The Rochford Local Highway Panel met this evening. It’s where 5 County Councillors are supposed to get together with 5 District Councillors and council officers to discuss highways stuff.
It turned into a really interesting meeting.
Off to a shaky start. The information supplied to councillors was very poor. No hard copies in advance – just an email with about a dozen poorly labelled attachments to download. Although hard copies were mostly available on arrival at the meeting, there was some stuff we were supposed to discuss that we didn’t have in written form at all. Most councillors turned up for the meeting , although County Stephen Castle was absent for the second time in a row.
On the plus side the councillors present really did care about highways issues. Also District and Town Councillor Cheryl Roe came along to listen.
We discussed the Rawreth Lane / Hullbridge Road junction in Rayleigh. County Highways had costed a scheme to have an additional left hand lane from Rawreth Lane into Hullbridge Road. The cost was quoted at ?395,000! This was the breakdown:
Relocate Essex and Suffolk Water piping – ?8000
Relocate electricity – ?20,000
Relocate BT Fibre Optics – ?221,551.77
Gas pipes – ?55,500.
Design costs and actual costs of works – ?90,000
So the biggest costs are due to BT’s Fibre Optic pipes! Chris Black asked why BT had been allowed to install them so close to the roundabout. Nobody thought that ?395,000 was worth paying just for a left hand lane. However Keith Hudson and Chris Black put forward the idea that having a proper roundabout was worth considering. It would mean purchasing some land, and the cost would need to be spread over 2 years. It’s very early days on this idea, but it will be discussed further at future meetings.
Anger over the Sutton Ford Bridge. This bridge in Sutton Road, Rochford is supposed to be the third weakest in the County, but takes a lot of traffic. County Councillor Tracy Chapman had been promised by County officers last Christmas time that strengthening works would start on July 9th. She is clearly angry that they still haven’t started, and this means when they do start there will be problems for school buses and farmers bringing in the harvest. Councillor Gill Lucas-Gill was very concerned that businesses on the Purdey Estate weren’t being kept informed and she didn’t want the works to be delayed so that it affected their Xmas sales.
It became clear that councillors, whatever council they are on and whichever party they belong to, were furious over this and how County Highways perform generally. The anger wasn’t directed at the local officers but at a higher level of management. Phrases like “shocked, angry and disappointed’, “abuse of County’s relationship with Rochford” and “the system doesn’t work” were used. There is a lot of genuine anger there.
Councillor Steptoe’s Surprise. Affable District Councillor Mike Steptoe came out with something startling at the end of the meeting. The County Council are responsible for maintaining rural grass verges, but get the District Councils to do it on their behalf. They pay Rochford District Council ?33,500 for doing this work, but it costs us ?200,000 ! There is something very wrong here, and if the County don’t greatly increase that payment we can see the agreement being terminated.
Chris: Re: BT’s Fibre Optics, it’s not the case the BT was allowed to put them so close, they would have simply replaced the old legacy network ( copper ) with fibre and used the ductwork that has been there for years. If they decided to lay new ducting then the cost would have been even higher.
When will funds from core strategy standard charges be available for projects like this?
I think most traffic turns right rather than left, certainly seems like it from my experience. Has anyone carried out a count of traffic?
This work at Rawreth Lane junction is in my view very important and I have proposed this new left hand lane before. Traffic build up in the evenings on Rawreth Lane can be very bad and if you remember the closure of London Road due to an accident one Thursday then you can realise how bad it can become. Also it is very difficult to see the indicators of traffic in Rawreth Lane as you approach from Hullbridge. Thirdly lets not forget pedestrians and morotrists who have to face some very large lorries turning left at this point and almost reaching the pavement on the opposite side of the road. In my opinion a very necessary change.
I’m not disputing your points Bruce but has anyone done a traffic survey here? It would make interesting reading. And as to the lorry issue, perhaps we should look at restricting access/size of vehicle, though I guess that would cause a problem for deliveries?
Also for the mobile homes which are being taken to Hullbridge and the Dome site. I am quite willing to stand with you and / or anyone else from 8.00 to 9.00 after holiday period and again from 4 to 6 if necessary but not unless any figures would be taken seriously by decision makers. Did you lose your electrical supply when a lorry took down the cable on this bend?
Chris, Members were asked by Shaun Scrutton to submit “bids” from their own areas for consideration. As you are a member of this forum I copied you in so that the concerns of residents were not missed. Could you report on this thread what happened to these and what the decisions were? Thanks.
Not much was decided at all, only a couple of safety schemes, because of the lack of proper reports. We deferred things to the nest meeting. But I’ll do a write-up tomorrow.
The time has come for real solutions to the transport infrastructure, and for something which at least bypasses some of Rawreth Lane. To achieve this, I make the following suggestion.
Rawreth Lane and Watery Lane will undoubtedly fall victim to major traffic increases when the two new sites are developed on the green belt adjacent to the Rawreth Industrial Estate road and the proposed site adjacent to the east end of Watery Lane.
It has also been suggested that Watery Lane would be difficult to redevelop westward as the link to Beeches Road and Battlesbridge, makes connection to the A1245/A130 difficult.
Firstly, I strongly propose that the stretch of Rawreth Lane between, the junction now being discussed at Hambro Parade and the Rawreth Industrial Estate road, be left out of any new development altogether as there is no scope at all for extra capacity.
Instead I suggest that a new north bound road is provided from a point in Rawreth Lane, somewhere near Madrid Avenue, which would then link with a section of the eastern end of Watery Lane at a point where it could be easily widened to meet the future needs of the Hullbridge development and, further to the east of the district if necessary.
Some sort of relief road like this will be essential by 2020 and beyond, so please let’s start thinking about the wider aspects of these new developments that are being forced upon us and NOT even try to ‘make do and adapt’ the inadequate transport infrastructure we already have to endure.
I guess this will not be looked on too favourably by the occupants of properties at the western end of Rawreth Lane, for which I am sorry, but those of us living at the more developed end are having to put up with greater congestion and pollution week by week and it’s now time for some positive action and discussion.
The reason I asked is because I could not see any of the issues raised by us on the documentation circulated to all Members of RDC before the meeting was held. In my experience it has not been unusual for items to conveniently disappear in such joint committees. Is the secretariat RDC or ECC? I would be most obliged if as a Member of this forum that could ensure that nothing put forward by RDC Members is dropped and clear decisions and explanations on priorities are minuted. The budget is nearly £0.5m I think and I would expect residents will be looking to see this well spent. Thanks again. John
The documentation is prepared by the interestingly-named “Business Support Team” at the County Council. Minutes are taken by RDC.
We just didn’t have any documentation for minor schemes, except for 2 safety schemes and some bus shelters that were dealt with separately. So the members of the forum decided not to discuss things any further on new schemes until we DID have some documentation.
We will do our best….
Greenbelt, you are right to look further ahead.
However proposals like this would probably only be paid for by even more housing…..
Admin, as Rawreth Lane is part of the major arterial route through the district of Rochford, and the responsibility of County Highways, surely they should be proactive in seeking long term solutions for this problem. We are a small District Council in comparison to many of the others and as a result, I feel we are always overlooked when it comes to road infrastructure. Maldon DC is probably more rural than ours but work and improvements to there roads far outweighs what we get. Take a drive in the Maldon District during rush hour and you will rarely find any traffic congestion. I finished my last posting with these words “now time for some positive action and discussion”. So let’s have some and not sweep the problems under the carpet as you seem to be doing on this occasion.
Interesting comment admin. As Brian Guyett has already said what is happening to the New Homes Bonus (NHB)? The Conservative Administration has promised a decision on this for November 2012 although the NHB received to date has just gone into the pot. My hope has always been that the NHB relating to a particular development would go into that local area as an investment on top of the Section 106 payments (to be replaced by the CIL). So Greenbelt has a point in expecting investment from the existing new housing developments. Are there any views on how the NHB should be used? As a guide the 176 Houses in Hawkwell will generate an NHB of GBP 200K.
Good Morning Greenbelt . We certainly don’t want to sweep the problems under the carpet, in any case they are too evident to be treated like that. Sorry if it looked like we were doing that.
Sometimes it feels like we have spent half our time in the council chamber trying to reduce development along Rawreth Lane (with mixed results).
Yes , as a district we do seem to have been overlooked in terms of road improvements and maintenance by the County Council.
However the Local Highways Panel members ARE aware of the problems. If a proper roundabout is built here, it will take up about half of the whole panel budget for two years. But as County Councillor Tracy Chapman said at the last meeting, the delays at this junction cause problems for the whole district.
And the danger is very much there, if you built a parallel road to Hullbridge Road you would almost certainly end up with new development all the way along in between the two roads.
Probably we need to see what specific location is picked for “Land North of London Road” , and what road access is provided there, to get a better idea of how things will be.
Admin, I understand some of your reasoning but if we equate a parallel road with the building of Cherry Orchard Way, as yet no housing development has taken place on the eastern side of that and I don’t remember any suggestion to do this in the LDF proposals.
To spend half of the panel budget on a proper roundabout at Hambro corner seems like throwing money down the drain to me as all that will happen is that the problem will be shunted further on down the line. The next cry will be for new roundabouts at the Traveller’s Joy, the Hambro Hill/Hockley Road junction and possibly in Hullbridge at the Ferry Road junction.
The so called improving of the A127 eastbound over the years has suffered this shuffle effect with very little reduction in free flowing traffic and the same will happen here.
Still not convinced that the Local Highways Panel have considered this knock on effect and the ultimate cost and drain on the budget. How many years would it take to fund this with the financial situation as it stands now?
Whilst I fully sympathise and agree with many of the above comments, its seems to me that we are operating in a complete vacuum without a highways/transport strategy. It is theoretically possible to completely reroute highways in that general area and, with hundreds of new houses ‘downstream’ at Hullbridge, Ashingdon, Rochford, Hockley and Hawkwell, major changes will probably be required.
There clearly will not be enough money to do everything, so we need a prioritised plan and sooner the better.
Greenbelt, you are right about Cherry Orchard way, although I recall one proposal from a while back for a sort of retirement village near there. Brian, you are right, there isn’t enough money to do anything , and as a district we need a transport strategy.
According to the District Council’s “Vision to Reality” from 2008 – still current on the council’s website, by 2021 we should have secured:
As a district council we need to give this more priority.
@Greenbelt – re Cherry Orchard Way, my understanding of RDC thinking/strategy is that traffic from extra housing at Hawkwell, Ashingdon, East Rochford, West Rochford will use it as their direct route to A127. This could happen for the Hawkwell and West Rochford housing estates but unlikely for the Brays Lane area (as they will have to use Rectory Road with its railway bridge bottleneck).
I think we are all in agreement in the need for a proper plan BEFORE we commit to major tinkering which could be wasted.
Brian, I,m sure you are correct regarding RDC’s view that Cherry Orchard Way is the most direct route to ,and from, the A127 for the areas you have named but not always the quickest due to the A127 congestion, especially in the afternoon/evening commute times. As drivers try to avoid the last five miles of the A127 eastbound during the pm rush they rat run via the A1245, Rawreth Lane and onward to Rochford etc. However, the morning rush periods are less congested due to the fact that the westbound traffic commences in earnest at about 5.30am, certainly along Rawreth Lane, and is spread over about four hours until the school runs have ended. I believe that a large proportion of drivers in the district who are westbound in the morning tend to use the B1013/A1245 to avoid the A127 congestion. A point to add here, is that the 30mph speed limit is widely abused during these early hours with approximately 50mph closer to reality, making travel on this road as fast as the A127 speed limit. One way or the other, the situation is not good for residents.
I have added these additional comments to further highlight the attention the Local Highways Panel members should give when considering OUR highway proposal.
I seem to remember that the “Essex Transport Strategy” was due for full and major review in 2011…….whatever happened to that please? Perhaps Chris could ask about this at the Local Highways Panel/Forum because ECC is responsible for that. Everytime I raised highways strategy in the Core Strategy I was told that this would be dealt with in “2011” !! All of these issues should be considered as well as strategic funding of course.