Highways Agency - Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers

Related pages

• Summary
• 1 introduction
• 2 traffic, congestion and safety issues
• 3 geotechnical issues
• 4 environmental constraints
• 5 option development
• 6 options considered further
• 7 engineering comparison of options
• 8 economic comparison of options
• 9 environmental appraisal of options
• 10 waste management
• 11 public open day
• 12 responses from statutory and non-statutory consultees
• 13 conclusions
• 14 recommendations
• Environmental study findings
• Environmental study findings
• Environmental study findings
• Environmental study findings
• Environmental study findings

A417 Cowley to Brockworth Bypass Improvement

11 PUBLIC OPEN DAY

11.1 In order to inform the public and interested parties of the study purpose and the results of the study, Public Open Days were held on 15th/16th February 2002 at Birdlip Village Hall, Gloucestershire.

Information Presented

11.2 Information on the study was presented on nine display panels. These are identified in Table 11-1.

11.3 Members of the project team from WSP and the Highways Agency were present on both days to answer questions from the public and discuss issues and concerns raised.

11.4 On 15th February the public viewing session was from 12:00 noon until 8:00pm. Between 11:00am and 12:00 noon there was a preview session for invited guests, Councillors, local MPs and the media. The open day was from 10:00am and 4:00pm on 16th February.

11.5 Total attendance was a total of 224 people visiting over the two days.

11.6 The first day was the best attended with 143 people. This includes the invited guests for the preview session. The second day attracted only 81 visitors.

11.7 Over the two days representatives of local authorities and statutory/non-statutory bodies visited the display. These are detailed in Table 11-2.

Issues Raised

Rat-Running

11.8 Concern was raised by a number of people about rat-running through the villages e.g. Elkstone, Winstone and Brimpsfield. One member of the public provided a schedule of the traffic numbers passing through Brimpsfield during a peak period i.e. Friday afternoon/evening. Another visitor suggested that the people most concerned about the current situation are those who have moved to the Cotswolds from London and elsewhere in search of a rural idyll and are now unhappy to see cars on country roads.

Access

11.9 Concern was expressed by a number of local residents regarding the safety issues associated with access to Cold Slad Lane. Options 1 and 2 increase the number of lanes on Crickley Hill. These were considered by residents as making the situation worse unless a safe junction could be provided.

The Tunnel Option

11.10 Few people attending the open day openly expressed a preference for the tunnel option. Most people expressing an view felt that it was unrealistic and too costly. Some felt that this was simply a case of "out of sight, out of mind" as objectors wanted to see less traffic on the road. It should be noted, however, that most of the responses received following the Open Day have been pro-tunnel.

11.11 Several people suggested that the "Option Assessment" display panel was biased against the tunnel option. They felt that the issue of impacts on the underlying aquifer and the need for dewatering the escarpment slope were not as important as suggested and that with enough money, these could be overcome. Others could not understand why the assessment for the tunnel concluded a Severe Adverse Impact on the AONB.

11.12 Those who did express support for the tunnel pointed out that a reduction in the gradient compared to that on Crickley Hill would be an advantage and there would be benefits in times of severe weather (snow) as the A417 has had to be closed in the past due to snow drifts.

Corridor Options

11.13 In general, most support appeared to be for the re-modelling of the existing A417 with improvements at the junctions. Most people seemed in favour of dualling the road and felt that it was better to widen the existing road rather than building new roads.

11.14 Concern was expressed by the resident of The Rise at Stockwell about that potential noise and visual impacts related to the offline section around Nettleton.

11.15 The recent improvements at Birdlip Junction were commented on by a number of people. Whilst some felt this had improved the situation, others felt it was now even more difficult to negotiate and the road markings are confusing.

11.16 Several visitors felt that the proposed changes under Options 1 and 2 would do nothing to improve the situation.

11.17 This was not a formal public consultation exercise and hence, there were no questionnaires or other means of obtaining detailed feedback from the public. However, on the basis of the discussions held with team members, there appeared to be general support for the corridor options rather than the tunnel. Nonetheless, this should not be viewed as an endorsement of any particular option. The tunnel concept does have the support of 11 parish councils and two local authorities.

11.18 Since the open days, WSP and the HA have received letters from various Parish Councils and members of the public expressing their views. These have been replied to and included in a report on the Public Open Day. A summary of the views expressed is given in Table 11-3. They are mostly pro-tunnel. The issue mentioned most often is the suggestion that the open day was too biased against the tunnel option. The second was pollution (and noise) issues related to surface options (Options 1 and 2).