The following are notes provided by those directly involved in the discussions between the Protect Our Woodland alliance and West Sussex County Council (WSCC), Worthing Borough Council (WBC) and the West Durrington Consortium (WDC).

The Protect Our Woodland alliance is made up of: The Worthing Society. East Preston and Kingston Preservation Society. Worthing Friends of the Earth. Worthing and West Sussex Green Parties and South Coast Against Roadbuilding (SCAR). Together with many of the residents of Durrington, Worthing.

The West Durrington Consortium is made up of: The Heron Group, Bryant Homes (part of Taylor Woodrow) and Persimmon Homes. (click)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There was a long session with the WSCC engineers and James Appleton of WBC. The engineers were adamant that it was impossible to provide a long enough clear view of the roundabout with the existing road layout at South Lodge, so that the county could not consent to such a layout.

Unfortunately it had assumed that the roundabout would be further from South Lodge than is in fact planned, so there is only about 120 metres visibility. WSCC are sticking to their assumption that vehicles will be coming out of the bend at 40mph (70kph) in the wet, so 180 metres of visibility will be required.  If the speed was 60kph, 135 metres would be needed and one could argue that the roundabout could be moved 15-20 metres to meet the regulations.

The crucial question therefore is the speed at which vehicles leave the corner at South Lodge and come in sight of the roundabout. This would have to be established by measurement - the regulations require that the actual speed is used to determine the clear distance required. James Appleton has accepted this fact and has said that the Consortium had not measured speed at this point - only north of the corner. WSCC have told him they have doubts about the safety of measuring speed at the corner - I wonder why!

Unless the speed of traffic at this point is known, nobody can say whether it is possible to build the entrance to the estate on Titnore Lane without realigning the lane.

WSCC has accepted that the figure of 43 accidents in the last 5 years is wrong - the latest figure is 27 to the end on July 2004 (I will attach the tables he has sent me) The accident rate is also not 2.5 times that on comparable roads  but perhaps 1.5 times.

They have confirmed that there is no clear rule as to what qualifies a road to be designated an A road - they have also been searching for such guidance - but maintained that Titnore Lane ought to be an A road because it is an important part of the network. They see it as the obvious route to west Worthing for traffic using the A27 or A280; so they think it ought to be made fit to carry more traffic and designated an A road. And the chance to get it improved for free should not be missed.

They also argue that it should be classed as an upper tier road in the terminology of the DfT because of its role as a part of the main route network, which would mean that a 40 limit would not be recommended by the DfT criteria.

The meeting confirmed that the WSCC attitude places less weight on protecting the environment than we do and more weight on the free flow of traffic. They are to that extent creatures of the past. As James Appleton was told, a recent addition to the Road Design Manual emphasises the need to be flexible about standards and to respect environmental concerns. As the Highways Authority, they can refuse permission for road works if they disapprove; and they said Tex Pemberton has agreed that there should be no compromise on standards - which they would say are a matter of safety.

Clearly this emphasises that the entrance to the estate should not be on Titnore Lane.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   

The Highway Consultants for the developers have confirmed that its speed survey of Titnore Lane was carried out just north of the sharp bend (north of South Lodge) and not on/or at the exit of the bend.  County has raised some issues about the safety of surveys on the bend itself and it will discussed again with County tomorrow morning. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There was another meeting with two engineers from WSCC and James Appleton this afternoon. It became clear from this meeting that the crucial piece of information about Titnore Lane is the speed at which vehicles come out of the corner at South Lodge; and that nobody has yet troubled to obtain this information - incredible though this may seem, after so many pages have been printed on the subject.

The speed of traffic at this point determines the length of clear vision that drivers must have before the new roundabout. To be precise, the regulations state that the 85th percentile wet weather speed determines the length of clear visibility there should be before the roundabout.

If this speed is under 60kph (37mph), as it is likely to be, 135metres would be required and might be provided with minor alterations to the position of the roundabout or at the corner. If the speed is 70kph(43.5mph) as WSCC believe it is, 180 metres visibility would be required and the position is more difficult. 

The suggestion is that the Committee cannot take a decision on Titnore Lane until it has this information on speeds at South Lodge; and that it should therefore postpone a decision until the information can be supplied, and its significance evaluated.

James Appleton has said that following the meeting he was not satisfied that he had enough information to deal with all the legitimate concerns.  Clearly both he and the DC Committee want to be sure that there is no feasible alternative to straightening the bend north of the new junction.  He has asked the Highway Consultants for Consortium to do the survey of speeds on the bend.  The previous surveys were taken north of the bends and he is awaiting details of the precise location. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  

 

Dear James

    I am glad the decision about Titnore Lane has been postponed, and I hope that the County's reluctance to undertake the speed survey at the South Lodge bend can now be overcome. While they are about it, they could usefully measure speed north of the bend, as traffic comes through the woods. That is where a 40 limit would start, and it would therefore be helpful to know what speed is at this point on the lane. We would then have measures of speed at four points on the lane, which should be plenty of information to determine its suitability for a 40 limit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The following are comments made by councillors and others

Sheila Player the former Councillor asked the committee to write to the LGA (Local Government Association)  to get water authorities to be statutory consultants.  At present they are only consultants on planning issues so they can give their view i.e. that they have sufficient water to service existing & new developments, but if in the future they are lacking capacity then there is nothing the council can do about it, whereas if they are statutory/registered/licenced then the council can enforce.

Cllr Livermore even accepted that they, the council, had concerns because Southern Water were saying that they had capacity for new developments, yet we are all on hosepipe bans. Also that when Southern Water say they can service the new developments they do not know whether this just means drinking water or the whole service, i.e. bathing water, hosepipe use.

Cllr Lissenberg asked the committee to contact the Highways Agency in connection with road capacity, but she wanted them to get figures so that the council can push for a bypass. However Cllr Livermore did concede that up to May the Highways Agency were saying there was no capacity, yet by 10th June there was suddenly capacity.  As an aside to this I wrote to them under the Freedom of Information Act regarding this - they are due to reply by 7th Feb - I will forward you a copy of my
request separately.

Comments from Cllr Doyle one of the most respected councillors at that meeting were: I feel the members were mislead on June 10th and I want clarification of the status of the road. I also want clarification of what exactly the required works were in 1995 to make Titnore an A class road and whether the proposed works would ever be sufficient to make Titnore an A class road. I also want to know whether further works would be needed just to get it to A class status.

He also went on to say that due to being fed incorrect information, he had previously agreed to what he felt was the less damaging option. However in light of the fact that the members were misled, he now feels that there is the possibility that County will impose future tree felling as soon as the initial works were carried out.

I AM NOT PREPARED TO LET THAT HAPPEN. (His emphasis) - WELL 28 MARCH 2006 HE VOTED FOR IT!!

Until I am satisfied that the transport infrastructure is sufficient, with minimal removal of trees I will not vote for the continuation of the development process.

Later he said: I think that, to be fair to the Borough Council officers, they seemed as taken aback by the shift by the County Council as we were. I feel that this highlights the problems caused by having two separate councils, whereby we at the Borough Council are taking important decisions based on information given to us by the County Council - over whom we have no control and against whom we have no comeback.

Cllr Rogers  asked for clarification of the statement that a reduction in speed limit from 60 mph to 40mph would *increase *the number of accidents on the approach to the new roundabout. He felt, as do a lot of people, that this is an illogical statement and wanted to know how they had come to that conclusion.

Another Councillor said he wanted the decision deferred until GOSE and County clarify the status of the lane. He also wanted clarification of the A259's particulars and why it had exceptions with regard to the 40mph limit and how that fits with Titnore (why those same exceptions cannot be used on Titnore lane).

Other comments have been: I am worried that they will argue a year or two down the line that Titnore Lane 'needs' to be an A road to make it viable, and then we'll be in a corner because the housing development will have progressed.

Of the other points raised were: wanted full clarification on the role of future roadwork’s and what would be sufficient to make Titnore an A class road etc.

Clarification of the vulnerable road users. Felt that with the number of cyclists, equestrians, pedestrians etc it should have a 40mph limit. Wanted a survey done of the vulnerable road users.

That there was insufficient infrastructure and felt that the best route would be to have the main access road on from the A27.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More…….

There is concern about several points in James Appleton's 3 page recommendation for the committee  meeting last Tuesday (24th January).

1. One of the Councillors (Rogers, I think) at the 5th January  Development Control Committee Meeting sought clarification on how there could be more accidents on the approach to the proposed roundabout if the speed limit were reduced to 40mph, than there would be if the speed limit was left at 60mph. Appleton makes no mention of this at all in his report of 24th Jan.

2. On page 2 of Appleton's report (page 28 of the full Agenda) the Highways Agency state in paragraph 2 that 'providing that the proposed improvements to Titnore Lane achieve the road safety benefits anticipated then the improvements will support A road status for Titnore Lane.'
Yet they have not clarified *what* the anticipated scheme was in 95 (they say it is attached, but Appleton has not attached it on these copies).

3. In paragraph 3 the Highways Agency state ' As you know I can make no guarantee that further improvements will not be required. We have made it quite clear throughout discussions with yourself and the developers that if the improvements initially proposed do not resolve the accident problems then the developer should fund more significant improvements.

This is catered for within the draft S106 agreement. Yet at the meeting there was on Monday, it was shown that a large clump of the accidents are not on this part of the road anyway.......so the accident problem will most likely remain......so they will insist on carrying out the future works. In other words, to my mind at least, they are using these works to fix a problem that isn't there, and the problem will remain so they will have to carry out further works because the figures will show that there are still accidents on Titnore Lane.

4. The biggest concern is the wording used in paragraph 5. The Highways Agency state ' The assessment of the suitability of Titnore Lane to serve the development has not been driven by the classification of the road. An improved Titnore Lane should result in an improved accident record. Subject to the Titnore Lane improvements, *AND *the package of further improvements to be included in the S106, we are satisfied that the development can be accommodated with primary access from Titnore Lane. Should the Titnore Lane improvements not be implemented safety concerns will remain'

Are they admitting here, that from the outset, they are expecting the future proposed works to be carried out as a matter of course, because the Highways Agency see Titnore as 'a key link between the Trunk road and the western parts of Worthing' ?

5. The concern  in 3. above is compounded in the Highways Agency stating in paragraph  6   ' Finally , I confirm that the County Council has no ulterior motive here. As already stated we will be happy to see Titnore Lane promoted as the A2700 should the improvements currently proposed be implemented. We will only pursue more significant improvements should monitoring demonstrate that the accident problems currently associated with the road have not been addressed by the improvements currently proposed.' As I say, if the majority of accidents are not happening on this stretch of the road then the safety record is not going to improve significantly, so they will press immediately for the future works scheme to be implemented.

6. In Paragraph 4  the Highways Agency states that ' It is important to stress that with regard to the Speed Limit Criteria a survey  of vulnerable road users would not influence the position set out previously. This road has very limited frontage access and therefore does not meet the criteria for a 40mph limit.'

Yet in their own attached Revised Speed Limit Criteria,  a 60mph limit road has : limited development and frontage access & few vulnerable road users. However without doing a survey they cannot prove there are only a 'few' vulnerable road users. (although who stipulates what 'few' constitutes and when it becomes 'a noticeable presence of vulnerable road users ?)

Also there may not be many houses fronting onto the lane, but there are already  6  junctions/roads turning off the Lane with another being proposed (car showroom) and one of those junctions is a road into Northbrook College. As Titnore is a rural *single *carriage way this fits more with its speed limit/character of environment for a 40mph speed limit which mentions properties with frontage access e.g. schools, private and commercial premises (which in the Titnore case is Northbrook College, a couple of roadways direct to private dwellings and commercial being the Swallows Return and Eurogreen). The 60mph speed limit criteria only puts frequent junctions or frontage/development access with suburban *DUAL* carriageway.

7. Paragraph 4 continues with ' Whilst there have been exceptions to this policy these have been very few and the circumstances do not apply at Titnore Lane. There is no reason to consider an exception on Titnore Lane on this basis' .

Yet they do not clarify what/why those exceptions have been made on other roads, only that it cannot be done for Titnore Lane.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

James Appleton Senior Planning Officer at Worthing Borough Council Said: