primarily relate to the road design within the urban section of the scheme. These are all considered to be appropriate and safe in the context of the proposed road and will be reconsidered during the detailed design. 10. Consideration of Objections 10.1. A number of objections have been lodged that relate to the scheme layout and engineering. I have addressed these objections in my proof. 11. Conclusions 11.1. My preceding evidence has described the rationale for the development of the Scheme layout and the engineering that lies behind it. I believe that due regard has been taken of the views and requirements of the various stakeholders and that the Scheme as presented provides an acceptable balance between the requirements of the road user, other users in terms of pedestrians and cyclists, and those that have interests adjoining the Scheme. 7