Decision Session –

Executive Member for Transport

9 February 2021

 

 

Hopgrove Lane South - Consultation Update

 

Summary

 

1.        This report, prepared in accordance with the decision of the Executive Member in October 2020, summarises responses from the local Ward Councillors in response to further consultation about possible changes to the Hopgrove Lane South/Malton Road junction.

 

Recommendations

 

2.        The Executive Member is asked to note the consultation feedback, and instruct Officers how to proceed.


Reason:

  To consider the local Member views, and decide the best way forward.

 

Background

 

3.         In February 2018 it was reported that a petition containing 172 signatures had been received calling on the council to provide a left filter lane at the Hopgrove Lane South / Malton Road junction. In response, the Executive Member approved feasibility work to assess the likely cost, practicality, and potential impact of such a scheme.  

 

4.         The outline design for providing a left-turn lane is shown in Annex A. The outcome of the feasibility study was reported to the Executive Member decision session meeting in October 2020.  The key findings were:

 

·        Introducing a second exit lane would avoid left-turners being delayed behind right-turners, and it is estimated this could save them between 1 and 2 minutes delay.

 

·        Right turners would also benefit from twin exit lanes by not having to wait for left turners in front of them. The benefit would not be as great as for the left turners, but it would still be significant.

 

·        A significant safety concern is that left-turners would have difficulty seeing oncoming traffic because of right-turners. This would increase the probability of a collision with approaching traffic on Malton Road.

 

·        The total cost of the project, including service protection works, professional fees, and a contingency allowance, is estimated at £120K.

 

·        The scheme would primarily benefit car occupants, such as commuters and shoppers. It is therefore considered be of low priority when set against the council’s “Hierarchy of Transport Users” and Transport Policy aims.

 

·        There is likely to be a suppressed demand caused by the delays at the existing junction which could be released if the delays were removed leading to additional traffic in nearby villages. Ideally, the effects of providing the extra exit lane would be tested via a trial, but this could not be done without physically widening the road. In such a situation, computer traffic modelling is considered the best way of getting further information to guide a decision.

 

5.    In preparing the feasibility report, the views of Ward Members representing the immediate surrounding areas were considered. The junction is located within Huntington and New Earswick Ward, but is very close to three other ward areas as shown on the plan in Annex B. Their key points/comments are summarised below:-

 

·        Cllr Ayre – supported the proposal. 

·        Cllr Runciman - supported the proposal.

·        Cllr Orrell – supported the proposal.

·        Cllr Warters - raised concerns over making this route more attractive to motorists on the A166, which could see traffic increases through Holtby, Murton, and Stockton on the Forest.

·        Cllr Doughty -   Supported the proposal, although appreciated the concerns highlighted by Cllr Warters

·        Cllr Fisher - supported the proposal, and considered the scheme would not add much, if any, additional traffic through Holtby “since everyone already travels that way anyway”.

 

6.     Having considered the findings of the feasibility study, and initial comments from the local Councillors, the Executive Member agreed the following resolution in October 2020:-

 

·        that the findings of the preliminary feasibility investigations were noted and officers were instructed not to progress the proposal any further.

 

·        that officers would continue to consult with local residents and Ward Members on experimental work in the area.

 

 

Ward Councillor Consultation

 

7.    In accordance with part (ii) of the resolution, the latest views of the local Councillors have been sought. Their responses are summarised below:

 

Cllrs Ayre, Orrell, Doughty, and Fisher – all support further work to investigate the possible provision of a left-turn-lane from Hopgrove Lane South onto Malton Road, and suggest Ward Funding could be provided to help this to happen. They would be opposed to banning the right-turn out of Hopgrove Lane South as part of a possible solution. 

 

Cllr Warters – reiterates his concern that making this route more attractive to motorists on the A166 would see traffic increases through Holtby, Murton, and Stockton on the Forest. He would support prohibiting the right-turn out of Hopgrove Lane South onto Malton Road.

 

Options

 

8.    The Executive Member is asked to consider feedback from the latest consultation with Councillors and decide on the way forward. Given that there is still support for pursuing a left-turn lane solution (but not prohibiting the right-turn as part of this) the available options would seem to be:

 

i)     Approve further design work, computer modelling, and road safety assessment of the left-turn lane proposal, part funded from the Ward budgets(50% contribution), with a further report back to help inform a final decision on the scheme being progressed and included in a future Capital Programme. The report back would also consider the need for additional measures to mitigate any significant traffic increases predicted elsewhere and accommodate an improved pedestrian crossing of Hopgrove Lane South at the end of the two lane approach section.

 

ii)   Confirm that the proposal should not be taken any further, and inform petitioners of the reasons (limited benefits, road safety concerns, costs etc.)

 

Analysis

 

9.      The proposal to widen Hopgrove Lane South to provide a second exit lane onto Malton Road is attractive in terms of queuing and delay reduction for motorists, but also carries risks for adding to traffic problems elsewhere. The scheme could also have a negative impact on road safety at the junction. It is an expensive proposal, which would contribute little in terms of meeting transport policy objectives or current Council Plan priorities.

 

10.    In view of the above concerns, officers could not recommend implementing the scheme without any further assessment of the possible downsides. Option i) would defer a decision until traffic modelling is carried out to help answer the concerns of possible impacts elsewhere, and further design work is undertaken to see if safety concerns can be resolved.  However, the left-turn lane proposal would be expensive to implement with limited policy benefits, so Option ii), not taking the proposal any further, is also considered a reasonable choice to make.

 

 

Council Plan

 

11.    The Key Priorities set out in the Council’s Plan 2019-23 are as follows:

 

·        Well-paid jobs and an inclusive economy

·        A greener and cleaner city

·        Getting around sustainably

·        Good health and wellbeing

·        Safe communities and culture for all

·        Creating homes and world-class infrastructure

·        A better start for children and young people

·        An open and effective council

 

 12.   It is not considered that the introduction of the second exit lane on Hopgrove Lane South would make a significant contribution to these priorities, however there is likely to be a reduction in journey times for motorists in the area reducing the economic impact of congestion. The proposal would not encourage any transfer away from car use, but might result in a very small improvement to local air quality by reducing the amount of traffic queuing on Hopgrove Lane South. However, if it attracted more traffic to the road, this benefit could be negated.

 

Implications

 

 13.      

·        Financial - The initial feasibility study has cost around £8K. This was largely funded from the Transport Capital Programme for 19/20, and the balance is being funded from a £10K allocation in the 20/21 Programme. The possible additional modelling work to assess wider impact of a scheme and develop a more detailed design is estimated at £8K. This could also be met from the 20/21 Capital Programme allocation with a 50% match funding contribution from Ward budgets to be confirmed prior to development work commencing. The funding for implementing the scheme, estimated in the region of £120K, would need to be considered for inclusion in a future Capital Programme

 

·        Human Resources (HR) - There are no HR implications.

 

·        One Planet Council / Equalities - There are no equalities implications.

 

·        Legal - There are no legal implications.

 

·        Crime and Disorder - There are no crime and disorder implications,

  

·        Information Technology (IT) - There are no IT implications.

 

·        Property - There are no property implications.

 

Risk Management

 

14.    Physical - there is always a potential for new road safety issues to arise whenever an existing traffic arrangement is altered, and potential for traffic diversions. Mitigation would be via traffic modelling, and further stages of road safety audit during the design.

 

15.      Organisation/Reputation - there is a risk of criticism from the public in implementing a scheme to which some people may have objections, but equally there could also be criticism from potential supporters of the scheme if it is not implemented. Good quality consultation should ensure that well-informed decisions are made about the scheme and reduce the risk of public criticism.

 

16.

                                                                                     

Risk Category

Impact

Likelihood

Score

Physical

Medium

Unlikely

6

Organisation/Reputation

Medium

Unlikely

6

 

Measured in terms of impact and likelihood, the risk scores have all been assessed at lower than 16. This means that at this point, the risks need only to be monitored, as they do not provide a threat to the achievement of the objectives of this report.

 

 

Contact Details

 

Author:

 

Chief Officer Responsible for the report:

 

Mike Durkin

Engineer

(Transport Projects)

 

Tel No. 553459

 

 

James Gilchrist

Assistant Director of Transport, Highways and Environment

 

Report Approved

√

Date

13 January 2021

 

 

 

Wards Affected:    

                               Huntington and New Earswick

                               Heworth Without

                               Strensall

                               Osbaldwick and Derwent  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For further information please contact the author of the report.

 

 

 

Background Papers:

 

“Hopgrove Lane South Petition”    - report to Executive Member for Transport and Planning Decision Session meeting on 15/2/2018.

 

“Hopgrove Lane South - Proposed Left Turn Lane”   - report to Executive Member for Transport and Planning Decision Session meeting on 20/10/2020

 

 

Annexes:

 

Annex A - Outline Design Plan

 

Annex B - Ward Boundaries