Highways Agency - Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers
Executive Summary
Initial Draft Strategy - July 2004
Executive Summary
This report is prepared in accordance with the Route Management Strategy Guidance Version 2 dated November 2003.
Route Management Strategies provide the Highways Agency with a tool to plan and optimise investment in the trunk road network over the next 10 years. This is achieved through a process that links improvements to problems and policies.
The section of route under consideration is varied in its nature. The A259 from Hastings to Brenzett is a single carriageway road, approximately 27km long, passing through Winchelsea, Rye and several smaller villages. The alignment is relatively winding for a trunk road and there are several pinch points along the route. This is a tourist area in the summer and there are many areas of interest, with associated environmental constraints. Traffic levels are generally low, less than 10,000 vehicles per day.
The A2070 is a newer road, approximately 18km long, built to modern standards. At the northern end, around Ashford, it becomes a dual carriageway with the aim of supporting development to the south of Ashford. The route terminates at junction 10 of the M20, which is suffering from congestion problems at the present time. There are plans to build a new junction on the M20 to relieve this congestion. Traffic levels vary from 12,500 vehicles per day near Brenzett to 25,500 vehicles per day on the dual carriageway section to the south of Ashford.
A key output from the study is a series of 'Route Outcomes' defining the areas where change is most needed. The route outcomes emerging from this study are summarised below.
- Safety improvements where problems are identified
- Removal of pinch points where these generate problems, with particular reference to A259 between Winchelsea and Brenzett
- Environmental improvements with a focus on landscaping, ecology and lighting
- Better access to traveller facilities through better signing
- Better facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians where there are perceived shortfalls at specific locations
- Facilitation of development to the south of Ashford in around Rye, and at Hastings as part of the regeneration initiative. To be achieved through working with developers and other authorities, and the adoption of integrated transport policies
Further consultation will validate, or modify, the above findings.
Introduction
Initial Draft Strategy - July 2004
1 Introduction
1.1 Route Management Strategy - Overview
Route Management Strategies (RMS) are described in the Department for Transport's White Paper ' A New Deal for Transport: better for everyone' as:
a technique being developed by the Highways Agency to provide a framework for managing individual trunk routes as part of wider transport networks. Route Management Strategies will interlock with local transport strategies (set out in Local Transport Plans) within the context established by Regional Planning Guidance
This RMS report has been developed in line with the Highways Agency's 'Route Management Strategy Guidance' (November 2003). Generally a RMS comprises the following elements:
- Policy Objectives
- Route Functions and Performance
- Route Problems and Issues
- Land Use and Development Control Statement
- Route Outcomes
1.2 The Route
The route considered in this report consists of the A259 and A2070 trunk roads, connecting Hastings with Ashford via the towns of Rye and Brenzett. A layout of the route is shown on drawing TH/RMSC/E/001.
1.3 Public Consultation
A public consultation process is planned for the summer of 2004.
1.4 Report Format
The aim of this report is to devise a strategy that results in route outcomes; these outcomes will enable the improved performance of the route. These Route Outcomes are detailed in Chapter 7 and the impact of the key route outcomes is covered in Chapter 8.
Route Outcomes follow from the study of four main topics.
- Policy Objectives (Chapter 3)
- Route Functions and Performance (Chapter 4)
- Land Use and Development Control (Chapter 5)
- Problems and Issues (Chapter 6)
1.5 Reports and Data Used
A list of reports and data used is included in Appendix H
Description of the Route
Initial Draft Strategy - July 2004
2 Description of the Route
2.1 Overview
The A259 and A2070 are part of the national route along the south coast between the south Hampshire conurbation and the Channel Tunnel. This section of the south coast trunk road forms an important link between Hastings (a designated priority area for economic regeneration) and Ashford (a strategic growth area).
The single carriageway road passes through the historic towns of Winchelsea and Rye, which attract large numbers of tourists, particularly during summer months. Consequently, some congestion occurs on the narrow streets as vehicles pass through these towns. Outside of the towns, the road passes through small villages and tranquil countryside that is protected from development.
Although the A2070 between Brenzett and Ashford has been built to modern standards, the A259 to the west has simply evolved into what it is today. In particular, between Winchelsea and Brenzett the road alignment is determined more by the location of ancient field boundaries, drainage ditches and village streets than by the needs of motor vehicles. As a consequence, the section of the A259 between Hastings and Brenzett is unable to accommodate vehicles carrying abnormally heavy or wide loads.
Throughout its length, traffic flows are relatively low as the towns often benefit most from being linked to London than to each other.
The route has been considered in five sections:
- A259 - Hastings to Winchelsea, 10.7km
- A259 - Winchelsea to Guldeford Lane Corner, 9.5km
- A259 - Guldeford Lane Corner to Brenzett, 6.7km
- A2070 - Brenzett to Cloverleaf Junction, 14.4km
- A2070 - Cloverleaf Junction to M20 junction 10, 3.3km.
2.1.1 Section 1 - A259 Hastings to Winchelsea, 10.7km
This section, to the east of Bachelor's Bump, is a single carriageway road passing through undulating countryside of the High Weald, an area of outstanding natural beauty. It has a poor vertical and horizontal alignment, which limits the ability to overtake slower moving vehicles. The road alignment at Winchelsea is particularly poor with a steep hill and hairpin bend where the road skirts the town, which affects traffic flow and forces large vehicles to cross to the wrong side of the road. This section of the route is subject to a variety of 30 and 40 mph speed limits as it passes through Guestling Green, Icklesham and Winchelsea. Traffic flows throughout the section are low (AADT = about 10,000).
A259 - Bachelors Bump to Guestling Green
A259 - Guestling Green to Icklesham
A259 -Icklesham to Winchelsea
A259 - Winchelsea
2.1.2 Section 2 - A259 Winchelsea to Guldeford Lane Corner 9.5km
This section (between east of Winchelsea and the East Sussex/Kent border) crosses Brede Levels and Walland Marsh, which together form a site of special scientific interest. The road is level, although the horizontal alignment remains poor. Through Rye, where the road is subject to a speed limit of 30 mph, the road follows a tortuous route immediately south of the picturesque town centre and parked vehicles often obstruct the flow of traffic. On the western side of the town, there is a section where a 40 mph speed limit operates. To the east of Rye, the road is very narrow, with lorries travelling in opposite directions having difficulty passing. It also has a particularly poor horizontal alignment and at several locations the road changes direction through 90 degree corners. To the east of East Guldeford, the road also crosses the Ashford to Hastings railway line twice via level crossings within a distance of less than a kilometre. Traffic flows throughout the section are low (AADT = about 10,000, although to the east of Camber Road AADT = 5,500). Tourism is key to the local area and traffic figures are obviously higher during the summer months.
A259 - Winchelsea to Rye
A259 -Rye to Guldeford Lane Corner
2.1.3 Section 3 - A259, Guldeford Lane Corner to Brenzett 6.7km
This section continues across Walland Marsh, with a poor horizontal alignment (albeit the carriageway is slightly wider). An area to the south of the road at Whitehouse Farm is designated as a wetland area. The road through Brookland has been improved, to avoid the village centre and includes the only intermediate roundabout in this section. The traffic flow is low (AADT = 5,500).
A259 - Guldeford Lane Corner to Brenzett
2.1.4 Section 4 - A2070, Brenzett to Cloverleaf Junction 14.4km
This section is a purpose built single carriageway road. To the south of Hamstreet across Romney Marsh the road is flat but the road passes through gently rolling countryside of the Wealden greensand ridge between Ham Street and the A4020 interchange in Willesborough, south of Ashford. The road passes through Hamstreet Wood, a site of special scientific interest (part of which is a National Nature Reserve). The traffic flow is low (AADT = 12,500).
A2070 - Brenzett to Cloverleaf Junction
2.1.5 Section 5 - A2070, Cloverleaf junction to M20, 3.3km
This section (Bad Munstereifel Road) has dual 2 lane carriageways and forms part of a relief road to the south of Ashford, a town where significant development is proposed. This section will also form an access to one of the development areas. Currently, there is one intermediate roundabout serving an industrial area. At present traffic flows are moderate (AADT = 25,500), although junction 10 of the M20 is at capacity and this causes congestion problems on the A2070 at peak times. The Government has agreed a scheme to improve access to a proposed development area to the south of the A2070 in which an additional junction (10A) is constructed on the M20.
A2070 - Cloverleaf Junction to M20
2.2 Route Characteristics
The key characteristics of sections of the route are summarised in Table 2.
Notes
- Brief description, for full definition of the extent of each section see text and the sections, problems and actions drawings included with this report
- Urban = speed limit of 40 mph or less
- AADT = annual average daily total flow for the section as a whole
2.3 Constraints
Drawing no. TH/RMSC/E/003 shows the locations of the constraints on the route alignment. These include built-up areas and locations where environmental considerations would inhibit widening or realignment.
Policy Objectives
Initial Draft Strategy - July 2004
3 Policy Objectives
3.1 Introduction
The policy objectives considered in this chapter are wider planning, economic and transport objectives, which are pertinent to the A259 and A2070. These have been derived from national, regional and local authorities. The administrative boundaries of each of the authorities from which the objectives listed below have been derived are shown on drawing TH/RMSC/E/002.
3.1.1 National Policies
The government objectives for transport are as follows.
- Environment
To protect and enhance the built and natural environment - Safety
To improve safety for all travellers - Economy
To contribute to an efficient economy, and to support sustainable economic growth in appropriate locations - Accessibility
To promote accessibility to everyday facilities for all, especially those without a car - Integration
To promote the integration of all forms of transport and land use planning, leading to a better, more efficient transport system
The Highways Agency (HA) is responsible for implementing these objectives for the motorway and trunk road network. To achieve this, the HA has prepared a Network Strategy, which consists of a number of closely linked components:
- Focusing on Customers
- Planning in Partnership
The role of the Regional Planning Bodies and how the HA will work with them to inform and influence the new planning process. - Network Functions and
The varied portfolio of routes and the very different challenges faced across the network. - Network Efficiency
How the HA proposes to target investment to those schemes that address the most congested part of the route, on its most important routes, using a combination of widening existing routes, improving junctions and building bypasses. - Travel Information and Incident Management
A programme for rolling out technology schemes. - Safety
Development of the existing HA Strategic Safety Plan to target its efforts on vulnerable user groups, and to identify those sections of the core network where accidents are or will be significantly statistically greater than expected. - Environment
The HA Environmental Policy Statement. Additional information is contained within Appendix G. - Monitoring and Review
The HA will keep the strategy up to date, and respond to suggestions from stakeholders. - Maintenance
How the HA proposes to consider whole-life costing and the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) when scheduling of improvements.
A summary of the strategy and the plans that support it are included in Appendix C.
3.1.2 Regional Policies
The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) provides planning guidance, including a regional transport strategy. SEERA has a vision for the region that includes"a high quality transport system to act as a catalyst for continued economic growth and provide for an improved quality of life for all in a sustainable and socially inclusive manner: a regional transport system which, by 2021, matches the standards of the best in North Western Europe".
SEERA proposes that the region should be developed as a network of regional hubs and spokes. To achieve this, future development should be concentrated in existing urban areas. In addition other locations that have the potential to be developed as transport hubs of regional and sub regional significance should provide high quality interchange facilities. A network of multi-modal corridors of movement - the spokes - will connect the hubs.
Ashford has been identified as a potential growth area, forming a transport hub at the end of the A259/ A2070 route. Hastings, whilst not considered as a hub but the end of spokes radiating from Brighton, Tonbridge and Ashford, is part of the priority area for economic regeneration for the Sussex coastal towns (Shoreham Harbour to Hastings).
3.1.3 South Coast Multi Modal Study
The South Coast Multi Modal Study (SoCoMMS) examined a corridor that includes the area covered by this study. It considered a longer, wider time frame than the RMS, and looked at all modes of transport. The aim of the multi-modal study is to develop short, medium and long-term strategies to overcome the many challenges associated with road, public transport and other sustainable modes of travel. The outcome of this study is reported in Appendix D.
The SoCoMMS considered the role played by the A259 east of Hastings. The A259 provides a link between Ashford and Hastings and beyond. Currently traffic levels are low relative to the rest of the corridor (less than 10,000 vehicles per day across the Marshes). Analysis of roadside interview data shows that, at present, much of the traffic has one or both ends of its journey within the local area.
Key issues include:
- The A259 at Winchelsea and Rye is too narrow in places, and the presence of traffic affects these towns.
- The A259 east of Hastings, particularly at Rye and Winchelsea does not have a standard typically associated with a trunk road. While the flows are low there are issues associated with the hill at Winchelsea and the route at Rye.
- Private vehicle travel demand between Hastings and the Kent boundary is very small at present, except perhaps during the peak of the holiday season. For this reason there are no significant capacity problems on the A259 route between Hastings and Brenzett.
- The road's alignment, both horizontally and vertically, combine to provide slow travel times, together with safety and environmental problems between and within the towns of Winchelsea and Rye.
The SoCoMMS identified the need for safety and other local highway improvements on the A259 between Hastings and Ashford. These would be designed to improve road safety in this area and to ensure that the existing highway capacity is delivered. The improvements could include:
- renovation and strengthening of highway shoulders
- traffic control and traffic management improvements in Winchelsea and Rye
- pedestrian and cyclist measures, including refuges, guard rails and cycle lanes
- improved traffic signing, including clear goods vehicle routes
- local junction improvements, to minimise conflicting movements
The view of the transport strategy is that if future development at Ashford creates new travel demand from Hastings, this is best catered for by improved rail services. Long distance traffic from Kent westwards should be routed via the motorway network (M2, M25, M3 etc). Nonetheless, at the local level it is recognised that current traffic activity within both Rye and Winchelsea creates safety, environment and operational nuisance - there may therefore be a need to study this further, from these local perspectives. The impact of development in and around Ashford must also be monitored, particularly as the scale and location of this becomes more apparent. This may also require assumptions about highway capacity in this area to be reviewed.
With regard to safety, the Secretary of State's response to the SoCoMMS study was confined to a statement asking the Highways Agency to review safety and other local issues between Hastings and Brenzett. A number of remedial measures were recommended including maintenance; traffic management measures in Winchelsea and Rye; pedestrian and cyclist measures; and improved signing.
3.1.4 Local Policies
Local authorities produce development plans (structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans, local transport plans, and mineral and waste plans).
3.2 Summary of the Policies
The table included in Appendix G shows the relevant policies from each of the above categories and have been divided into sections using the Government's five transport objectives.
- S = Safety policies
- E = Environmental policies
- A = Accessibility policies
- I = Integration policies
- EC = Economic policies
Route Functions
Initial Draft Strategy - July 2004
4 Route Functions
4.1 Background
The functions of the route described in this chapter are derived from the policies identified in the previous chapter. They are based on recent studies, including:
- South Coast Multi Modal Study (SoCoMMS)
- Rye Local Area Transport Strategy
The South Coast Multi Modal Study identified that the car is the most dominant method of transport in the area. An analysis of highway demands shows that there is considerable demand for local movements. However at present, the proportion of long distance travel along the south coast is low, as the alternative routes via the M25 are quicker, if somewhat less direct. However, this may not always be the case in future, as parts of this section of the M25 increasingly suffer from regular daily congestion.
4.2 Existing and future functions
Trunk Roads are important national routes for which the Secretary of State for Transport, rather than the local highway authority, is responsible. The Government has identified a 'core' network of nationally important roads, accounting for some 60 per cent of the earlier strategic network. These roads will continue to be managed and improved by the HA. The remainder were considered to serve local and regional needs and would be more appropriately managed by local authorities, and would be 'de-trunked'. It is not expected that HA would revisit the constitution of the core network, including the A259 and the A2070 within the foreseeable future.
The functions of a Trunk Road are:
- to provide an efficient route
- to provide reliable journey times
- to provide safe transportation of people and goods
- to be environmentally acceptable
- to be part of an integrated transport system
- to support sustainable development
4.2.1 The functions of the route are:
- F1 to provide a link between Sussex coastal towns and the Continental terminals of the Channel Tunnel, via Ashford International station and the terminal at Folkestone, and the port at Dover in the east. This route is an alternative to the longer but quicker A23 M23-M25-M20 route.
- F2 to provide a route for abnormal loads (high/wide/heavy vehicles). However, it is recognised that part of the route, the section between Hastings and Brenzett, is at present unsuitable for this.
- F3 to provide a link between the coastal towns and regional centres of population and employment, such as Tunbridge Wells (via A21), and Maidstone (via M20), although it is recognised that much of this traffic currently uses more direct routes.
- F4 to provide a primary link between Hastings and the designated strategic growth development area to the south of Ashford.
- F5 to provide local access to Hastings, Rye and Ashford.
- F6 to provide access between the M20 and the local airport at Lydd (A2070 only).
- F7 to provide for local industry, including agriculture.
- F7 to provide access for tourists.
4.3 Function performance
Table 4.1 relates the route functions with the factors that affect route performance. These are considered under the Government's five policy areas for transport.The ability for the route to meet its functions is limited by its narrow width and poor route alignment, particularly between Hastings and Brenzett. This has an adverse effect on safety, and accidents that result in road closures have a serious impact on journey times, as there are few diversionary routes. The route also passes through environmentally sensitive areas, which may inhibit widening or realignment.
| No. | Existing Route Functions | Factors Affecting Route Performance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety | Economy | Environment | Accessibility | Integration | ||
| F1 | Provides a link from Sussex coastal towns and the Continental terminals (Channel Tunnel and Dover) | Poor route alignment, and substandard junctions west of Brenzett contributes to the severity and number of accidents | Slow journey times due to poor alignment and costs of accidents on sub-standard sections of the route. If routine maintenance is carried out on narrow sections of the A259 traffic has to be diverted adding considerably to journey times. | Long distance traffic impacts on adjacent towns and villages along A259. The alignment of A259 cannot be improved, including widening of narrow sections, without a negative impact on adjacent SSSI. | No issue identified | No issue identified |
| F2 | Provides a route for abnormal loads | No issue identified | Slow journey times due to poor alignment and costs of accidents on sub-standard sections of the route. If routine maintenance is carried out or an accident occurs on narrow sections of the A259, traffic has to be diverted adding considerably to journey times. Two HGV's are unable to pass on these narrow sections and can cause delays to other users. | Not a serious issue as long as numbers of abnormal loads remain low | No issue identified | No issue identified |
| F3 | Provides a link between the coastal towns and regional centres of population and employment | Poor route alignment between Hastings and Brenzett contributes to the severity and number of accidents | Slow journey times due to poor alignment and costs of accidents on sub-standard sections of the route. If routine maintenance is carried out on narrow sections of the A259 traffic has to be diverted adding considerably to journey times. | Traffic impacts on adjacent towns and villages along A259. The alignment of A259 cannot be improved, including widening of narrow sections, without a negative impact on adjacent SSSI. | Access to bus stops is limited for some sections of the route and could cause social exclusion of certain groups of society. | Due to its mainly rural nature there is, at present, little opportunity for the provision of interchanges between road and public transport. |
| F4 | Provides a primary link servicing strategic development growth in south Ashford | Excessive speeds on the A2070 through south Ashford are contributory to the high number of accidents. Particular problem involving motorcycles losing control resulting in fatal injuries at Cloverleaf junction. | Congestion on the A2070 as it approaches J10 of the M20 causes delays and poor journey time reliability as J10 is already at capacity. Cost associated to high number of accidents on this section. | Possible noise /pollution impact on residential areas in south Ashford | Pedestrians and cyclists suffer severance crossing route at certain locations along this section. | As development to the south of Ashford grows it will create a greater need for integrated transport. Particularly the need to provide interchanges between road and public transport walking or cycling. |
| F5 | Provides local access to Hastings, Rye and Ashford | Poor route alignment and substandard junctions contributes to the severity and number of accidents to the west of Brenzett | Slow journey times due to poor alignment and costs of accidents on sub-standard sections of the route. If routine maintenance is carried out on narrow sections of the A259 traffic has to be diverted adding considerably to journey times. | Traffic impacts on adjacent towns and villages along A259. The alignment of A259 cannot be improved, including widening of narrow sections, without a negative impact on adjacent SSSI. | In places along the route there is poor access across the trunk road to bus stops, local facilities etc. with the trunk road causing severance of towns and villages. There is limited provision for cyclists, pedestrians and the mobility impaired along and across the route. | Due to its mainly rural nature there is, at present, little opportunity for the provision of interchanges between road and public transport.. |
| F6 | Provides access to the local airport at Lydd | No issue identified | Slow journey times due to poor alignment and costs of accidents on sub-standard sections of the route. If routine maintenance is carried out on narrow sections of the A259 traffic has to be diverted adding considerably to journey times. | Traffic impacts on adjacent towns and villages along A259. The alignment of A259 cannot be improved, including widening of narrow sections, without a negative impact on adjacent SSSI. | No issue identified | No issue identified. |
| F7 | Provides access for local industry, including agriculture | Substandard junctions on A259 section contribute towards the accidents on this section | Slow journey times due to poor alignment and costs of accidents on sub-standard sections of the route. If routine maintenance is carried out on narrow sections of the A259 traffic has to be diverted adding considerably to journey times. | Traffic impacts on adjacent towns and villages along A259. | Slow travel time on A259 west of Brenzett due to poor route alignment, and lack of public transport | No issued identified. |
| F8 | Provides access for tourists | Poor route alignment west of Brenzett contributes to the severity and number of accidents | Slow journey times due to poor alignment and costs of accidents on sub-standard sections of the route. If routine maintenance is carried out on narrow sections of the A259 traffic has to be diverted adding considerably to journey times. | Tourist traffic impacts on adjacent towns and villages along A259. | Poor accessibility not considered a major issue. | Due to its mainly rural nature there is, at present, little opportunity for the provision of interchanges between road and public transport. |
Land Use & Development Control Policy
Initial Draft Strategy - July 2004
5 Land Use & Development Control Policy
5.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the significance of new development in relation to possible route outcomes for the A259 / A2070 between Hastings and Ashford. The impact of both committed and proposed development needs to be assessed as part of the creation of the programme of route improvement measures over the period of the RMS Study. Major developments that could impact upon traffic conditions along the corridor, and potentially influence the scale and timing of highway improvements, are identified.
Section 5.2 outlines the existing planning context by providing an overview of transport policy in terms of national, regional and local influences.
Section 5.3 reviews policy and development commitments at the regional and local planning authority levels and identifies developments significant in traffic terms that are likely to come on stream in the next ten years as a consequence of the implementation of these policies.
Section 5.4 briefly reports on the relationship between land-use planning and development control as it relates to Highways Agency policy, and introduces the Land Use & Development Control statement produced in accordance with RMS Guidance.
5.2 The existing planning context
5.2.1 Overview
Transport policy is defined in a series of documents that reflect the structure of central and local government in this country. In this study, reference is made to:
- National policy (in the form of studies carried out for DfT and its Agencies, and for development control),
- Regional policy documents (e.g. RPG9),
- County and Unitary Authority documents (the various Structure Plans and Local Transport Plans), and District documents (Local Plans).
Each of these sources defines policy in its sphere of interest, and identifies, to a varying degree, desirable geographical locations for development. It is the latter element that is important for this RMS study, as the location of committed or planned major development will influence the highway infrastructure improvements required in the short /medium term.
National Policy stems from two key documents: the Government's White Paper 'A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone', and the Roads Review report 'A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England'. Following on from these, 'Transport 2010 The 10 Year Plan', published in July 2000, set out the Government's commitment to a high level of transport investment, including roads, for the next 10 years. The 10 Year Plan contains as a target, the reduction of road congestion on the inter-urban network and in large urban areas of England below current levels by 2010 with investment in infrastructure and capacity.
Regional Policy for this area is stated in RPG9 (Final Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, March 2001). A number of organisations have contributed to the development of regional policy, most recently the South East England Regional Assembly, which has produced a Regional Transport Strategy, 'From Crisis to Cutting Edge, January 2003'. In September 2003, a Panel report was published, proposing modifications to this document. Key regional planning policies are identified in section 5.3.
Development Plans in a variety of forms set out land use policy and its relationship to transport provision. Structure Plans set out strategic policies on development and transport. Local Plans operate under the umbrella of Structure Plans and provide more geographic detail at the District Level, in terms of allocations and transport infrastructure. Unitary Development Plans combine the functions of Structure Plans and Local plans as befits their status.
However, following the issue of the Planning Green Paper 'Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change' the government have proposed a number of changes to the planning system, written into a new Planning Bill, that aim to shorten the time taken to examine development proposals. The Planning Bill proposes to replace existing RPG with Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS); abolish Structure Plans and replace them with a range of sub-regional strategies; and replace Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans with Local Development Frameworks (LDFs).
In accordance with DfT guidance, County Councils are also required to produce five-year Local Transport Plans (LTPs) and Annual Reviews that set out specific transport policies and programmes of work for the period. Amongst other things, these documents identify local transport proposals that could impact on the trunk road network. A new round of LTPs is currently being prepared by local authorities.
5.2.2 The relationship between planning and transport
In providing for development it is important to draw attention to difficulties that can occur in transport provision where policies from various government departments are not always co-incident. A particular issue is that surrounding the requirement, as identified by the ODPM, to provide 3 million new houses in England over the period 2002 to 2021. This requirement is taken on board by the Government Regional Offices in production of revised Regional Planning Guidance and new Regional Spatial Strategies, and may involve other bodies such as the Regional Development Agencies. These strategies set targets for the required level of housing build for Counties and Unitary authorities that then need to be accommodated in Structure Plans or Unitary Development Plans. At this stage, firm spatial allocations are not normally made, this being the role of Local Plans produced by Districts. Local Plans may identify specific sites for development based on the development strategies contained in Structure Plans.
It is at this level that conflicts between land-use and transport policies can occur. To meet their housing allocations it may be necessary to identify areas for major development on greenfield sites (e.g. as in the Kent Structure Plan). This is particularly true if sites previously used for primary or manufacturing industry ('brownfield') are not available. Frequently, these demands are highest where economic growth is strong and demand for affordable housing is greatest (i.e. in south-east England). However, the planning system, through the Examination in Public of statutory development plans does provide an opportunity for the Highways Agency to express a view on issues such as land-use allocations and build rates and their impact on transport provision.
Thus, in the latter years of the 10-year timescale of the RMS, and certainly beyond 2014, the demand for new development in the Ashford area will put considerable pressure on key accesses onto A2070 Bad Munstereifel Way towards M20 J10. This is recognised by the HA in the development of a longer term strategy for highways that includes schemes to relieve M20 J10 and the encouragement of sustainable modes of transport.
Whilst national, regional and local government policies and targets on transport all stress, to a considerable degree, the need to implement sustainable policies to reduce reliance on the private car, it is in areas where major development is planned to occur that new or improved highway capacity is almost always likely to be needed. The Highways Agency recognises these issues and aims to accommodate them through policies contained in the Land Use & Development Control Statement (Appendix F to this report).
5.3 Future planning aspirations
5.3.1 Regional Planning Guidance
Regional policy for this area is set out in Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9), and the subsequent regional transport strategy. One of the key features is that policy should be developed to minimise the distance people need to travel (T1). It is already established that in general the proportion of long distance through traffic on this route originating west of Hastings is very small, and therefore any proposals should recognise this. However, this may not always be the case in future, as parts of the M20, M26 and M25 increasingly suffer from regular daily congestion.
A regional economic strategy for the south-east is set out by the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA), in its Draft Corporate Plan 2002-04. One of the features of this plan is the identification of five Area Investment Frameworks (AIFs) in the south east, two of which lie close to the study area (Hastings and the East Sussex coastal area, and Northeast Kent). Work is funded through the Single Regeneration Budget programme. Transport has a key part to play in the implementation of economic strategies.
The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) has reviewed the transport elements of RPG9 in the light of latest developments in government policy. The Regional Transport Strategy, 'From Crisis to Cutting Edge' (January 2003) identified regional priorities for transport investment and management across all modes, including the development of the concept of 'hubs' and 'spokes' as one of the essential building blocks of the regional network (policies T5 and T6).
Ashford is identified as a major hub in the study area, whilst the A259 / A2070 between Hastings and Ashford is identified as a spoke. The M20 acts as the main spoke linking the Channel Tunnel with London and the rest of the national highway network.
Following a report into Ashford's Future (Halcrow, December 2002), SEERA produced in July 2003 Proposed Alterations to RPG, South East - Ashford Growth Area. It is proposed that the Ashford Growth Areas should seek to deliver 13,100 dwellings over the period 2001 - 2016, through urban intensification and the development of new sustainable urban extensions integrated with the provision of new and enhanced bus based public transport. Key elements of local transport infrastructure include M20 J10 upgrade; Park and Ride; and a south Ashford orbital road linking the A2070 to the A28.
5.3.2 Other Regional Aspirations
The ODPM has also recently issued 'Sustainable communities in the South East'. This document makes it clear that there is a desire to accelerate development of new communities in the Ashford growth area with the completion of the high-speed rail link to London in 2007. The study indicates substantial scope for further growth in the Ashford area through diversifying its employment base, redeveloping its town centre and increasing the annual rate of new housing to provide at least 31,000 new homes and 28,000 new jobs by 2031. This document also emphases that of the key network improvements to achieve effective local delivery arrangements is the provision of a new junction on M20.
Mention should be made of the South Coast Multi-Modal Study (SoCoMMS) whose Draft Final Report was issued in September 2002. This RMS study falls within the area of influence of SoCoMMS, which has reported on a geographically wider corridor that includes the area covered by this study. It considers a longer, 30 year time-frame rather than the 10 year time-span associated with RMS studies; looks at all modes of transport; and develops medium and long term strategies to overcome the many challenges associated with road, public transport and other sustainable modes of travel. The difference in emphasis between SoCoMMS and this study is that this RMS is roads-based and is looking over a shorter timescale. RMS is considering only low-cost (under £5 million) short-term highway solutions and so developments are significant only in terms of their readiness, size, proximity and impact on the route.
As far as SoCoMMS is concerned, the Secretary of State's response was confined to a statement asking the Highways Agency to review safety and other local issues between Hastings and Brenzett. A number of remedial measures were recommended including maintenance; traffic management measures in Winchelsea and Rye; pedestrian and cyclist measures; and improved signing. The one area perhaps more directly related to development is the need for some local junction improvements (e.g Rye Harbour), where contributions may be sought from associated development.
Because of the long timescale over which regional policies are implemented, many regional initiatives have yet to work their way through the statutory planning process. Consequently major regional policy initiatives are unlikely to manifest themselves on the ground in the near future. Nevertheless, where areas of key development are identified, the granting of planning permission will depend heavily upon provision of the requisite sustainable transport infrastructure.
5.3.3 Local Planning Policies and Proposals
Many existing Structure Plans and Local Plans have gone through the time-consuming process of deposit, review and public inquiry before reaching the stage of formal adoption. Consequently, there may be to some extent a policy vacuum where these plans lack weight in policy terms, or are not regarded as material to particular applications.
Furthermore it is likely that the time-span of their validity may be influenced by proposals contained in the new Planning Bill. However, the government's current thinking suggests that there will still be a need for a similar approach in respect of the need for site-specific policies and a proposals map.
A review of existing County and District policy documents has been undertaken, and a summary of developments that are significant in terms of their size or proximity to the route is provided, working west to east along the route.
The East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan contains transport policies (T20) that looked forward to the provision of the Bexhill and Western Hastings and Eastern Hastings Bypasses. However, since then, The A21 Access to Hastings Study and SoCoMMS have reported, and consequently these bypass proposals have been deleted. In response, a task force of local and regional bodies has commissioned a Master Plan for Bexhill and Hastings which is consulting on alternative approaches to policy in this area.
East of Hastings, the route passes through protected landscape areas of the High Weald AONB (Structure Plan policies S4, EN2, EN3, TR43) and Areas of International Importance for Nature Conservation (Structure Plan policies S1, EN17), effectively prohibiting any large scale development. Even so, policy TR23 urges the government "…to implement, at the earliest opportunity, appropriate solutions to transport problems along … the A259 corridor east of Hastings…".
The Rother District Local Plan applies to the whole of the route in East Sussex east of Hastings. Key policies relate to housing in Bexhill, where most of the district allocation is to be provided. These developments are closely linked to the Masterplan for Hastings and Bexhill, which, with the rejection of the Hastings Bypass is seen as the focus for developing an alternative approach to traffic problems on A259 in the two towns, through the creation of 'country avenues' to assist local access to development. A number of developments are also proposed in the Hastings Local Plan, some of which may impact to a small extent on A259 east of the town.
Reuse of brownfield sites at Rye Harbour and in the town will impact on the A259 and improvements to junctions will need to be considered even where nothing is currently programmed (see Rother Local Plan policies RY4 to RY8). East Sussex CC has produced a 'Rye Local Area Transport Strategy' that sets out a programme of works in the area. It is expected that developers would provide contributions towards junction improvements.
From Guldeford Lane Corner eastward, strategic policy is set by Kent and Medway Structure Plan. Major development is identified at Ashford in the immediate vicinity of A2070, which provides a direct link onto M20 at J10. The impact of Ashford developments will be felt mainly around Ashford and the M20. Access to the south from Shepway District is facilitated by the existence of a good quality link at least as far as Brenzett, and provides sufficient capacity over the period of the RMS.
Ashford Local Plan identifies a number of major residential and industrial development sites (S13 to S17 inclusive on the proposals map) in a southern arc around Ashford, and serviced by A2070. Additional junctions will be required to complete these developments, and longer-term measures, requiring a new junction on M20, will be needed to reduce congestion at the existing J10.
5.4 Development control strategy
5.4.1 Land Use Planning & Development Control
Highways Agency policy on land use planning and development control is set out in the Land Use & Development Control Statement, produced in accordance with RMS Guidance, and forming Appendix H to this report.
The Statement summarises national planning policy on transport, set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13. In accordance with Annex B of this guidance note, the Highways Agency encourages local planning authorities to consider sustainable transport alternatives to use of the car in devising access to new developments through Travel Plans.
The relationship between Regional Planning Guidance, local authority development plans, and the processes culminating in the consideration of planning applications is reviewed. Attention is drawn to the need for local planning authorities to liaise with the Highways Agency in considering the transport implications of development proposals on or adjacent to trunk roads.
Reference is also made to DTLR Circular 4/2001, which sets out national development control policy for the trunk road and motorway network. The policy has generally been to discourage the formation of new accesses to trunk roads.
The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) order 1995 requires county councils and lpas to consult the HA about planning applications that may affect the operation of the Trunk Road network and or that may result in a material increase in the volume of traffic entering or leaving the trunk road.
The HA will also expect developers to provide a Transport Assessment in cases where the development will have significant transport implications. These will include, as appropriate, indications of how sustainable transport modes will be used to mitigate the affects of the development on the trunk road.
Measures required to accommodate development, including measures on trunk roads, may be delivered more effectively if they are funded on a joint basis by a number of developers in an area. The HA encourages lpas to draw up development briefs or supplementary planning guidance, as appropriate, to identify these measures. The HA will help lpas to incorporate any measures on trunk roads into these briefs. The HA will also seek to facilitate mechanisms to collect and distribute payments for the measures neededThe HA also encourages developers to discuss development proposals with the HA at an early stage. This will help both parties to understand the full implications of the proposals and avoid unnecessary cost, delay and disappointment.
5.4.2 Local Development Plans and their impact on A259/A2070
The Land Use & Development Control Statement (LU&DCS) contains, as annexes, details of the development plans that have been reviewed, along with a table of key sites (see Annex 1 to LU&DCS. The sites identified all involve proposed development that is of sufficient scale to generate additional traffic on the A259 / A2070 and its junctions. The majority of these sites are concentrated on an arc to the south of Ashford.
A plan showing the locations of these sites is provided in Annex 2 of the LU&DCS, and is also included as drawing TH/RMSC/E/002 in this Report.
Finally, the LU&DCS contains as Annex 3 the HA response to planning applications, reviews of development plans and Local Transport Plans in relation to the strategy elements set out in the main text of that document.
Route Problems & Performance
Initial Draft Strategy - July 2004
Route Problems & Performance
6.1 Problem identification
Performance indicators provide a valuable means of describing the level of service provided by a route, that is:
- the identification of the location and scale of problems
- the potential to assess the change in performance achieved through actions
- the performance of the route and sections of route compared with national or route specific criteria and with each other
- the comparative performance of the route against other routes.
6.2 Performance Framework - existing situation
The calculation of indicators is shown in Appendix E and is based on work carried out under earlier guidelines for RMS studies. While this is no longer a current method of approach, it is considered helpful within the context of the present study. The indicators for safety were calculated using data from 1998-2000. More up-to-date data (2001-2003) has been used to prepare drawing TH/RMSC/E/004. However, the more recent data showed that accidents were occurring in the same locations, although numbers were slightly reduced.
Table 6.2 summarises the automatic traffic counter data for 2001. The table reports the annual average daily total flow (AADT), annual average weekday (Mon-Fri) flow (AAWT), proportion of heavy vehicles in AADT, and the seasonality index (average weekday flow in August : average weekday flow in a neutral month).
With regard to the congestion delay indicators the value for section 2 is at the 'bad' end of the scale, indicating significant delays during peak periods. However the congestion stress factor is at the 'good' end of the scale, indicating that traffic flows are generally low.
| 2001 data used | Route Sections | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 - A259 Hastings to Winchelsea | 2 - A259 Winchelsea to Guldeford Lane Corner | 3 - A259 Guldeford lane Corner to Brenzett | 4 - A2070Brenzett to Cloverleaf Junction | 5 - A2070Cloverleaf Junction to M20 | |
| Economy: | |||||
| Congestion | med | bad | good | N/a | N/a |
| Peak average delay per veh-km (sec) | 17 | 47 | 5 | ||
| Congestion | Good | Good | Good | Good | good |
| Stress factor (%) | 32 | 35 | 22 | 46 | 39 |
| Safety: | |||||
| Accident Rate | med | Med | med | Good | bad |
| pia per 100 million veh-km | 32 | 32 | 36 | 16 | 45 |
| Severity Ratio | Med-bad | Med-bad | Med-bad | Med | med |
| ksi/total pia (%) | 37 | 37 | 43 | 22 | 26 |
| Accidents in wet | Good-med | Med | Good-med | Med | med |
| % of accidents | 24 | 41 | 25 | 41 | 33 |
| Accidents in dark | Bad | Med | Med | Med-bad | med |
| % of accidents | 39 | 22 | 25 | 30 | 23 |
| Environment: | |||||
| Noise Exposure | Good | Good | Good | N/a | N/a |
| Noise severity index | 9 | 9 | 1 | N/a | N/a |
| Biodiversity Action Plan | Med | Med | med | N/a | N/a |
| % of section complete | 50 | 50 | 50 | N/a | N/a |
| Landscape Management Plan | Good-med | Good-med | Good-med | N/a | N/a |
| % of section complete | 10 | 10 | 10 | N/a | N/a |
| Traveller Care | Med | med | Med | Med | med |
| Quality of user facilities | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Accessibility: | |||||
| Hindrance to Non-motorised Users | Good-med | Good-med | Good-med | Med | med |
| User need and quality of facilities | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Integration: | |||||
| Opportunities for Interchange | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good |
| User needs and interchange facilities | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Site No | Road | Location | OSGR | AADT | %H Seasonality Index | Stress Factor | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Easting | AAWT | |||||||
| Northing | Eastbound | Westbound | 2-way | |||||
| 0575/6 | A259 | Bachelor's Bump | 584481 | 4,884 | 4,701 | 9,585 | 5 | 0.36 |
| North of B2093 (Section 1) | 112596 | 5,012 | 4,824 | 9,836 | 1.15 | |||
| 0417/8 | A259 | West of Icklesham | 586102 | 3,945 | 3,955 | 7,900 | 5 | 0.30 |
| (Section 1) | 116117 | 4,044 | 4,047 | 8,091 | 1.17 | |||
| 0421/2 | A259 | West of Rye | 591648 | 4,652 | 4,519 | 9,171 | 5 | 0.41 |
| (Section 2) | 119148 | 4,757 | 4,599 | 9,356 | 1.23 | |||
| 0423/4 | A259 | Rye | 591980 | 5,010 | 6,529 | 11,539 | 6 | 0.56 |
| South Undercliffe(Section 2) | 120152 | 5,021 | 6,629 | 11,650 | 1.18 | |||
| 0462/3 | A259 | Brookland | 600023 | 2,700 | 2,725 | 5,425 | 7 | 0.22 |
| (Section 3) | 126517 | 2,754 | 2,773 | 5,527 | 1.19 | |||
| 0462/3 | A2070 | Hamstreet Bypass | 600200 | 5239 | 5297 | 10,536 | 3 | 0.46 |
| (Section 4) | 134700 | 5344 | 5454 | 10,798 | 1.09 | |||
6.3 Location of Problems
This section provides a checklist of the problems, under each of the governments key objectives, identified along the route. The locations of these problems are shown on drawing TH/RMSC/E/001.
More up-to-date data than used in table 6.1 has been used to determine the location of safety problems. This accident data (2001-2003) is illustrated on drawing TH/RMSC/E/004.
6.3.1 Economy
- A259 between Hastings and Brenzett (restriction on use by abnormally heavy vehicles, greater than 38 tonnes) - Sections 1-3
- A259 between Winchelsea and Guldeford Lane Corner (average delays exceed 25 sec per veh km) - Section 2
- A259 East Guldeford to Guldeford Lane Corner (difficult for large vehicles to pass and bends) - Section 2
- A259 Rye to Brookland (any roadworks require long diversions to be imposed) - Section 2 & 3
- A2070 / M20 J10 Ashford (queues) - Section 5
6.3.2 Safety
- A259 between Hastings and Brenzett (severity) - Sections 1-3
- A259 Ferry Hill, Winchelsea (180 degree bend presents hazard for long vehicles) - Section 1
- A259 Winchelsea to Guldeford Lane Corner - Section 2
- A259 / Harbour Road, Rye (cluster) - Section 2
- A259 Winchelsea Road - South Undercliffe, Rye (180 degree bend, with mini-roundabout, presents hazard for long vehicles) - Section 2
- A259 East Guldeford (cluster) - Section 2
- A259 / A2070 Brenzett (cluster) - Section 3
- A2070 between Brenzett and Cloverleaf Junction - Section 4
- A2070 Cloverleaf Junction - Section 5 (high number of motorcycle accidents)
- A2070 between Cloverleaf Junction A2042 and M20 (total number of PIA) - Section 5
6.3.3 Environment
- A259 between Rye and Brenzett (proximity to sensitive areas) - Section 2 & 3
- A259 between Guldeford Lane corner and Brenzett (traveller care) - Section 3
- A2070 - No problems identified
6.3.4 Accessibility
- A259 Rye (lack of pedestrian crossing where school children cross) - Section 2
- A259 Brookland (lack of pedestrian crossing where school children cross) - Section 3
- A2070 at Walnut Tree, Snave (poor crossing facilities for pedestrians with no advance warning signs) - Section 4
- A2070 south of Golden Wood, Bromley Green (poor crossing facilities for pedestrians with no advance warning signs) - Section 4
6.3.5 Integration
- Future problems will be generated by the proposed development of Ashford South requiring interchange facilities - Section 5
Route Outcomes
Initial Draft Strategy - July 2004
7 Route Outcomes
7.1 Introduction
The following are initial route outcomes. These will be progressed further, in the process of developing the strategy.
| Route Outcome | To reduce the risk of accidents occurring. |
|---|---|
| - Short Name | Safety - Accident Reduction |
| RO1 | |
| Related Route Functions | F1, F3, F4, F5, F7, F8 |
| Improvements to Related Route Functions |
|
| Related Issues | A259 - Substandard junctions and horizontal alignment.A2070 - Dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.A2070 - Speed of traffic. |
| Locations |
|
| Policy Objectives | S1 - To seek to improve safety for all road users |
| S2 - To seek to provide safe conditions for vulnerable road user groups | |
| S5 - To seek to reduce accident numbers and severity | |
| EC3 - To seek to reduce delays | |
| Target | Undertake studies to identify appropriate measures. |
| Timescale | Short-term. |
| Possible Actions | Actions to consider in study may include:
|
| Other Issues | Carriageway alignment improvement works may be difficult due to environmental constraints along the route. Some measures have already been implemented at Cloverleaf junction to address this safety issue. |
| Route Outcome | To reduce the severity of injuries at accidents. |
|---|---|
| - Short Name | Safety - Severity Reduction |
| RO2 | |
| Related Route Functions | F1, F3, F4, F5, F7. F8 |
| Improvements to Related Route Functions |
|
| Related Issues | A259 - Poor route alignment contributes to the severity of accidents |
| Locations | A259 between Hastings and BrenzettA2070 Cloverleaf Junction |
| Policy Objectives | S1 - To seek to improve safety for all road users |
| S2 - To seek to provide safe conditions for vulnerable road user groups | |
| S5 - To seek to reduce accident numbers and severity | |
| EC3 - To seek to reduce delays | |
| Target | Undertake studies to identify appropriate measures. |
| Timescale | Short-term. |
| Possible Actions | Actions to consider in study may include:
|
| Other Issues | Carriageway alignment improvement works may be difficult due to environmental constraints along the route. Some measures have already been implemented at Cloverleaf junction to address this safety issue. |
| Route Outcome | To reduce accidents at locations where significant numbers occur, particularly those involving vulnerable road users (pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motor cyclists) and children. |
|---|---|
| - Short Name | Safety - Accident reduction, vulnerable users |
| RO3 | |
| Related Route Functions | F1, F3, F4, F5, F7, F8 |
| Improvements to Related Route Functions |
|
| Related Issues | A2070 - absence of advanced warning signs for pedestrian crossings. |
| Locations |
|
| Policy Objectives | S1 - To seek to improve safety for all road users |
| S2 - To seek to provide safe conditions for vulnerable road user groups | |
| S5 - To seek to reduce accident numbers and severity | |
| A1 - To seek to improve accessibility | |
| A2 - To improve access to pedestrians | |
| Target | Carry out survey to validate areas for improvement |
| Timescale | Short term. |
| Possible Actions | Creation of signing strategy |
| Other Issues | n/a |
| Route Outcome | To improve the alignment and carriageway width at pinch points. |
|---|---|
| - Short Name | Route Alignment |
| RO4 | |
| Related Route Functions | F1, F3, F5, F7 |
| Improvements to Related Route Functions |
|
| Related Issues |
|
| Locations |
|
| Policy Objectives | S1 - To seek to improve safety for all road users |
| S3 - To seek to provide a safe working environment along the route | |
| S6 - Making maintenance priority | |
| EC3 - To seek to reduce delays | |
| EC6 - To seek to improve maintenance | |
| Target | Carry out study into possible improvements to alignment. |
| Timescale | Medium-term |
| Possible Actions | Road widening, widening of bends. Possible realignment of section of A259 between East Guldeford and Guldeford Lane Corner. This would remove 90 deg. bends and the two level crossings. Liaise with the statutory environmental bodies. |
| Other Issues | Carriageway widening works may be difficult due to environmental constraints along the route. |
| Route Outcome | To reduce the visual intrusion caused by the route and the traffic using it. |
|---|---|
| - Short Name | Environment - visual intrusion |
| RO5 | |
| Related Route Functions | F1, F2, F3, F5, F7, F8 |
| Improvements to Related Route Functions |
|
| Related Issues | n/a |
| Locations | A259 through Winchelsea and Rye (historic towns)A259 entire route between Hastings and Brenzett (towns and villages adjacent to the route) |
| Policy Objectives | E1 - To seek to protect and enhance the built and natural environment |
| E7 - To seek to improve the landscape | |
| E8 - To seek to maintain the historic environment | |
| EC2 - Vision | |
| Target | Develop or enhance a landscape action plan |
| Timescale | Medium-term. |
| Possible Actions | Possible items for Action Plan may include Improve landscaping where possible to screen the road from adjacent properties. |
| Other Issues | n/a |
| Route Outcome | Provide a high standard of traveller care, by providing adequate access to food, toilets, fuel and rest facilities. |
|---|---|
| - Short Name | Environment - traveller care |
| RO6 | |
| Related Route Functions | F1, F3, F5, F7, F8 |
| Improvements to Related Route Functions | n/a |
| Related Issues | n/a |
| Locations |
|
| Policy Objectives | S4 - To seek to provide appropriate facilities along the route |
| Target | Carry out survey of existing facilities and identify where there is a need for improved facilities. |
| Timescale | Mid-term |
| Possible Actions | Improved signing to existing local facilities, within existing settlements. |
| Other Issues | n/a |
| Route Outcome | Improve facilities for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. |
|---|---|
| - Short Name | Accessibility - non-motorised users |
| RO7 | |
| Related Route Functions | F4, F5 |
| Improvements to Related Route Functions | Improved accessibility for all non-motorised road usersImproved safety for all non-motorised road users |
| Related Issues | Provision of footwaysImprovement to cycle routesImprove crossing facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. |
| Locations | A259 Rye (lack of pedestrian crossing where school children cross)A259 Brookland (lack of pedestrian crossing where school children cross)A2070 at Walnut Tree, Snave (poor crossing facilities for pedestrians)A2070 south of Golden Wood, Bromley Green (poor crossing facilities) |
| Policy Objectives | A1 - To seek to improve accessibility |
| A2 - To improve access to pedestrians | |
| A3 - To seek to improve accessibility for disabled people | |
| A4 - To seek to improve accessibility for cyclists | |
| A5 - To seek to improve accessibility for horse riders | |
| S1 - To seek to improve safety for all road users | |
| S2 - To seek to provide safe conditions for vulnerable road user groups | |
| I5 - To integrate regional and local planning policy | |
| Target | Undertake to carry out a survey of areas along the route that would benefit from improved non-motorised user facilities. |
| Timescale | Medium-term. |
| Possible Actions | Actions to consider in study may include:
|
| Other Issues | Width of existing highway may prevent the provision of footways along A259 |
| Route Outcome | Facilitate development opportunities adjacent to the trunk road in line with approved developments. |
|---|---|
| - Short Name | Economy - development |
| RO8 | |
| Related Route Functions | F4, F7 |
| Improvements to Related Route Functions | Aid strategic development growth |
| Related Issues | Improve access to Ashford and Hastings (a priority area for economic regeneration)Land Use and Development Control Plan |
| Locations |
|
| Policy Objectives | EC2 - Vision |
| EC4 - To implement strategies | |
| EC7 - to seek to contribute to an efficient economy, and support sustainable economic growth in appropriate locations. | |
| Target | To liaise with Local Authorities to ascertain infrastructure improvements required to enable development. |
| Timescale | Ongoing |
| Possible Actions | Junction improvementsProvision of new junctions |
| Other Issues | n/a |
| Route Outcome | To eliminate the need for diversions and consequent delays associated with road maintenance. |
|---|---|
| - Short Name | Economy - maintenance |
| RO9 | |
| Related Route Functions | F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8 |
| Improvements to Related Route Functions | Improvement to slow journey times |
| Related Issues | Relieve congestion during essential road maintenance operationsPlan all works to achieve optimum whole life costs with minimal disruption to users |
| Locations | A259 between Rye and Brookland (currently any roadworks require long diversions to be imposed) |
| Policy Objectives | EC6 - To seek to improve maintenance |
| Target | Carry out a feasibility study into possible improvements to highway alignment to enable maintenance of the road to be carried out without causing severe delays to motorists. |
| Timescale | Medium-term |
| Possible Actions |
|
| Other Issues | n/a |
| Route Outcome | Reduce congestion at junction 10 of the M20 |
|---|---|
| - Short Name | Economy - congestion |
| RO10 | |
| Related Route Functions | F1, F2, F3, F4 F5, F6, F7, F8 |
| Improvements to Related Route Functions | Improvement to slow journey times |
| Related Issues | Improvements to junctions |
| Locations | A2070 / M20 J10 (queues) - Junction 10 is at capacity |
| Policy Objectives | EC1 - To seek to reduce congestion |
| EC3 - To seek to reduce delays | |
| Target | Assist with delivery of improvements in liaison with Government bodies. |
| Timescale | Long-term |
| Possible Actions | A2070 junction with M20 - interim improvements to existing junction 10. In the long-term actions depend on outcome of proposals to construct junction 10A. |
| Other Issues | n/a |
Strategy Impact Statement
Initial Draft Strategy - July 2004
8 Strategy Impact Statement
8.1 Introduction
As part of the work carried out to date on the Route Management Strategy for the A259/A2070, route problems have been identified. As work develops on the RMS a strategy will be devised, culminating in Route Outcomes (RO's), which will enable the performance of the A259/A2070 route to be improved.
When completed, the Strategy Impact Statement will demonstrate how the implementation of the route outcomes will result in a beneficial impact on the performance of the route.
8.2 Key Route Outcomes
The route outcomes will be identified following further consultation. These will then be divided into key route outcomes and lower priority additional route outcomes.
8.3 Key Route Outcome Analysis
Tables will be created to illustrate the impact of the Key Route Outcomes on:
- Key Outcomes in relation to Route Issues
- Key Outcomes in relation to Route Functions
- Key Outcomes in relation to Development Control
- Key Outcomes in relation to Policy Objectives
8.4 Development Control Statement
An assessment of the likely impact of future development within the study corridor has been set out in the Development Control Statement. (Appendix H).