The Sproughton Transport Panel was
set up in March 2004 as a panel of Sproughton Parish Council.
Membership is open to all residents and those connected with
Sproughton. The Transport Panel is tasked with actions by the
Parish Council and reports back to the Council but it also develops
its own plans. The current Transport Panel Chairman is Simon
Lavington: (01473) 748478. Suffolk County Councillors and
Babergh District Councillors have attended our meetings.
An objective of Sproughton Parish Council
is to reduce the volume and average speed of vehicles passing along
High Street, Lower Street and Burstall Lane. This objective was
endorsed by Suffolk County Council's traffic engineers and by the
police, at the joint meeting with Sproughton Transport Panel on
20th February 2006. More generally, we look at transport issues
throughout the parish.
This photo shows traffic on
Sproughton High Street in July 2004, looking south. Notice
the cars driving along the east pavement. The Transport Panel
was established to find ways of solving problems due to the
unusually high levels of traffic volume, traffic pollution and HGV
weight-restriction violations in our
village. Whereas the Suffolk county average increase in
traffic on its B roads, between 1996 and 2003, was just under
11%, the increase in traffic on the B1113 through Sproughton in the
same seven-year period was 27%. Source:
Suffolk Traffic Monitoring Report for
2003, Suffolk County Council.
The Transport Panel worked in 2004 and 2005 with
Suffolk County Council to 'solve' the HGV weight-restriction
problems in our village. HGV violations occurred at the
rate of about ten per hour. In the
Spring of 2006,
revised
arrangements for HGV Orders in our area came into
force. A year later, results show that the average number of
violations per hour during a working day has dropped from about 10
per hour to 1 per hour. Many thanks to SCC's
Trading Standards Officer for his continued
help!
Gerry Barnes (former PC Chairman) and the Transport Panel
continue to seek solutions to the A14 noise problems.
Our second meeting with the Transport Minister in
London was on 2/2/06 and a new meeting with a new Minister
took place on 13/11/07. It is hoped that remedial
measures to reduce A14 noise
will be carried out on the Whitehouse-to-Copdock section in the
spring of 2010.
The Transport Panel is investigating various ways of significantly
reducing the volume and speed of vehicles passing through the
village. The Panel has studied the possibility of
introducing Home Zones, or Shared Spaces, for
areas such as Lower Street. This, however, is expensive and
is only really effective for areas with high densities of
pedestrians.
The Panel continues to study all new Planning Applications in
our area, in cases where the proposed development is likely to
cause significant increases to the traffic flow through
Sproughton. For example, we have taken measurements and given
evidence at the SnOasis (Great Blakenham) Public Inquiry and at the
Inquiry into use of the former Sugar Beet factory site in
Sproughton.
In the spring of 2007 there were four major Planning
Applications under consideration for the western fringes of
Ipswich. In total, these four developments propose to build
2,202 new dwellings within 5 km of the Sproughton Wild
Man. Experience suggests that, if allowed to go ahead, these
dwellings would cause a significant increase in the
volume of traffic passing through Sproughton.
It is for reasons such as the above that the Transport Panel has
been taking a longer-term look at possible routes for future relief
roads in the south-western fringes of Ipswich. We have
two suggestions:
Relief route [A], Harris Way: The primary purpose
is to provide direct access between the A1071 and the A12/A14 trunk
road system. This would help to relieve congestion (a) on the A1214
(London Road) in the region of Poplar Lane and Tesco and at the
A12/A14 Copdock Interchange, and (b) in Sproughton village. A
secondary purpose is to allow local traffic originating from or
heading in the Hadleigh direction to access/leave Ipswich without
going through Sproughton village. A tertiary purpose is to provide
a sensible option for trunk route emergency diversions that
by-passes Sproughton village.
Relief route [B], Lavis Way. The primary purpose is to
provide an additional circumferential route and river crossing,
enabling traffic originating in (or bound for) the Handford Road
area of Ipswich easier access to the A12/A14 trunk road system.
This, in turn, would relieve congestion at the A12/A14 Copdock
Interchange. A secondary purpose is to provide local traffic with a
circumferential link between two well-used radial roads, thus
drawing traffic away from congested residential and shopping
areas.
For commercial and HGV traffic accessing the trunk road system,
both the above relief routes offer savings in journey-length as
well as time. Those who know about such things can no doubt
calculate the resulting cost-savings per annum.
To
summarise some of the points of concern of our
community:
The daily vehicle movements at the Wild Man junction in Sproughton
(where High Street and Lower Street meet) is in excess of 10,000
per 24 hours. The noise and air-pollution are
considerable.
We believe that the inadequacy of the A12/A14 Copdock
Interchange causes much non-local traffic to rat-run through
Sproughton. In November/December 2006, we observed
that, during the morning peak period, over 20% of north-bound A12
traffic (representing about 560 vehicles/hour) diverts from the A12
at Capel St Mary and heads along minor roads into and around
Ipswich, rather than face the congestion of the A12/A14 Copdock
Interchange.
News on SnOasis, November
2008.
On 6th November the Secretary
of State announced her decision about the
SnOasis
development. Here is the planning history
of this project and an indication of what
happens next, from Sproughton's point of view.
SnOasis: the decision and
its implications for Sproughton.
1. Background: the Public Inquiry.
Sproughton Parish Council was first informed of the intention to
create an indoor ski centre at Great Blakenham in the autumn of
2003. Then in June 2004 three formal Planning Applications for the
developments known collectively as SnOasis were made to Mid Suffolk
District Council (MSDC). Alarmed by the scale of the projects, 130
people attended a public meeting in Sproughton Tithe Barn in July
of that year, at which widespread public concern was expressed
about the developer’s proposals. Accordingly, Sproughton Parish
Council and many others made formal representations to MSDC. In
particular, Sproughton Transport Panel had several meetings with
planning personnel from MSDC and Suffolk County Council the period
autumn 2004 to spring of 2006, principally to discuss the potential
traffic implications of the SnOasis proposals on our village.
However, in April 2006 MSDC approved the Snoasis Planning
Applications, which included plans for a new railway station and a
housing estate at Great Blakenham. Little regard seemed to have
been taken for Sproughton’s concerns.
Public concern at the MSDC decision was sufficient for the
Secretary of State to ‘call in’ the three applications and for a
Public Inquiry to be held in the period 24th January to
21st May 2007. On one side of the Public Inquiry was the
SnOasis developer, supported by MSDC and by Suffolk County Council.
Opposing them was the SnOasis Community Alliance, a partnership of
objectors that included Suffolk Preservation Society and a group of
15 Town and Parish Councils – including Sproughton Parish Council.
Sproughton’s objections largely centred on fears that the developer
had seriously under-estimated the negative impact on our village of
the extra traffic that would be generated by the SnOasis proposals.
Besides sharing a general concern for the congestion of rural roads
in the vicinity of Great Blakenham, other fears expressed by
members of the Community Alliance included: the huge energy
consumption of a leisure centre based on artificial snow; the
imposition on the rural landscape of what could be a large, noisy,
brightly-lit structure; the harmful effect upon the natural
environment and upon a nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest;
legal issues implied by an existing legal covenant covering part of
the site; the fear that SnOasis would prove financially unviable
and hence unable to provide realistic employment opportunities for
our area.
The Inspector’s 181-page Report of the SnOasis Public Inquiry
was published in May 2008 – see:
Snoasis Public Equiry
It highlighted a number of concerns about the SnOasis ski
resort, chief of which were energy consumption and inadequate
wildlife protection. Matters were made more complex by changes in
local and regional planning guidelines, eg the East of England
Development Plan, that had taken place within the last couple
of years. Thus, the Secretary of State only felt able to approve
the new railway station and housing development in May. She called
for more evidence during the summer on the main SnOasis application
and it was not until the 6th November 2008 that the
Secretary of State felt able to come to a final decision about
this. She approved it. Her decisions and comments about all three
SnOasis Planning Applications are contained in four documents
totalling 39 pages – see:
Snoasis Planning Applications
2. The final views of the Secretary of State.
Whilst approving the SnOasis centre, the Secretary of State took
the opportunity to make a number of interesting comments.
As for the Inspector’s concern about energy consumption, the
Secretary of State “notes that the applicant’s Sustainable Energy
Statement, as incorporated in the Section 106 Agreement dated 1
August 2008, provides a commitment to provide at least 75% of the
development's energy from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon
energy sources, and to procure the remaining 25% from low carbon
sources wherever possible”. Furthermore, the Secretary of State
encourages the applicant to explore the possibility of using a
large wind turbine with Mid Suffolk District Council.
With regard to the Inspector’s concerns about wildlife
protection, the Secretary of State considers that the developer’s
revised mitigation proposals of July 2008 are satisfactory and is
optimistic that the developer and Natural England will be able to
come to an agreement about the protection of great crested newts
during the implementation phase of the SnOasis project.
The Secretary of State “concludes that the proposal would have a
very positive impact in terms of employment numbers, and on the
local economy. She also considers that it would be well served by
public transport and believes that the applicant’s visitor
forecasts form a reasonable basis on which the application can be
determined. However, she also concludes that, taking the very large
and extensive development as a whole, including the tall ski slope
building, the proposal would be likely to have some adverse impact
on the landscape”.
There are several pages of additional conditions attached to the
Secretary of State’s decision but most of these, such as limits on
noise-nuisance, are not unusual for a development of this
magnitude. Conditions specific to Great Blakenham include: (a) the
limit of no more than 391 dwellings for the housing project, and
(b) that the residential accommodation provided on the SnOasis site
shall be limited to maxima of 350 chalets, 100 apartments, 200 beds
in the hostel and 350 lettable rooms in the hotel.
3. The implications for Sproughton.
As far as Sproughton is concerned, the Parish Council’s fears
about adverse traffic impact are not shared by the Secretary of
State. To quote from her final (6th November) document:
“The
Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no
link capacity problem on the A14. She also agrees that there is a
potential problem at the Copdock interchange, but that the proposed
improvements for this [SnOsis] proposal and Hutchison Ports (UK)
Ltd [for Felixstowe Docks] ensure that the junction would operate
no more poorly than without development or improvement”.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State says “that the Section 106
agreement [see below] would both secure various highway
improvements required as a result of the [SnOasis] proposal, and
provides for thresholds which should ensure that traffic from the
proposal does not adversely affect the highway network to any
significant extent”. Finally, the Secretary of State “agrees with
the Inspector that the provisions of the Section 106 agreement
secures up to £100,000 for minor improvements, should the [SnOasis]
proposal contribute harmfully to the amount of traffic on the local
roads, is adequate”.
The Section 106 Agreements referred to above are a way in
which a developer undertakes to soften any negative effects upon
the quality of life of a community by making certain payments
and/or providing certain mitigating measures. In addition to the
capital cost of the three projects in the Great Blakenham area, it
is believed that the SnOasis developer will be contributing about
£20 million for the general benefit of the locality, through the
mechanism of the section 106 agreement negotiated with the District
and County Councils. The fine print of the SnOasis Section 106
Agreements, all 190 pages of them, are hard to digest. The
highlights, as far as Sproughton is concerned, are as follows:
a) Improvements to the A12 and A14 trunk roads. These
include signing and lane-improvements at the Copdock Interchange,
according to a scheme approved by the Highways Agency.
b) Limiting the rat-running through Sproughton. Suffolk
County Council has a plan for signalization of the A1071/B1113
Beagle junction, so as to act as a restraint mechanism against
flows from the A12 etc. diverting through Sproughton.
c) Traffic-calming measures for Sproughton village. A
dedicated fund of £100,000 is set aside for this purpose.
Suggestions include, but are not limited to, such things as:
enhanced village gateway measures (eg islands, chicanes, footway
build-outs and/or directional priorities), reduced-speed zones,
junction improvements, surface treatments. Of course, £100,000 does
not go far these days. The Inspector remarked in his Report that
“The sum available for expenditure in the village may appear
relatively modest but should enable ameliorative measures of real
value”.
Regarding (c) above, there is a formal obligation for the
developer and Suffolk County Council to consult with Sproughton
Parish Council, to promote public consultation, and to hold a
public exhibition “to be held over two successive days comprising a
Friday and a Saturday” to explain the proposed mitigation
measures.
Judging the comparative cost-effectiveness of mitigation
measures clearly involves a degree of technical expertise that
local residents may not possess. It could be said that Sproughton
Parish Council therefore needs to do some homework on the subject.
Indeed, Sproughton Transport Panel has already undertaken detailed
measurements of traffic flows at various key points in our area, so
as to better understand the problems. Better still, however, we
should insist that our Highways Authority (Suffolk County Council)
does its own homework and makes its professionally-produced traffic
analyses available to the Sproughton community in a timely manner.
Assuming this happens, residents will be more likely to play an
active part in public consultations when the time comes.
Sproughton Parish Council is monitoring the SnOasis Section 106
situation closely and will keep residents informed of progress.
Meanwhile, the Parish Council is keen to hear from residents who
have ideas about how the SnOasis Section 106 payments might best be
deployed for the benefit of our community.
In summary, we might end on a positive note by quoting the
Inspector again. He remarked in his official Report that: “The
impact [of SnOasis] on Sproughton was a topic which took up a
considerable amount of Inquiry time, though it seems clear that the
[traffic] problem is a pre-existing one. The figures for the actual
effect on Sproughton as a result of Snoasis are minimal. The County
Council has consulted (and will continue to consult with) the
people of Sproughton regarding possible traffic management methods;
nothing has been ruled either out or in.”
Simon Lavington
Chairman, Sproughton Transport
Panel.