princes risborough transport study - wycombe · 2017-08-15 · princes risborough transport study...

Princes Risborough Transport Study

Buckinghamshire County Council/ Wycombe District Council

Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

B12798D8/001 | 0

12 February 2016


Stage 1 Opti on Assessment Report

Bucki nghamshire C ounty C ouncil/ Wycombe District Council


B12798D8/001 i


Project no: B12798D8

Document title: Stage 1 Option Assessment Report

Document No.: B12798D8/001

Revision: 0

Date: 12 February 2016

Client name: Buckinghamshire County Council/ Wycombe District Council

Client no: Princes Risborough Transport Study

Project manager: Stephen Moody

Author: Stephen Moody

File name: M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Reports\Princes

Risborough OAR Rev 0_20160212_FINAL.docx

Jacobs U.K. Limited

1180 Eskdale Road

Winnersh, Wokingham

Reading RG41 5TU

United Kingdom

T +44 (0)118 946 7000

F +44 (0)118 946 7001

www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2016 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of

this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the

provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance

upon, this report by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

A 23/11/2015 Princes Risborough Options Assessment Report (DRAFT) S. Moody R. Smith R. Smith

0 12/2/2016 Princes Risborough Options Assessment Report (FINAL) S. Moody R. Smith R. Smith


B12798D8/001 ii

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of report ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Study background ........................................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Overview of the assessment ....................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Structure of Report ...................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Policy and Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 7

3. Current Situation ....................................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.2 Land use and demographics ....................................................................................................................... 8

3.3 Transport networks ...................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.1 Highway network ......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.2 Pedestrian ................................................................................................................................................. 10

3.3.3 Cycling ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

3.3.4 Bus............................................................................................................................................................. 11

3.3.5 Rail............................................................................................................................................................. 12

3.4 Route performance .................................................................................................................................... 14

3.4.1 Existing movements .................................................................................................................................. 14

3.4.2 Travel patterns ........................................................................................................................................... 16

3.4.3 Capacity and capability.............................................................................................................................. 18

3.4.4 Speed and journey time analysis .............................................................................................................. 18

3.4.5 Collisions ................................................................................................................................................... 22

3.5 Environment .............................................................................................................................................. 24

3.5.1 Air quality ................................................................................................................................................... 24

3.5.2 Noise and vibration .................................................................................................................................... 24

3.5.3 Cultural heritage ........................................................................................................................................ 24

3.5.4 Landscape ................................................................................................................................................. 25

3.5.5 Ecology and nature conservation .............................................................................................................. 26

3.5.6 Geology and soils ...................................................................................................................................... 27

3.5.7 Road drainage and water environment ..................................................................................................... 27

3.5.8 Effect on all travellers ................................................................................................................................ 27

3.5.9 Community and private assets .................................................................................................................. 28

3.5.10 Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 28

3.6 Constraints and opportunities .................................................................................................................... 28

3.6.1 Constraints ................................................................................................................................................ 28

3.6.2 Physical constraints ................................................................................................................................... 29

3.6.3 Legal and institutional constraints ............................................................................................................. 29

3.6.4 Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................. 30

4. Future Situation ....................................................................................................................................... 31

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 31

4.2 Forecasting and scenario development .................................................................................................... 31


B12798D8/001 iii

4.2.1 Committed road infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 32

4.3 Future route performance (Scenario B) ..................................................................................................... 32

4.3.1 Traffic movements ..................................................................................................................................... 32

4.3.2 Capacity and capability.............................................................................................................................. 32

4.3.3 Journey time analysis ................................................................................................................................ 32

4.4 Public transport .......................................................................................................................................... 35

4.4.1 East-West Rail ........................................................................................................................................... 35

4.4.2 HS2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 36

4.5 Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 36

5. Need for Intervention .............................................................................................................................. 37

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 37

5.2 Consultation and engagement process ..................................................................................................... 37

5.2.1 Overview of process .................................................................................................................................. 37

5.3 Summary of current transport related problems and driver/ causes ......................................................... 37

5.4 Impacts of not changing (future problems) ................................................................................................ 40

5.4.1 Impacts on movement and accessibility .................................................................................................... 40

5.4.2 Impacts on economic growth and prosperity ............................................................................................. 41

6. Objectives and Area of Impact ............................................................................................................... 42

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 42

6.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 42

6.2.1 Regional and local policy ........................................................................................................................... 42

6.2.2 Stakeholder objectives .............................................................................................................................. 43

6.2.3 Princes Risborough Steering Group objectives ........................................................................................ 44

6.2.4 Objective summary .................................................................................................................................... 44

6.3 Targets ...................................................................................................................................................... 45

6.4 Geographic area of impact ........................................................................................................................ 45

7. Option Generation ................................................................................................................................... 47

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 47

7.2 Option generation ...................................................................................................................................... 47

7.2.1 Princes Risborough Area Transport Study (January 2014) ...................................................................... 47

7.2.2 Public open day ......................................................................................................................................... 47

7.2.3 Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop ......................................................................................... 47

7.2.4 Other options ............................................................................................................................................. 47

8. Initial Sifting ............................................................................................................................................. 56

8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 56

8.2 Pre-EAST sifting and assessment ............................................................................................................. 56

8.3 Early assessment and sifting ..................................................................................................................... 58

8.4 Options for appraisal ................................................................................................................................. 60

9. Development and Assessment of Options ........................................................................................... 62

9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 62

9.2 Assessment methodology ......................................................................................................................... 62


B12798D8/001 iv

9.3 Stages 1 to 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 64

9.4 Stage 4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 64

9.4.1 Evaluation of options against project objectives ....................................................................................... 64

9.4.2 Summary of stage 4 .................................................................................................................................. 79

9.5 Stage 5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 80

9.5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 80

9.5.2 Summary of scheme costs for TUBA ........................................................................................................ 81

9.5.3 Economic impacts of the options ............................................................................................................... 82

9.5.4 Strategic case ............................................................................................................................................ 83

9.5.5 Economic case (value for money) ............................................................................................................. 85

9.5.6 Financial case ............................................................................................................................................ 87

9.5.7 Commercial case ....................................................................................................................................... 88

9.5.8 Management case ..................................................................................................................................... 89

9.6 Preferred option ......................................................................................................................................... 89

9.7 Wider transport strategy ............................................................................................................................ 90

10. Summary and Next Steps ....................................................................................................................... 95

10.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 95

10.1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 95

10.1.2 The scheme and project objectives ........................................................................................................... 95

10.1.3 Need for intervention ................................................................................................................................. 96

10.1.4 Scheme development and appraisal ......................................................................................................... 96

10.1.5 Economic assessment............................................................................................................................... 96

10.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 96

Appendix A. Transport Planning Policy Review

Appendix B. Environmental Constraints Plans

Appendix C. Uncertainty Logs

Appendix D. EAST Outputs

Appendix E. TEE, PA and AMCB Tables

Appendix F. Appraisal Summary Table

Appendix G. TUBA Outputs

Appendix H. Preliminary Scheme Costs


B12798D8/001 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of report

Jacobs is the framework consultant to the Transport for Buckinghamshire Alliance (TfB) between Ringway

Jacobs and Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC). Under the terms of this contract, Jacobs is commissioned

to undertake transport planning, modelling and assessment studies on behalf of the County Council, working in

partnership with the District Councils.

Jacobs has been commissioned by BCC and Wycombe District Council (WDC) to produce a Stage 1 Option

Assessment Report (OAR) and Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) to support a Buckinghamshire Thames

Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (BTVLEP) bid for financial support from the Department for Transport (DfT).

The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of a WebTAG scheme appraisal process to determine the

preferred alignment and form of a western relief road (WRR) at Princes Risborough.

The findings from this OAR also inform the delivery of the emerging Area Action Plan for Princes Risborough,

the Princes Risborough Town Plan (PRTP)). The study area for this OAR is shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 OAR study area


B12798D8/001 2

1.2 Study background

The BTVLEP strategic economic growth plan sets out objectives, priorities and strategic transport aims, which

are summarised in Table 1.1. The need to improve connectivity, reduce congestion, improve journey times, and

journey time reliability are noted as being objectives that are critical when considering options for a western

relief road of Princes Risborough.

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Strategic Economic Growth Plan

BTVLEP objectives Priorities

Stimulate more smart

sustainable business growth • Promote business resource efficiency and resilience.

Bring forward the necessary

business critical infrastructure

• Making our major transport infrastructure fit for our economic purpose.

• Ensuring housing growth develops appropriately to meet the needs of

businesses and communities.

BTVLEP strategic transport

aims

• Improving connectivity between the national road network and key

employment hubs.

• Improving connectivity between major settlements and key economic

centres.

• Improving connectivity between major settlements and existing/new rail

connections.

• Supporting employment and housing enabling transport infrastructure;

• Supporting the regeneration of our town centres.

• Reducing congestion, improving journey times and journey time reliability.

• Ensuring we maintain a high quality of life and natural environment, by

promoting low carbon vehicles, innovative travel solutions; and reducing

the inefficiency in existing transport systems.

• Delivering a more co-ordinated and commercial approach to transport

infrastructure and land-use planning.

Table 1.1: BTVLEP objectives, priorities and aims

Without intervention, the existing network in Princes Risborough will constrain employment and housing growth

along the Princes Risborough corridor, impacting Aylesbury and High Wycombe as well as the local area.

Productivity and prosperity are highest in those areas with higher value industries and high jobs densities. One

of the key objectives outlined in BTVLEP’s SEP is to stimulate sustainable business growth, with priorities

including, amongst others, improving Buckinghamshire’s export performance; operating an “open for business”

planning service; and stimulating high growth start-up businesses. In supporting this, however, recognition is

given to the critical inter-dependencies between economic growth and Buckinghamshire’s transport network.

The costs from associated traffic growth and congestion may impede the deliverability of planned/designated

residential and employment lands uses within the town and negatively impact the competiveness of existing

businesses using the A4010 corridor. Increased traffic congestion will increase lost productive time for business

travellers and commuters as it lengthens the distance between labour markets and businesses, which can affect

commuting patterns, and reduce the potential for business-to-business activity. There is a risk that the benefit of

locating in the A4010 corridor may not be realised should business and business critical infrastructure not come

forward.

The A4010 also forms an inter-urban route which is used by freight. Congestion on these routes will impede the

efficient movement of goods. The delays experienced by freight traffic on these routes as a result of increased


B12798D8/001 3

traffic volumes and the interaction with local traffic will generate productivity losses to businesses at a regional

level.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012. This consolidated policy

statements, circulars, and guidance documents into a single concise framework. The NPPF outlines the

governments’ economic, environmental, and social planning priorities for England, assisting the production of

robust local and neighbourhood plans. Local authorities are required to prepare plans that accommodate new

development meeting objectively assessed local needs and priorities.

WDC is developing a new Local Plan for the district, and there is an opportunity for new road infrastructure to

support this. Once adopted, the WDLP will replace the existing adopted Core Strategy (2008) and the saved

policies from the existing Local Plan (2004). The intent of the WDLP includes:

• setting of housing targets for the district and addressing strategic housing issues, including housing and

mixed use allocations;

• policies and proposals for the protection and provision of employment land;

• site specific proposals for local communities; and

• the setting of detailed policies to manage development.

Ahead of the new Local Plan, WDC is bringing forward an Area Action Plan for the town of Princes Risborough,

the Princes Risborough Town Plan (PRTP). The intention of the Area Action Plan is to allocate land for up to

2500 homes to the north of the Risborough-Aylesbury railway lane, together with supporting infrastructure. To

assist the delivery of these homes, new road infrastructure will be required to relieve the existing highway

network and distribute traffic from the development. The emerging development will also need to provide

infrastructure to support direct connectivity to the railway station by walking and cycling.

1.3 Overview of the assessment

The overall objective of this study is to produce an OAR to support a funding submission. The key tasks that

need to be completed during the project are:

• review and document the current situation;

• analyse the future situation;

• identify the need for intervention;

• establish targets/ objectives that are consistent with national and local policies and desired outcomes;

• generate options that address the targets and objectives; and

• review and assess the potential options.

This will build upon the previous Princes Risborough Area Transport Study (Jacobs, 2014)1 and Princes

Risborough Background Report (Tibbalds, 2014)2 and allow an understanding of the opportunities and

constraints that lead to the development of the shortlisted options. These will be reviewed, and a preferred

option selected, based on a balanced view of the transport and economic analysis.

This OAR will provide the following, in order to meet the requirements set out within the DfT Transport Appraisal

Process3:

• A sound body of analysis to provide evidence of the problems, challenges and need for intervention,

framed within the context of relevant policy and strategy objectives.

• A future ‘without intervention’ scenario, considering potential scenarios.

1 Jacobs, 2014, Wycombe District Local Plan, Princes Risborough Area Transport Study 2 Tibbalds, 2014, Princes Risborough Background Report http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/new-

local-plan/princes-risborough.aspx 3 DfT, 2014. Transport Analysis Guidance: The Transport Appraisal Process.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275728/webtag-tag-transport-appraisal-process.pdf


B12798D8/001 4

• Identified study objectives and intended outcomes, and sufficient information to facilitate an understanding

of the links between issues and context and the final statement of objectives.

• Details of the stakeholder engagement strategy adopted.

• Option generation, initial sifting, and assessment. Decisions made on discarded options will be recorded,

along with supporting evidence.

• Development of options, including indicative road alignments to identify the key areas for intervention with

cost estimates. The DfT’s Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) will be used to assist the prioritisation

of the options.

The DfT’s Transport Appraisal Process4 describes the steps to be undertaken in the Stage 1 (Option

Development) Process. These are outlined in Figure 1.2 and described in more detail in the following sections

of this OAR.

The BCC countywide strategic model is used to inform the process and test the scheme options. Appraisal of

the schemes utilises EAST and also considers the options in the context of the project specific objectives, which

were identified during discussion with stakeholders and the Princes Risborough Steering Group. The modelling

data would be used to demonstrate the benefit-cost ratio of the preferred schemes using TUBA.

4 DfT, 2014. Transport Analysis Guidance: The Transport Appraisal Process. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275728/webtag-tag-transport-appraisal-

process.pdf#nameddest=chptr02


B12798D8/001 5

Figure 1.2 Stage 1 OAR process (Source: WebTAG Transport Appraisal Process)


B12798D8/001 6

1.4 Structure of Report

This report follows the steps relating to the Stage 1 process as set out in WebTAG and summarised above. The

structure of this OAR is as follows:

• Section 1 – Introduction – outlines the purpose and background of the report.

• Section 2 – Policy review – reviews relevant policy and strategy documents to establish the strategic policy

context in the study area.

• Section 3 – Current situation – describes existing transportation conditions to provide an understanding of

existing transport supply and demand.

• Section 4 – Future situation – presents forecast traffic conditions under a ‘Without Intervention’ scenario

and describes future land-uses and policies, and committed changes to the transport system.

• Section 5 – Need for intervention – summarises current and future transport-related problems and

underlying causes that establish the need for an intervention.

• Section 6 – Objectives and study area – sets out the objectives of the study and geographical area of

impact.

• Section 7 – Option generation – develops a range of interventions in order to achieve the study objectives

identified.

• Section 8 – Initial sifting - summarises the results of EAST.

• Section 9 – Development and assessment of options – assesses potential options against the ‘5 cases

model’ criteria.

• Section 10 – Summary and next steps – Summarises the results of this OAR and presents the preferred

option.


B12798D8/001 7

2. Policy and Literature Review

The assessment of the schemes considered in this OAR must be consistent with planning policy. This section

outlines the key strategies and policies relating to planning and transport as articulated at the national, regional

and local level. Figure 2.1 provides a summary of these policies and an extended review is included in

Appendix A.

Figure 2.1 Summary of national, regional and local policies

There is a common theme throughout the regional and local policy/ strategy regarding the A4010. The BTVLEP

plan refers to the importance of improving north-south journey time reliability. The A4010 is a corridor that could

fall within this aim because it connects Aylesbury and High Wycombe. However, there is currently no definitive

statement in BTVLEP or BCC policy which defines the preferred north-south corridor. Locally the policies focus

on the need to reduce the severance caused by the A4010 and improve accessibility to the town centre and

railway station.

In addition, the emerging WDC local plan and BTVLEP plan both include aspirations to provide for and/ or

promote economic growth in the region. Therefore, a key role of the new road should be to facilitate growth in

housing and jobs in Princes Risborough, and support growth of the economy in the wider BTVLEP area.

• NPPF

• Localism Act

• Planning Practice Guidance

Nationa

l

• BTVLEP Strategic Economic

Plan

• BCC Local Transport Plan

LTP3 Regio

na

l

• LTP3 Local Area Strategy

• Wycombe District LDF

• Community Infrastructure Levy

• Longwick-cum llmer Parish

Neighbourhood Plan

Local

Set the strategic policy context, which is

underpinned by a presumption in favour of

sustainable development.

Enables decisions to be taken locally.

A robust assessment of transport implications

should be undertaken. Transport evidence should

assess existing and future situations.

Assessments should be undertaken in Partnership

and included local stakeholders.

Sets the regional policy context.

Defines the strategic transport aims (outlined in

Table 1.1), including importance of north-south

connectivity.

Encourage behaviour change but also outline the

need for new infrastructure and congestion management

Set the local policy context

Manage the challenge of development growth,

negative impacts of the A4010, local accessibility, and parking provision and management.

Divisive impact of the through traffic in the town

centre.

Facilitate growth in new housing development in

Princes Risborough and surrounding parishes.

Improve multi-modal transport connections.


B12798D8/001 8

3. Current Situation

3.1 Introduction

This section provides a summary of the existing land use, demographics, and transportation infrastructure

supply and demand. Travel conditions within the study area are described using a variety of metrics including

traffic volume, journey patterns, and congestion and delay. Provision for public transport and non-motorised

users is also described.

3.2 Land use and demographics

Princes Risborough has an established town centre, schools, and community facilities. The town centre

includes a mix of comparison and convenience retail stores, including a Tesco foodstore which is accessed via

the New Road/ Longwick Road/ Aylesbury Road/ Duke Road/ Tesco roundabout.

Risborough Community Centre is located west of the town centre, north of Stratton Road, and the town

council’s office is accessed from Clifford Road. There are two state primary schools in the local area (Princes

Risborough Primary and Monks Risborough Primary) and a secondary school (Princes Risborough School).

There is an independent school for children aged 5 to 11 (St Teresa’s Catholic Independent School). There are

three main employment areas. Two of these are located close to Princes Risborough Station, and the third is

north of the town centre and railway line to and from Aylesbury.

The 2011 Census shows that the area had a total population of 8,101. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of

households owning various numbers of vehicles within the study area. Overall, 82% of households have

access to at least one car or van. This is lower than the overall figure for Wycombe District which is 86%, but

higher than the 74% average for England.

Figure 3.1 2011 Census household vehicle ownership (Source ONS)

The main means of travel to work for working age (16 – 74) residents who reside in the study area is shown in

Figure 3.2. A total of 43% of working age residents drive a car or van as their main method of travel to work,

with 8% using public transport. The corresponding percentage for those driving a car or van for this purpose in

England is 37%, with 11% using public transport. The statistics for Wycombe District are similar to those for the

study area. Overall, the study area is characterised by relatively high car ownership and a relatively high

proportion of travel to work by car or van.


B12798D8/001 9

Figure 3.2 2011 Census main method of travel to work (Source: ONS)

3.3 Transport networks

3.3.1 Highway network

Princes Risborough is located in south - central Buckinghamshire, situated approximately eight miles north-west

of High Wycombe and nine miles south-west of Aylesbury. The highway network is shown in Figure 3.3.

Princes Risborough is located on the A4010 corridor which is a north-south route between Aylesbury and High

Wycombe. Destinations around Princes Risborough include Aylesbury and Leighton Buzzard to the north,

Thame and Oxford to the west, High Wycombe and the Thames Valley to the south, and Amersham to the east.

Access to the north and south is provided by the A4010.

The closest access points to the strategic road network are provided by the M40 Junction 4 at High Wycombe

(10 miles to the south) and the M40 Junction 6 at Lewknor (nine miles to the south west). The M40 Junction 5 at

Stokenchurch offers an alternative access for journeys to/ from Princes Risborough, but this is less direct.

Princes Risborough Town Centre is served by four key access points. In addition to the A4010 (north and

south), access from the north-west is via the A4129 Thame Road and to the south east via New Road. The

primary route converges in the town centre at New Road, with roundabouts at Longwick Road / Aylesbury Road

and at Bell Street.


B12798D8/001 10

Figure 3.3 Highway network

3.3.2 Pedestrian

The 2011 Census shows that 7% of people travel on foot as part of their journey to work within the Princes

Risborough area. The potential for walking as a transport mode for local trips is good given the size of the

settlement and topography of the area.

The A4010 severs the east and west of the town and is a barrier to the attractiveness of east – west journeys on

foot. A number of pedestrian crossings have been provided to assist pedestrians including zebra crossings on

New Road and on the northern arm of the New Road / Longwick Road / Aylesbury Road roundabout. There are

two signalised crossings on Bell Street in the vicinity of High Street and just south of Park Street and one further

signalised crossing to the north near Windsor Hill.

The most direct walking routes to Princes Risborough Station from the town centre are via the A4010 and

Station Road and via Manor Park Avenue which connects with the High Street. However it is noted that Manor

Park Avenue is a private road.

The railway lines are also barriers to pedestrian movement, although there are at- grade crossings (which

Network Rail will ultimately seek to remove) and footways beneath the bridges at Summerleys Road, Longwick

Road, and Mill Lane.

N

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown

copyright and database right 2014


B12798D8/001 11

3.3.3 Cycling

Cycling makes up less than 1% of journey to work trips within the Princes Risborough area (Census 2011).

Princes Risborough is relatively flat and borders a number of local and regional recreational routes in particular

those associated with the Chilterns. However, the pattern of journey to work trips in the area is characterised by

longer distance journeys where cycling is unlikely to offer a reasonable alternative to the private car.

Notwithstanding this, it is considered there is significant potential to increase the level of cycling use in the area.

There are three cycle routes traversing the Princes Risborough area, most of which are on-road rather than

traffic free routes. These routes include National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 57 which is a 69 mile route

between Oxford and Thame. The section from Thame to Princes Risborough follows the Phoenix Trail which

enters Princes Risborough via Horsenden Lane and Picts Lane and passes through quiet residential streets

before arriving at New Road. The route departs Princes Risborough via Kop Hill to the east.

The Icknield Way is a cycle route between Princes Risborough Station and New Road to the east as an

alternative to the NCN R57. The Chilterns Cycleway passes close to Princes Risborough Secondary School via

a route using Brimmers Road and Kop Hill. These routes are shown in Figure 3.45.

Note 1: Off-road routes indicated in green, on-road routes indicated in purple

Figure 3.4 Princes Risborough area cycle route network

3.3.4 Bus

Princes Risborough is served by buses, including a service between Aylesbury and High Wycombe, which

passes through the town centre. Table 3.1 shows the bus routes, destinations, and frequencies. Princes

Risborough is also served by the Risborough Area Community Bus (RACB). The RACB operates six different

routes at different times of the day.

5 Sustrans http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map

NCN R57

NCN R57

Chilterns

Cycleway

NCN R57

N

Map data © 2014 Google


B12798D8/001 12

The bus services in Princes Risborough provide an opportunity to access a number of neighbouring settlements

and wider destinations by sustainable means. Longer distance journeys are better provided for than local urban

services in terms of service frequency. There is a target within the LTP3 Implementation Plan for 85% of all bus

services across the county to run on time and to increase bus patronage.

Route No Route Name Frequency (each way)

300 High Wycombe - Princes Risborough - Aylesbury

Mon - Fri: 2-3/hour

Sa: 1-3/hour

Su: 1/hour

321 High Wycombe - Princes Risborough - Aylesbury Mon - Fri: 4/day

320 Chinnor – Princes Risborough - Chinnor Mon - Fri: 7 to 9/day

120 & 121 Thame – Chinnor – Princes Risborough 2/day (not every day)

113 Oakley – Princes Risborough Tue & Thu: 3/day

621 Downley (The Pastures) - Princes Risborough

School

Mon - Fri: 1/day

School term only

RCB: Risborough

Community Buses

Monks Risborough Loop Mon - Sat: 3-6/day

Chestnut Rd/Northfield Rd Loop Mon - Sat: 3-6/day

Longwick Loop Mon - Sat: 3-5/day

Bledlow Ridge Loop Wed & Fri: 2-3/day

Speen Loop Tue & Sat: 2-3/day

Askett & Kimbles Loop Mon & Thu: 2-3/day

Table 3.1: Local bus routes

3.3.5 Rail

There are three railway stations within 4 km of the centre of Princes Risborough:

• Princes Risborough (Chiltern Main Line) 1 km from the town centre;

• Monks Risborough (local branch line between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury) 1.3 km from the town

centre; and

• Little Kimble (local branch line between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury) 3.6 km from the town centre.

The services from these stations connect to destinations that include London, Birmingham, Aylesbury and High

Wycombe. A summary of the AM and PM peak hour frequencies are shown in Figure 3.5. Journey times to

London Marylebone are currently on average between 40 to 50 minutes, with the fastest being 39 minutes.

There is a half hourly service to Birmingham Snow Hill via Bicester and Banbury. The local branch line

connects the town to London via Aylesbury and Amersham with stops at Monks Risborough (4 minutes journey

time) and Little Kimble. The journey time from Princes Risborough to Aylesbury is approximately 20 minutes and there is currently an hourly service.

There is a car park at Princes Risborough Station providing 280 spaces and 12 storage spaces for bicycles.

There is also an overflow parking provision for approximately 50 cars. There are limited bus services operating

directly from the station. Redline Buses Route 320 is a commuter service between Chinnor and Princes

Risborough via Bledlow, which runs at peak times on Monday to Friday only. There is a taxi rank at the station

served by three local operators. The smaller, unmanned station at Monks Risborough has no car park but it provides five bicycle storage spaces. A summary of the rail facilities and services is shown in Figure 3.5.


B12798D8/001 13

The rail patronage (passenger entry and exits) at Princes Risborough and Monks Risborough is available from

the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)6. The data shows that there has been an overall increase in passengers

using the Princes Risborough Station during the last ten years. The trend at Princes Risborough shows a

reduction in patronage between 2008 and 2011, during the global financial crisis. There has been a return to

growth in patronage since 2011.

The trend at Monks Risborough shows a decline in patronage during the last ten years and greater fluctuations,

with variation observed year on year. The station may experience greater patronage, following expansion of rail

services between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury, but the timing of this intervention is still to be determined

by Network Rail.

Monks Risborough Princes Risborough

2004-05 27,286 458,521

2005-06 22,485 412,564

2006-07 22,940 460,575

2007-08 24,384 501,080

2008-09 22,710 482,708

2009-10 20,530 471,394

2010-11 20,582 468,960

2011-12 23,570 494,858

2012-13 20,520 547,262

2013-14 18,630 568,630

Table 3.2: Rail patronage (total yearly boardings) at Monks Risborough and Princes Risborough

6 http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates


B12798D8/001 14

Figure 3.5 Rail facilities in the Princes Risborough area

3.4 Route performance

BCC has developed a transport model for a base year 2013 which can provide information relating to travel

patterns, costs of travel, traffic flows, travel costs, journey times, and volume/ capacity. This model has been

utilised to inform understanding of the existing network and junction performance, supplemented by data and

work undertaken as part of previous transport studies of Princes Risborough. The performance of the model in

the local area has been calibrated and validated using traffic surveys undertaken in 2013.

3.4.1 Existing movements

The AM and PM peak hour traffic volume plots have been extracted from the BCC Countywide model, and are

shown in Figures 3.6 and 3.7 respectively. These show that the A4010 experiences between 500 and 1000

vehicles in each direction during the AM and PM peak hours. The plots also suggest that there is a greater

volume of traffic travelling toward High Wycombe in the AM peak hour, and towards Aylesbury in the PM peak

hour. The plots also show that the A4010 carries a greater volume of traffic than the B4009.


B12798D8/001 15

Figure 3.6 2013 AM peak hour traffic volume plots

Figure 3.7 2013 PM peak hour traffic volume plots

N

N


B12798D8/001 16

3.4.2 Travel patterns

The mode split from the travel to work statistics was discussed previously. A total of 43% of working age

residents drive a car or van as their main method of travel to work, with 8% using public transport. This includes

all trips to destinations within and external to Princes Risborough. Analysis of travel to work trips that have both

their origin and destination in Princes Risborough shows (Figure 3.8) that walking is the dominant mode, with

driving a car or van marginally lower at 37%. The primary destination is the town centre, emphasising the need

for quality connections to and from this area.

It is understood that an important feature of the operation of the local road network in Princes Risborough is a

dominant north-south movement of traffic through the town between Aylesbury and High Wycombe in each

peak period. An Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) survey was undertaken in 2013 and supplements

the information available in the BCC Countywide model. A review of the BCC Countywide model quantifies the

proportion of trips undertaking the north-south through movement on the A4010 through Princes Risborough

during the peak hours, and this is consistent with the results of the ANPR survey.

• AM peak south to north 44% of vehicles

• AM peak north to south 25% of vehicles

• PM peak south to north 35% of vehicles

• PM peak north to south 25% of vehicles


B12798D8/001 17

Figure 3.8 2011 Census travel to work statistics (internal to Princes Risborough)


B12798D8/001 18

3.4.3 Capacity and capability

The traffic volumes in the AM and PM peak hours have been compared with the capacity on the links in the

network. The volume/ capacity plots for the AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figures 3.9 and 3.10

respectively.

These show the following:

• AM peak hour:

- links approaching capacity in both directions between the A4010/ B4444 and A4010/ New Road

junctions; and

- links approaching capacity in the southbound direction between the A4010/ The Avenue and A4010/

Longwick Road junctions.

• PM peak hour:

- links approaching capacity in southbound direction between the A4010/ B4444 and A4010/ New Road

junctions;

- links over capacity in northbound direction between the A4010/ B4444 and A4010/ New Road

junctions;

- links approaching capacity in northbound direction between the A4010/ Poppy Road and A4010/

B4444 junctions; and

- links approaching capacity in the northbound direction between the A4010/ The Avenue and A4010/

Longwick Road junctions.

There are locations in the road network which are constrained with height and width restrictions. The locations

of these are shown in Figure 3.11. These restrain the capacity and capability of the network in these locations.

3.4.4 Speed and journey time analysis

The posted speed limits on the A4010, A4009, Summerleys Road, Longwick Road, Mill Lane, Cadsden Road,

Picts Lane, Shootacre Lane, and Bridge Street in the Princes Risborough area vary from 20mph to national

speed limit. The posted limit on the A4010 through Princes Risborough is 30mph, although sections on the

approaches have speeds of either 40mph or 50mph.

The BCC Countywide model allows understanding of traffic speeds on links and delay at junctions in the

network. This data has been extracted from the model and the AM and PM information is shown in Figures

3.12 and 3.13 respectively. These show that there are significantly reduced link speeds on the links prior to

junctions on the A4010 in the centre of Princes Risborough.

The following junctions also experience delay of greater than one minute:

• Grove Lane/ A4010 (during both the AM and PM peak hours); and

• Summerleys Road/ Regents Park (during the PM peak hour).

There are multiple other junctions along the A4010 corridor which experience delay of between 30 and 60

seconds.

The journey times on the A4010 between the junctions with Grove Lane and Shootacre Lane were extracted

from the BCC Countywide model and show the following:

• AM peak southbound: 11 minutes 7 seconds;

• PM peak southbound: 10 minutes 8 seconds;

• AM peak northbound: 10 minutes 9 seconds; and

• PM peak northbound: 11 minutes 41 seconds.


B12798D8/001 19

Figure 3.9 AM peak hour v/c plots (2013)

Figure 3.10 PM peak hour v/c plots (2013)

N

N


B12798D8/001 20

Figure 3.11 Height restrictions and one-way roads in Princes Risborough

N


B12798D8/001 21

Figure 3.12 AM peak hour link speed and delay (2013)

Figure 3.13 PM peak hour link speed and delay (2013)

N

N


B12798D8/001 22

3.4.5 Collisions

An analysis of Stat19 data for the period from January 2005 to December 2013 shows that a total of 222

personal injury accidents (PIAs) were recorded in the study area. The extent of the study area is shown in Figure 3.14.

Of the 222 PIAs, two (1%) were classified as fatal, 35 (16%) serious and 185 (83%) as slight. The data shows

that 56% of the PIAs were recorded at junctions. This is slightly below national DfT statistics7, however, which

reported that PIAs at or within 20 metres of junctions amounted to 61% of the total in 2013. The heat map shown in Figure 3.15 highlights clusters where there is a high concentration of PIAs in the study area.

Table 3.3 summarises total collisions by year. Whilst there have been some fluctuations, the data shows that there has been a downward trend and stabilisation at around 20 PIAs per year since 2010.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

40 29 25 22 30 17 21 20 18

Table 3.3 Number of collisions per year (2005 to 2013)

36 PIAs were recorded in the town centre during the same period. 31 were slight and five were serious. Three

of the PIAs involved motorbikes, three involved a cyclist and 13 involved pedestrians (five of which were at a

pedestrian crossing). The majority of the PIAs occurred in fine weather when the road surface was dry,

indicating weather conditions do not have a particular impact on the PIA rate in this area. The majority recorded also occurred during the day (86%) concurrent with greater daytime traffic volumes.

High densities of vehicular PIAs were also identified at the following locations:

• A4010 Wycombe Road junction with Upper Icknield Way

• A4010 Risborough Road junction with Grove Lane

• Lower Icknield Way junction with Mill Lane

• A4010 Aylesbury Road /New Road/ Longwick Road junction and A4010 New Road / Bell Street junction

through the town centre

7 Department for Transport statistics https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2013


B12798D8/001 23

Figure 3.14 Locations of collisions (2005 to 2013)

Figure 3.15 Density of collisions (2005 to 2013)


B12798D8/001 24

3.5 Environment

A desktop study of the environmental baseline was undertaken using the following sources:

• Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database;

• AQMAs Interactive Map (Defra, 2015);

• What’s in your Backyard (Environment Agency, 2015);

• Geology of Britain Viewer (British Geological Society, 2015);

• Designated Sites (Natural England 2015);

• River Basin Management Plan Thames River Basin District (Environment Agency, 2009);

• Princes Risborough. Buckinghamshire Historic Town Assessment Report (Bucks CC, 2009);

• NCA Profile: 110 Chilterns (NE406) (Natural England, 2014);

• NCA Profile: 108 Upper Thames Clay Vales (NE570) (Natural England, 2014); and

• Ecological Record Centre data (Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre).

The assessment has been based on a high level desk based study using indicative road alignments for the

option. No surveys or specialist assessments have been carried out at this stage.

The study area used was a 1 km buffer around the potential road alignments unless stated otherwise. Appendix

B includes a drawing that shows the existing environmental constraints.

3.5.1 Air quality

There are no designated air quality management areas (AQMA) within 2 km of the scheme. The nearest

AQMAs are located within Aylesbury and on the M40. Annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in

Princes Risborough were monitored in 2011 and were found to be below the NO2 annual mean objective

(40µg/m3)8; since 2012 the diffusion tubes at this site have been removed and monitoring ceased.

3.5.2 Noise and vibration

The existing transport noise climate is dominated by road traffic emanating from the A4010 and the A4129.

Potential noise receptors include residential and other properties along these roads.

3.5.3 Cultural heritage

Princes Risborough and the neighbouring parish of Monks Risborough have a historic nature with nine built

Conservation Areas within Princes Risborough Town Centre and the surrounding area. These Conservation

Areas are located in Meadle, Askett, Alscot, Horsenden, Princes Risborough, Monks Risborough, Whiteleaf,

Ellesborough, and Bledlow.

There are five Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) locally:

• Roundabout Wood moated site, fishponds, and farming settlement remains, located in Saunderton;

• Anglo-Saxon cemetery on Hemley Hill, located 50m west of Shootacre Lane;

• Roman villa 140m east of St Mary and St Nicholas’ church;

• moated site and associated medieval remains 430m north of Church Farm; and

• The Mount, located approximately 250m south-west of the A4129/A4010 roundabout in Princes

Risborough.

There are a further four SAMs approximately 1km north-east of Princes Risborough.

8 Air Quality Consultants (2012) – 2012 Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment: Wycombe District Council


B12798D8/001 25

Meadle Conservation Area is located approximately 300m north-west of the junction between Lower Icknield

Way and Cadsdean Road and contains a total of 14 Listed Buildings. There is also a grade II Listed Building,

Flint Cottage, north of Grove Lane, in Little Kimble.

There is a grade II Listed Building (signal box) adjacent to the railway line just west of Station Road, and five

grade II Listed Buildings within the Alscot Conservation Area along Longwick Road. There are four grade II

Listed Buildings, and a grade II* Listed Building (Church of St Michael and All Angels) at the end of Horsenden

Lane which is within Horsenden Conservation Area. There are two grade II Listed Buildings close to Longwick

(Longwick Mill and Woodbine Cottage), just north of Summerleys Road.

Chequers grade II Registered Park and Garden is located approximately 500m to the east of the junction of

Grove Lane with the A4010. The 200ha site is situated in a shallow valley, and is largely sheltered by

surrounding hills and wooded hilltops.

There are a number of Archaeological Notification Areas (ANA):

• a site adjacent to the B4009 in Longwick;

• a site south of Longwick;

• a site adjacent to the railway line in Saunderton; and

• a site in Horsenden.

Within these areas a number of prehistoric, Iron Age, and Roman finds have been recovered9. It is

recommended that a programme of further studies and field-based investigation is undertaken to provide further

detail on the presence or absence of archaeological assets, as there is a risk of unknown features in areas

close to known archaeology.

3.5.4 Landscape

Princes Risborough is a town located at the foot of the Chiltern Hills. The majority of the study area is within the

Upper Thame Clay Vale National Character Area (NCA), which is characterised by its contrasting landscapes,

including enclosed pastures with wet valleys, mixed farming, hedges, hedge trees and field trees, and open

arable lands. The scheme also falls within the Chilterns NCA, and two distinct Landscape Character Areas

(LCA): Longwick Vale and Risborough Chalk Foothills.

The Chilterns Area of Outstanding National Beauty (AONB) is located directly to the east and south of Princes

Risborough Town Centre and borders Picts Lane. The AONB recognises the quality of the designated area for

landscape and scenic beauty10. If an alignment was likely to affect the AONB it would need to be demonstrated

that it was compliant with relevant planning policy.

Shootacre Lane to the south of Princes Risborough is within the Chilterns AONB boundary and Metropolitan

Green Belt. The NPPF states that certain forms of development are not inappropriate in Green Belt provided

they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green

Belt. This includes local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.

Green belts are not strictly a landscape designation, however, the ‘openness’ of the landscape within the green

belt is relevant to the landscape assessment.

There is agricultural land directly to the west of Princes Risborough, known as Park Mill Farm. Park Mill Farm

was assessed by Wycombe District Council as being of low sensitivity to development in a landscape

assessment of strategic sites in 201411.

Heritage assets in the area, particularly the SAMs, listed buildings, and Chequers Registered Park and Garden

described in the heritage section, are potential visual receptors. Visual impacts to Chequers should be limited

due to the sites sheltered setting.

9 Buckinghamshire County Council (2009) – Princes Risborough. Buckinghamshire Historic Town Assessment Report 10 DCLG (2012) – National Planning Policy Framework 11 Wycombe District Council (2014) – Landscape Assessment of Strategic Sites


B12798D8/001 26

Within the centre of Princes Risborough, there are many Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) and all trees within

Conservation Areas will have the equivalent of TPO status. There is a single TPO along Station Road and

several single TPOs along Picts Lane. There are a few isolated TPOs along Lower Icknield Way between

Summerleys Road and Longwick Road. There are also clusters of TPOs located at Meadle, Horsenden, and

Manor Road. Consent for work on a tree protected by a preservation order will be required if a TPO is to be

physically impacted.

3.5.5 Ecology and nature conservation

There are six designated sites of national importance within 2km of the area, and one European designated site

within 5km of the area.

Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is present in two separate units north-east and east

of Princes Risborough Town Centre. It is designated due to its semi-natural grasslands and scrubland situated

on chalk and limestone which support beech forests and stag beetles12.

There are two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) to the north-east of Princes Risborough. Grangelands

and Pulpit Hill SSSI are designated for their assemblages of calcicolous bryophytes, range of invertebrates, and

overwintering and breeding bird populations. Ellesborough and Kimble Warrens SSSI is a classic example of

ecological succession and is designated for its range of local species. Windsor Hill and Lodge Hill SSSIs are

located within 2km, to the east and south of Princes Risborough respectively.

Brush Hill Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Whiteleaf Hill LNR are situated adjacent to each other,

approximately 1.5km from Princes Risborough. Brush Hill LNR is designated due to its recreational and study

opportunities and comprises chalk grassland and woodland. Whiteleaf Hill LNR is notable for its views of the

Chiltern Hills and for its butterflies, wildflowers and woodlands.

The proposed route alignments should not have a direct impact on any national or European designated sites

described in this section. There could however be indirect impacts to the flora and fauna at these sites caused

by increased air pollution.

There are three Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within 1km. Longwick Bog is located south of Longwick. Saunderton

Marsh and Saunderton Railway are located to the south-west. LWSs are county level non-statutory sites which

are selected for their locally important habitats and species, and are protected by planning policy, with a

presumption against development which would impact the sites. However, development can be acceptable if

appropriate mitigation can be agreed and provided.

There are three Biological Notification Sites (BNS) in the local area. These sites are chosen for their ecological

importance, and are non-statutory local designations:

• Summerleys Cottage Wood, located adjacent Summerleys Road;

• Fields around Roundabout Wood, located south of Horsenden; and

• Garden and Orchard, Saunderton.

There are several areas of ancient woodland located to the north-east of Princes Risborough. The nearest

ancient woodland is Whorley Wood, which is located approximately 900m from the Grove Lane junction with the

A4010. There are areas of deciduous woodland, traditional orchard, and good quality semi-improved grassland

priority habitat, as well as woodland and pasture Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat, located throughout the

study area. However none of these areas are likely to be directly impacted by the scheme.

There is the potential for legally protected and notable species to be active within the study area. There are

some isolated ponds to the north of Summerleys Road close to Summerleys Bungalows, and where Alscot

Lane meets Longwick Road. Therefore there is potential for Great Crested Newts within the study area.

Ecological data from the Buckinghamshire Environmental Record Centre indicates the historic presence of protected species in the study area, including badgers (Meles meles), water vole (Arvicola amphibious), and

12 Natural England (2014) – European Site Conservation Objectives for Chilterns Beechwoods SAC (UK0012724)


B12798D8/001 27

bats. Other species not identified in this data may be present in the study area. A phase 1 habitat survey by a

qualified ecologist will be required in order to determine the likely presence of protected species.

3.5.6 Geology and soils

The bedrock in the study area is a combination of sandstone, siltstone, and chalk, with small pockets of

alluvium, river terrace, and head superficial deposits. The north of the study area consists of slightly acid loamy

and clayey soils with impeded drainage; the south of the study area consists of freely draining lime-rich loamy

soils.

There is one historic landfill site located north-west of Princes Risborough. Birkett Electric is located adjacent to

the A4129 to the west of Princes Risborough and contains inert, commercial, and household waste. Thames

Water Utilities Ltd sewage works, located to the west of Princes Risborough, is a site of water industrial

pollution. There was also a ‘significant’ pollution incident involving sewage material that occurred at this site in

201313. As there is the potential for contaminated land throughout the study areas it is recommended that a

detailed contaminated land assessment be undertaken at the next stage.

Princes Risborough lies within the ‘Thame and South Chilterns’ (surface and groundwater) water body, within

Thames River Basin District. The town is situated in Water Resource Management Unit 2 of the Thame and

South Chilterns Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS). This unit is made up of two unconfined

groundwater management units of chalk and upper greensand, and the water availability is classed as ‘over

licensed’ at low flows14.

3.5.7 Road drainage and water environment

The Kingsey Cuttle Brook and its tributaries flow through Princes Risborough. Crossing of these watercourses

south of Longwick and south of Alscot could have implications for flooding, drainage, geomorphology and water

quality impacts due to road run-off.

The Kingsey Cuttle Brook is a Water Framework Directive (WFD) waterbody designated as being ‘heavily

modified’ with ‘moderate’ ecological status with the aim of achieving ‘good’ status by 2027. A second WFD

waterbody, Scotsgrove Brook (upstream Kingsey Cuttle Brook), is located approximately 150m from the B4009

at Little Kimble. This waterbody currently has ‘poor’ ecological status with the objective of meeting ‘good’ status

by 2027. There is a risk of water pollution occurring at these waterbodies. However, it is likely that risks of

pollution could be managed through good drainage design and construction management. The Environment

Agency will need to be consulted on whether a WFD compliance assessment will be required.

The tributary of the Kingsey Cuttle Brook that runs alongside the B4444 (Summerleys Road) to the east is within

flood zone 3, which land assessed as having a 1 in 100 chance or greater of flooding each year (>1%). A

tributary of the Kingsey Cuttle Brook towards the end of Horsenden Lane is also within flood zone 3. A flood risk

assessment will be required for development which occurs within flood zone 2 and 3.

There are a number of drainage ditches and small ponds located in open land north-west and west of Princes

Risborough. These ditches and ponds are at a high risk from surface water flooding.

The whole of the Princes Risborough area falls within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ), and is susceptible to

increased concentrations of nitrates in surface water. The study area is also within a surface water safeguard

zone for pesticides (SWSGZ4016). There are no Source Protection Zones (SPZ) in proximity to the proposed

options.

3.5.8 Effect on all travellers

The A4010 Wycombe/Aylesbury/Risborough Road is a main arterial road running through the centre of Princes

Risborough. A scheme that provides an alternative route for through traffic would be expected to improve traffic

13 Environment Agency (2015) – What’s in Your Backyard http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?ep=maptopics&lang=_e

(accessed September 2015) 14 Environment Agency (2014) - The Thame and South Chilterns Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy


B12798D8/001 28

congestion at peak times in the centre of Princes Risborough, providing significant benefits to pedestrians and

cyclists.

There are a number of Public Rights of Way (PRoW). The Ridgeway National Trail runs along Upper Icknield

Way, Wycombe Road, and Upper Icknield Way. National Cycle Route 57 runs along Station Road, Picts Lane

and Horsenden Lane. There are also a number of footpaths, including four regional trails:

• Aylesbury Ring and North Buckinghamshire Way/Midshires Way, both of which cross the B4009 to the

north of the scheme;

• Outer Aylesbury Ring, which crosses the B4009 near Longwick, and continues across open land west of

Princes Risborough; and

• Icknield Way Trail, which forms part of the travels adjacent to the A4010 and Upper Icknield Way to the

south of the scheme.

The Chiltern mainline runs north-south through the study area, west of Princes Risborough, with the Princes

Risborough to Aylesbury Line and Chinnor and Icknield Line heritage railway splitting east and west of the

mainline respectively.

3.5.9 Community and private assets

Princes Risborough is a busy market town. The environment in the town centre could benefit from reduced

traffic congestion. It is noted that the retail vacancy rate is currently low15.

Land use around Princes Risborough is predominantly grassland and arable. The land is assessed as being

grade 2 and 3 under the agricultural land classification (ALC). Land around the B4009 and west of Horsenden is

mostly ALC grade 2 and the open land north and south of Princes Risborough mostly ALC grade 3.

In addition to the residential and social receptors discussed in the noise and air quality sections, the following

community and private assets are noted:

• public place of worship, public house, allotment gardens, and several farms and cottages, all adjacent to

the B4009 to the north of the scheme;

• football and cricket grounds;

• a factory adjacent the train station near Horsenden;

• sewage works west of Princes Risborough; and

• allotment gardens adjacent Longwick Road.

3.5.10 Materials

The nearest waste management facility is Wycombe Trade Waste and Skip Hire Ltd which are on Perry Lane,

which is approximately 2km to the west of the centre of Princes Risborough.

3.6 Constraints and opportunities

3.6.1 Constraints

The physical, legal and institutional constraints, and the opportunities affecting the potential road scheme and

surrounding area are outlined to assist with the development of potential transport options. This summarises

evidence presented previously in this report.

15 Wycombe District Council (2013) - Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment: The Wycombe District Local Plan. Scoping

Report


B12798D8/001 29

3.6.2 Physical constraints

In summary, the physical constraints identified include:

• Land ownership for schemes and junction upgrades. This may require CPO of land.

• Widening of rail bridges and/ or new bridges.

• Potential air quality impacts to Shootacre Lane, Picts Lane, Station Road, Summerleys Road, Horsenden

Lane, Lower Icknield Way, and Grove Lane.

• Temporary increase in noise and vibration in areas in close proximity of the new road during the

construction phase. Potential to increase noise and vibration once the Scheme is operational.

• Cultural heritage:

- nine Conservation Areas within Princes Risborough and the surrounding area;

- five SAMs within 500m of the scheme;

- listed Buildings within the Conservation Areas, as well as near station road, Longwick, and Grove

Lane;

- Chequers Registered Park and Garden east of the B4009/A4010 junction; and

- potential remains in ANA.

• Landscape:

- temporary and permanent visual impacts to the Chilterns AONB and its setting;

- TPOs in Princes Risborough Town Centre, along Station Road, Picts Lane, Lower Icknield Way, and

between Summerleys Road and Longwick Road; and

- temporary and permanent visual impacts to residential property in and around Princes Risborough.

• Ecology, nature and conservation

- Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which is present in two separate units

north-east and east of Princes Risborough Town Centre;

- Grangelands and Pulpit Hill and Ellesborough and Kimble Warrens SSSIs located within 1 km of the

scheme;

- There are three LWS within 1km. Longwick Bog is located south of Longwick. Saunderton Marsh and

Saunderton Railway are located to the south-west.Brush Hill Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and

Whiteleaf Hill LNR located within 1.5 km of the scheme; and

- potential for protected species.

• Potential for contaminated land.

• Flood risk and risk of pollution to waterbodies and ditches. The Kingsey Cuttle Brook and its tributaries flow

through Princes Risborough. Potential alignments would cross these watercourses at several locations,

which could have implications for flooding, drainage, geomorphology and water quality impacts due to road

run-off.

• Temporary disruption to PRoW and railways during Scheme construction phase.

• Loss of agricultural land.

3.6.3 Legal and institutional constraints

The legal and institutional constraints include:

• Mode shift away from road to rail (for passenger and freight), influenced by rail operators pricing strategies,

and Network Rail’s expansion/ upgrade plans.

• PRoW across the site which would need to be respected.


B12798D8/001 30

3.6.4 Opportunities

The following opportunities are identified:

• improve journey times and reliability for north-south traffic movement to improve north-south connectivity

and access between urban centres;

• reduce through traffic volumes, congestion and severance on the A4010 in Princes Risborough Town

Centre;

• facilitate the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough;

• provide network capacity to facilitate the housing growth of Princes Risborough;

• stimulate growth in employment development in Princes Risborough;

• improve the vitality of the town centre in Princes Risborough;

• protect, improve, and maintain the local environment and heritage;

• improve the safety on roads in Princes Risborough, but particularly the A4010 through Princes Risborough;

and

• improve accessibility to, from and within the town to the railway stations, town centre, and other key

destinations in the town (e.g. schools).


B12798D8/001 31

4. Future Situation

4.1 Introduction

This chapter of the report sets out the future situation for growth in housing and jobs in the area, and transport

infrastructure.

4.2 Forecasting and scenario development

The assessment considers a future year of 2036 (15 years beyond anticipated year of future road opening) and

uses the BCC Countywide model. The assessment considers the following four scenarios to determine the

preferred scheme, and Scenario B is the focus of this chapter. The ‘development’ in this context refers to the

expansion of Princes Risborough.

• ‘Scenario A’: without development (National Trip End Model (NTEM) capped) and without any form of

transport scheme (do minimum);

• ‘Scenario B’: with the emerging PRTP development but without any form of transport scheme (do minimum

plus PRTP development);

• ‘Scenario C’: with the development and with a transport scheme (do something development and

transport); and

• ‘Scenario D’: without the housing development but with a transport scheme (do something transport).

Therefore two do minimum scenarios have been developed, which are defined as Scenarios A and B. Scenario

A is used to inform the economic case for the scheme (when compared with Scenario D), and Scenario B is

used to inform the strategic case for the scheme (when compared with Scenario C).

Scenario A considers the growth including housing (91,631 new homes in Buckinghamshire) and jobs (59,221

new jobs in Buckinghamshire) provided by TEMPRO 6 (Dataset 6.2) for the period between 2013 and 2036. An

uncertainty log has been prepared to consider the status and likelihood of developments coming forward in

Princes Risborough as part of the do minimum scenarios and local adjustments have been made where

necessary. A copy of the uncertainty log is included in Appendix C.

The emerging PRTP development is not included in the modelling of Scenario A. WDC has confirmed the

scenario is appropriate for this assessment. WebTAG guidance (TAG Unit M4 Forecasting and Uncertainty)

provides additional clarification and requires the reference forecast (Scenario A) to be based on demand that is

constrained to the national forecasts to avoid optimism or pessimism bias. Therefore, it is appropriate to cap

NTEM growth factors to account for the following committed developments in the Princes Risborough area:

• Former Whiteleaf, Picts Lane; and

• Ker Maria Nursing Home

Princes Risborough is earmarked for a significant level of growth (around 2,500 houses) in the Area Action

Plan, which will require new road infrastructure. The analysis presented in this report indicates that the

development is dependent upon new road infrastructure being provided, as the network is already constrained

at key locations, and conditions are forecast to further deteriorate in the future.

The traffic generation of the development and developments at Longwick are all included in Scenario B and are

additional to NTEM growth. Appendix C includes the uncertainty log for this scenario, and WDC has confirmed

the scenario is appropriate for this assessment. It is noted that the developments at Longwick have been

subject to planning applications, but the development quantum assumed is consistent with the scales proposed

in the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Neighbourhood Plan.

In summary, the do minimum scenarios considered in this chapter align with the requirements of economic and

strategic assessments. The impact of Scenario B is considered further.


B12798D8/001 32

4.2.1 Committed road infrastructure

There are no committed road schemes in the Princes Risborough area that need to be included in the do

minimum models.

The road through the Former Whiteleaf, Picts Lane development site has been safeguarded to facilitate a new

road link, should this need to be provided in the future.

4.3 Future route performance (Scenario B)

Scenario B provides an analysis of the network conditions with the additional traffic generated by the emerging

PRTP development at Princes Risborough.

4.3.1 Traffic movements

The 2036 AM and PM peak hour traffic movements are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 respectively.

Unsurprisingly, the traffic volumes increase as a result of increased development in Princes Risborough.

The 2013 two-way traffic volumes on New Road in the centre of Princes Risborough were 1,548 and 1,721

during the AM and PM peak hours. Traffic volumes on New Road in the town centre are forecast to be 1,726

and 1,900 for the AM and PM peak hours respectively. This shows that the traffic flows have increased, which

is unsurprising given the route choices available in the existing network for development traffic.

4.3.2 Capacity and capability

The capacity and road traffic volumes are interrogated to determine the ratio of traffic volume to capacity. The

AM and PM peak hour plots are shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 respectively. This shows that generally the more

links are approaching or exceeding capacity compared with 2013, including Summerleys Road, Poppy Road,

and Lower Icknield Way.

4.3.3 Journey time analysis

A key objective of the BTVLEP is to improve north-south journey times and reliability. The journey times on the

A4010 between Grove Lane and Shootacre Lane were extracted from the BCC Countywide model. Table 4.1

provides a comparison between the 2013 and 2036 journey times. This shows that with the development north-

south journey times increase on the A4010.

Direction

Southbound Northbound

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak

2013 Base 11 minutes

7 seconds

10 minutes

8 seconds

10 minutes

9 seconds

11 minutes

41 seconds

2036 Scenario B (do minimum plus Princes

Risborough development)

11 minutes

48 seconds

10 minutes

43 seconds

11 minutes

28 seconds

12 minutes

10 seconds

Table 4.1: 2013 and 2036 (Scenarios B) north-south journey times on A4010


B12798D8/001 33

Figure 4.1 Scenario B 2036 AM peak hour link traffic volume plot

Figure 4.2 Scenario B 2036 PM peak hour link traffic volume plot

N

N


B12798D8/001 34

Figure 4.3 Scenario B 2036 AM peak hour v/c plots

Figure 4.4 Scenario B 2036 PM peak hour v/c plots

N

N


B12798D8/001 35

4.4 Public transport

There are two major rail projects that are planned for the area: East-West Rail, and HS2. These are discussed

below.

4.4.1 East-West Rail

East-West Rail is a major project to establish a strategic railway connecting East Anglia with central, southern

and western England. The project is split into three sections: western, central, and eastern, which are shown in

Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5 East-West Rail network map16

An information sheet for the section between Aylesbury and Princes Risborough was published in June 2014.17

This sets out that there are core and incremental schemes being considered. The core scheme was given the

go ahead and is a committed scheme which includes an hourly passenger service between Milton Keynes,

Aylesbury and London Marylebone (via Princes Risborough). This would be in addition to the existing

Aylesbury to Princes Risborough passenger and freight services. The incremental scheme is still being

determined by Network Rail and the Department for Transport, but this would increase capacity for two

passenger trains per hour. The timing of the schemes are still to be determined by Network Rail.

This will require track enhancements, and the briefing sheet states the following:

“To extend the hourly Milton Keynes service to London Marylebone requires one passenger plus one freight

path per hour in each direction to be reliably accommodated between Aylesbury and Princes Risborough.

Although such capacity theoretically exists today, in practice the junction layouts at Princes Risborough and

16 http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/ 17 http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/aylesbury-to-princes-risborough/


B12798D8/001 36

Aylesbury, as well as the single line between those two points, result in constraints that mean that there is likely

to be a high degree of operational risk if all four paths were to be used every hour, which could negatively

impact on the reliability of the timetable.

In addition, the DfT, supported by the Industry Plan Group, has also requested that the feasibility of a second

Milton Keynes – Marylebone passenger path per hour, in addition to the basic service, be examined as part of

the ‘incremental’ output specification for the project. This would certainly require some upgrading of the route to

provide the means to pass trains travelling in opposite directions, as well as remodelling of the junctions at

Princes Risborough and Aylesbury.”

Therefore, it would be prudent to include the potential to widen existing rail bridges for twin tracks into the

design of upgraded road/ rail bridges where potential western relief roads would be aligned.

4.4.2 HS2

HS2 is a national rail project which aims to provide a new rail connection to reduce north-south rail journey

times between London, West Midlands, Leeds and Manchester. The project is planned to be split into two

phases. Phase 1 is for a route between London Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street Station. The alignment

of this route is south of Aylesbury and north of Little Kimble.

It is understood that the construction of HS2 is likely to generate a significant amount of road freight, which may

travel through the Princes Risborough area. Therefore, bridges on the planned western relief road should meet

DMRB requirements for vertical clearance, should larger vehicles need to use the route.

4.5 Summary

The network is at capacity in some locations in the network in 2013, and conditions are degraded in additional

locations by 2036. Based on the findings from the modelling, it is reasonable to infer that the construction of the

planned development north-west of the railway line is dependent on the new transport infrastructure. However,

the emerging development requires additional road infrastructure to facilitate accessibility and mitigate the

impact of the proposed development on the town centre.


B12798D8/001 37

5. Need for Intervention

5.1 Introduction

This section summarises the findings from Chapters 3 and 4, and outcomes of previous and current

consultation and engagement processes that have been undertaken (discussed further in Section 7.2). Current

and future transport-related problems are highlighted and underlying causes identified that establish the need

for an intervention on the A4010 corridor.

5.2 Consultation and engagement process

5.2.1 Overview of process

This OAR is informed by consultation and engagement with the local community, stakeholders, and the Princes

Risborough Steering Group. A summary of the consultation is shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Consultation summary

The consultation with BCC/ WDC (held on 28 July 2015) and the Princes Risborough Steering Group (held on

29 July 2015) identified local problems and issues. These were considered and distilled into project objectives

for the scheme.

5.3 Summary of current transport related problems and driver/ causes

Based on the information in Chapter 3 and above, the current transport related problems, drivers and causes

are summarised in Table 5.1.


B12798D8/001 38

Transport related problem Description of the problem (driver) Causes of the problem

Traffic congestion and journey time

reliability. This impacts on:

• Increased journey time compared to

off-peak periods.

• Reduced journey time reliability

which impacts on efficiency for

business in A4010 Aylesbury –

Princes Risborough – High

Wycombe corridor.

• Higher congestion reduces traffic

speeds and increases likelihood of

stop-start driving which increases

noise and emissions.

• Higher risk of some collision types.

Congestion/slow moving traffic on

A4010 Bell Street/New Road,

particularly at peak periods.

Congestion in the town centre at

the Tesco and New Road

roundabouts

Queuing on the A4010 between

15:30 to 18:00. Queueing can

occur in the opposite direction in

the morning peak hour on the

approach to Tesco’s roundabout

Existing traffic flows on the A4010

are high.

Traffic speeds are reduced due to

volume of traffic and a series of

friction points including the

roundabouts, buses, pedestrian

crossings, right-turn into Clifford

Road.

Between 25% and 44% of

vehicles using the A4010 during

the peak hours are trips that pass

through Princes Risborough.

Pedestrian crossing outside

Marks and Spencer causes

queues to form.

Network and junction capacity in

Princes Risborough.

The following link are approaching

capacity during the AM peak hour:

• both directions between the

A4010/ B4444 and A4010/

New Road junctions; and

• southbound direction between

the A4010/ The Avenue and

A4010/ Longwick Road

junctions.

The following link are approaching

capacity during the PM peak hour:

• southbound direction between

the A4010/ B4444 and A4010/

New Road junctions;

• over capacity in northbound

direction between the A4010/

B4444 and A4010/ New Road

junctions;

• approaching capacity in

northbound direction between

the A4010/ Poppy Road and

A4010/ B4444 junctions; and

• approaching capacity in the

northbound direction between

the A4010/ The Avenue and

A4010/ Longwick Road

junctions.

The following junctions also

experience delay of greater than

one minute:

• Grove Lane/ A4010 (during

both the AM and PM peak

Volume of traffic during the AM

and PM peak periods.

Lack of an alternative north-south

route via the Princes Risborough

area.


B12798D8/001 39


hours);

• Summerleys Road/ Regents

Park (during the PM peak

hour);

• Summerleys Road/ Lower

Icknield Way (during the PM

peak hour).

There are multiple other junctions

along the A4010 corridor which

experience delay of between 30

and 60 seconds.

Local rat-running Can be difficult to exit on to

A4010 Aylesbury Road from Mill

Lane, which can result in rat-

running through Askett.

The Mill Lane/ A4010 junction is a

priority T-junction. The A4010/

C63 (through Askett) junction has

greater capacity (roundabout).

Local height and capacity constraints. Narrow road bridges above/

below railway which are unsafe

and/ or bottlenecks to traffic flows.

Pinch points at the railway

bridges, including:

• Summerleys Road (x3);

• Lower Icknield Way;

• Longwick Road;

• Mill Lane;

• C63 Askett Road (north of

Askett); and

• Grove Lane.

Shuttle signal operation at the

B4444 (Summerleys Road)

bridge.

Car parking On street car parking restricts

traffic flow on streets in and

around the station.

Car parking charges are

perceived to be/ actually high in

the town centre

Car parking issues around the

schools during pick up and drop

off time.

On-street car parking on roads

that neighbour the station can

cause traffic congestion (e.g. on

the B4444). Insufficient car

parking at the railway station.

Poppy Road and Station Road

are heavily parked due to the

majority of frontages not having

off street car parking.

Parents dropping off and

collecting children from school by

car.

Pedestrian network Not all the pedestrian network

meets modern design standards/

guidance.

The A4010 is not an attractive

walking environment, nor is it

easy to cross.

Safety issue at the zebra crossing

outside St Teresa’s

The pedestrian and cycle

connections between Longwick

and Princes Risborough are

considered to be inadequate.


B12798D8/001 40


‘Hostile’ walking environment

considered to be the reason why

there is not a lot of walking a

cycling, despite the topography

being flat (ish) in the town.

Gradients on footways on

Crowbrook Road not condusive to

walking

Severance/ segregation caused

by the A4010

Cycle network Poor legibility of cycle routes

Poor cycle assess to the schools

Conflicting views over town centre

contra-flow cycle lane

Quality of cycle infrastructure and

lighting.

Poor connectivity to Longwick

Not all the pedestrian network

meets modern design standards/

guidance.

Inconsistency of types of cycle

infrastructure which reduces

network legibility.

Not all destinations are served by

cycle infrastructure e.g. schools.

There are no formal cycle routes

between Princes Risborough and

Longwick.

Integration of transport modes Poor connectivity to Princes

Risborough Station by all modes,

and no link between the station

and the Phoenix Trail cycle route.

The legibility of routes is not

obvious, or route is not provided.

HGV traffic HGV traffic is generally noisier,

more polluting, and more likely to

result in a fatal accident if

involved in a collision.

HGV and business traffic use

Summerleys Road, Station Road

and Poppy Road.

A4010 through Princes

Risborough is the most direct

north-south route via Princes

Risborough.

Road safety There are clusters of personal

injury accidents at the Grove

Lane/ A4010, A4010 in town

centre, and A4010/ Upper Icknield

Way junction.

There are likely to be multiple

causes of the accidents, including

incidents relating due the delay to

vehicles and traffic volume on the

A4010.

Table 5.1 Current (2013) transport related problems, drivers and causes

5.4 Impacts of not changing (future problems)

5.4.1 Impacts on movement and accessibility

Future population growth and development will inevitably impact travel across the local area and between

Aylesbury and High Wycombe. As it stands, route choice and alternative modes for strategic north-south

journeys are limited. This results in congestion and junction delays during peak travel times, which have

negative implications economically, socially and environmentally.


B12798D8/001 41

Increased traffic volumes would also likely exacerbate problems associated with journey time reliability, road

safety, and HGV traffic volumes.

Such issues are anticipated to worsen in future, exacerbated by forecast traffic growth both locally and

strategically.

5.4.2 Impacts on economic growth and prosperity

Without intervention, the existing network in Princes Risborough will constrain employment and housing growth

along the Princes Risborough corridor, impacting Aylesbury and High Wycombe as well as the local area.

Productivity and prosperity are highest in those areas with higher value industries and high jobs densities. One

of the key objectives outlined in BTVLEP’s SEP is to stimulate sustainable business growth, with priorities including, amongst others, improving Buckinghamshire’s export performance; operating an “Open for Business”

planning service; and stimulating high growth start-up businesses. In supporting this, however, recognition is

given to the critical inter-dependencies between economic growth and Buckinghamshire’s transport network.

The costs from associated traffic growth and congestion may impede the deliverability of planned/designated

residential and employment lands uses within the town and negatively impact the competiveness of existing

businesses using the A4010 corridor.

Forecast levels of congestion, and associated journey time variability and unreliability, has the potential for far-

reaching economic implications. Productivity losses can be associated with, and are principally driven by, the

declining performance of the primary road network.

The forecast congestion will increase lost productive time for business travellers and commuters as it lengthens

the distance between labour markets and businesses, which can affect commuting patterns, and reduce the

potential for business-to-business activity. There is a risk that the benefit of locating in the A4010 corridor may

not be realised should business and business critical infrastructure not come forward.

The A4010 also forms an inter-urban route which is used by freight. Congestion on these routes will impede the

efficient movement of goods. The delays experienced by freight traffic on these routes as a result of increased

traffic volumes and the interaction with local traffic will generate productivity losses to businesses at a regional

level.

Impacts on society

Transport, particularly in terms of accessibility, is increasingly recognised as having a significant role to play in

both the creation and alleviation of societal barriers. Increased traffic volumes on the A4010 may also

exacerbate severance and affect sustainable travel, hindering movement by non-motorised modes and access

to goods and services. It could also have negative implications for emergency vehicle access and response

time.

In addition to the direct time costs created by congestion, there is evidence of welfare disbenefits associated

with deteriorating travel conditions (e.g. frustration and annoyance). Resultant welfare disbenefits of transport-

related problems would negatively impact quality of life and well-being.

Impacts on the environment

The level of emissions and noise closely relate to traffic flow, and are exacerbated when congestion and delay

is more acute. Whilst there are no AQMAs in Princes Risborough and air quality measuring was suspended in

this area because emissions were below acceptable thresholds, an increase in more widespread congestion

may require air quality monitoring to resume. Noise and vibration problems would also be exacerbated as traffic

volumes increase.


B12798D8/001 42

6. Objectives and Area of Impact

6.1 Introduction

This chapter of the report provides a summary of the objectives for the scheme. This is based on the evidence

gathered from review of policies and baseline data, and community and stakeholder consultation with

representatives of BCC, WDC, and the Princes Risborough Steering Group.

6.2 Objectives

The objectives for the scheme must be cognisant of policy, local circumstances, and stakeholder opinions. The

following provides a summary of these, and a rationalised list of objectives is proposed against which the

schemes will be appraised.

6.2.1 Regional and local policy

The regional and local policy priorities, themes and objectives are summarised in Table 6.1. The review of

these are focused on the need for new road infrastructure. These policies include additional objectives relating

to sustainable transport, which will be considered further in the development of a town wide transport strategy.

It is noted that the key strategic transport objective of the BTVLEP Strategic Economic Plan is:

“To create a smart, integrated transport network, which provides excellent multi-modal connectivity between key

areas of housing and economic growth across the wider sub region.”

This is the overarching statement which the transport option proposed should support.

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Strategic Economic Growth Plan

BTVLEP objectives Priorities

Stimulate more smart

sustainable business growth • Promote business resource efficiency and resilience.

Bring forward the necessary

business critical infrastructure

• Making our major transport infrastructure fit for our economic purpose.

• Ensuring housing growth develops appropriately to meet the needs of

businesses and communities.

BTVLEP strategic transport

aims

• Improving connectivity between the national road network and key

employment hubs;

• Improving connectivity between major settlements and key economic

centres;

• Improving connectivity between major settlements and existing/new rail

connections;

• Supporting employment and housing enabling transport infrastructure;

• Supporting the regeneration of our town centres;

• Reducing congestion, improving journey times and journey time reliability;

• Ensuring we maintain a high quality of life and natural environment, by

promoting low carbon vehicles, innovative travel solutions; and reducing

the inefficiency in existing transport systems;

• Delivering a more co-ordinated and commercial approach to transport

infrastructure and land-use planning.


B12798D8/001 43

Buckinghamshire County Council Local Transport Plan 3

Themes Objectives

Thriving economy

• Maintain or improve the reliability of journey times on key routes.

• Improve the connectivity and access between key centres.

• Deliver transport improvements to support and facilitate sustainable

housing and employment growth.

• Ensure local transport networks are resilient and adaptable to shocks and

impacts.

Sustainable environment • Protect, improve and maintain the local environment.

Safe communities • Reduce the risk of death or injury on the county’s roads.

Health and wellbeing • Reduce the negative impact of poor air quality.

LTP North West Chilterns Local Area Strategy

• Manage the challenge of residential and employment growth

• Manage the negative impacts of the A4010

• Access between Princes Risborough Centre and rail station

• Parking provision and management

WDC Adopted Core Strategy

Themes Objectives

Transport and access

• Review the key transport issues in the town, including the divisive effect

of through traffic on the A4010 passing through the heart of the town, and

the relationship between vehicles and pedestrians in the High Street and

town centre.

• Improve access to the station and secure appropriate levels of station car

parking.

Environment

• Safeguard the historic core of the town and its Chiltern escarpment

setting, reinforcing the towns distinctive sense of place.

• Create a simple structure for the town, maintaining the accessibility of the

town centre and improving the interconnectivity between key parts of the

town.

Table 6.1 Regional and local policy priorities, themes and objectives

6.2.2 Stakeholder objectives

A workshop was held on 28 July 2015 with representatives of WDC and BCC to understand the objectives of

the stakeholders. The following were identified:

• Reduce through traffic volume on the A4010 in the centre of Princes Risborough.

• Promote economic growth in the Princes Risborough area.

• Improve connectivity to railway stations by sustainable modes.

• Improve connectivity for north-south movement for the ‘strategic’ traffic movements.

• Support town centre vitality.

• Improve journey time reliability for through traffic.

• Improve safety, attractiveness and directness of connections to key destinations via active modes.


B12798D8/001 44

• Distribute development traffic onto the new road.

• Provide network capacity for growth.

• Provide connections to wider pedestrian and cycle infrastructure.

• Integrate the existing and expanding town (reduce the severance of road and rail).

• Develop a road scheme that is feasible in terms of funding (by developers and bid), land availability, and

environmental impact.

• Manage the wider network capacity to mitigate the impact of the development.

6.2.3 Princes Risborough Steering Group objectives

A workshop was held on 29 July 2015 with representatives of the Princes Risborough Steering Group to

understand their objectives. The following were identified:

• Improve north south journey time and connectivity for through traffic.

• Reduce traffic congestion/ density within Princes Risborough.

• Relieve town centre congestion.

• Improve accessibility to the railway station.

• Improve accessibility to Princes Risborough as a place and destination.

• Provide additional/ suitable capacity to cater for future housing developments.

• Attempt to provide better business attractiveness to the area e.g. road, rail, broadband.

• Stimulate economic growth and prosperity.

• Minimise the impact of the new road on the environment and heritage.

• Improve road safety.

• Minimise rat running.

• Reduce severance.

• Integrate new development in the town and manage new traffic growth.

6.2.4 Objective summary

There are common themes running through the policy, stakeholder, and steering group objectives. These can

be distilled into the following broad objectives for the scheme. It is noted that the order below does not denote

ranking or hierarchy of the objectives.

• Maintain or improve journey times and reliability for north-south traffic movement via the Princes

Risborough area to improve north-south connectivity and access between urban centres.

• Reduce through traffic volumes, congestion and severance on the A4010 in Princes Risborough Town

Centre by redistributing this traffic.

• Facilitate the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough,

north of the east-west railway line.

• Provide network capacity to facilitate the housing growth of Princes Risborough and manage/ mitigate the

wider road network capacity.

• Stimulate growth in employment development in Princes Risborough through improved accessibility,

business efficiency, and resilience.

• Improve the vitality of the town centre in Princes Risborough.

• Protect, improve, and maintain the local environment and heritage.


B12798D8/001 45

• Improve the safety/ reduce the risk of death or injury on roads in Princes Risborough, but particularly the

A4010 through Princes Risborough.

• Improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport to, from and within the town to the railway

stations, town centre, and other key destinations in the town (e.g. schools).

• Develop a scheme that is feasible and deliverable in terms including funding (by developers and bid).

• Ensure the infrastructure options for Princes Risborough integrate with the Highway Authority’s emerging

strategy to improve north-south connectivity through Buckinghamshire.

6.3 Targets

The transport improvements of the intervention options will result in a range of measurable impacts on traffic

and travel conditions. Impacts and measurable indicators relevant to improving conditions on the A4010 could

include.

• Delivery of identified housing for Princes Risborough measured by the number of homes/jobs

delivered/occupied.

• Reduced congestion on the A4010 in the town centre and improved journey reliability for north-south traffic

movements measured by traffic volume and relative difference in peak/off-peak journey times.

• Enhanced connectivity reflected by absolute journey time improvements on key routes compared against

the 2036 do minimum situation.

• Improved/sustained air quality and reduced traffic noise on the A4010 in the town centre.

Setting targets is an iterative process and they will evolve as further evidence is collected. Final targets would

be developed during full business case development, in line with the principles listed above, and set out as

‘SMART’ (Specific-Measurable-Accepted-Realistic-Time defined) targets.

6.4 Geographic area of impact

The local geographical area of impact to be addressed by potential intervention is informed by the evidence

sourced from sections 2, 3 and 4 of this report. The indicative geographical area of impact is shown in Figure

6.1. The wider area of impact includes the roads on the approaches to Chinnor, Thame, Aylesbury, and High

Wycombe.


B12798D8/001 46

Figure 6.1 Geographic area of impact


B12798D8/001 47

7. Option Generation

7.1 Introduction

This chapter sets out the options that have been proposed through previous studies, an open day with the

residents of Princes Risborough, workshop with stakeholders, and a workshop with the Princes Risborough

Steering Group. These will be subject to initial sifting using the DfT’s Early Assessment and Sifting Tool

(EAST), which is discussed further in Chapter 8.

BCC’s LTP3 states that the current road network is likely to be put under significant pressure in the future

leading to increased congestion and poor connectivity (especially north-south) that ultimately will have a

negative impact on the local economy. Coupled with the fact the emerging development will place additional

demand on the A4010 corridor, the BTVLEP objectives, and that BCC has identified north-south improvements

as important in their Infrastructure Appraisal Tool, suggests that additional road infrastructure will be required.

It is acknowledged that East-West Rail is a Network Rail project external to this process, which will further

improve connectivity through the county. Therefore, the focus of this OAR is on road alignments.

7.2 Option generation

7.2.1 Princes Risborough Area Transport Study (January 2014)

Jacobs was previously commissioned by BCC to undertake a transport study to assess the implications of

housing growth and potential associated transport infrastructure requirements. This considered two alignments

of the new road and these are shown in Figure 7.1 and defined as options 1 and 2. The report concluded that

option 1 was preferred, but the purpose of this study is to further develop understanding of potential options in

the context of the OAR and SOBC processes.

7.2.2 Public open day

A public open day was held in Princes Risborough on the 17 July 2015. The purpose of this was to present the

vision for the town centre and emerging development to provide an opportunity for the public to propose

potential options for consideration in this study. This event yielded eight options for consideration, and these

are shown in Figures 7.2 and 7.3.

7.2.3 Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop

A workshop was held with the Princes Risborough Steering Group on 29 July 2015. This yielded six options,

two of which were only minor variations at the southern end of the potential route. These are shown in Figures

7.4 and 7.5.

7.2.4 Other options

The form and character of a potential new road through the development can be designed to adopt ‘street’

rather than ‘road’ characteristics. Therefore, an additional option (option 15) is included which follows an

alignment consistent with option 11a/ 11b, but is designed with greater weight given to the principles outlined in

Manual for Streets. Options 15a and 15b are shown in Figure 7.6. The initial sifting also triggered discussion

regarding a further three options. Options 16a and 16b emerged from discussions surrounding option 8 and

these are shown in Figure 7.7.

Consideration has also been given to an inner option which aligns through the proposed development, beneath

the London to Birmingham mainline railway, and east of Horsenden before it connects to the northern end of

Shootacre Lane. This is labelled option 17 and is shown in Figure 7.8.

Other options that were not raised during the aforementioned discussions, which can be discounted prior to the

EAST process include:


B12798D8/001 48

• tunnel under Princes Risborough;

• bridge over Princes Risborough Town Centre; and

• online widening to a dual carriageway of the A4010 to increase road capacity.

Figure 7.1 New road options 1 and 2


B12798D8/001 49

Figure 7.2 Options 3 to 6 from public open day


B12798D8/001 50

Figure 7.3 Options 7 to 10 from public open day


B12798D8/001 51

Figure 7.4 Options 11a, 11b and 12 from Princes Risborough Steering Group Workshop


B12798D8/001 52

Figure 7.5 Options 13a, 13b and 14 from Princes Risborough Steering Group Workshop


B12798D8/001 53

Figure 7.6 Options 15a and 15b ‘street’ design principles adopted for alignment


B12798D8/001 54

Figure 7.7 Options 16a and 16b


B12798D8/001 55

Figure 7.8 Option 17


B12798D8/001 56

8. Initial Sifting

8.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the initial sifting of the multiple options outlined in Chapter 7 of this report. The sifting is

a two stage process utilising the project objectives and EAST to allow the number of options to be filtered to

provide a more manageable number of options to be taken through to appraisal.

8.2 Pre-EAST sifting and assessment

The objectives outlined previously were developed in consultation with stakeholders. These have been

allocated a letter between A and J to assist with reporting. Table 8.1 identifies the objectives and the letter that

has been allocated.

Identifier Objective

A Maintain or improve journey times and reliability for north-south traffic movement via the Princes


B Reduce through traffic volumes, congestion and severance on the A4010 in Princes Risborough

Town Centre by redistributing this traffic onto the new road.

C Facilitate the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes

Risborough, north of the east-west railway line.

D Provide network capacity to facilitate the housing growth of Princes Risborough and manage/

mitigate the wider road network capacity.

E Stimulate growth in employment development in Princes Risborough through improved

accessibility, business efficiency, and resilience.

F Improve the vitality of the town centre in Princes Risborough.

G Protect, improve, and maintain the local environment and heritage.

H Improve the safety/ reduce the risk of death or injury on roads in Princes Risborough, but

particularly the A4010 through Princes Risborough.

I Improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport to, from and within the town to the

railway stations, town centre, and other key destinations in the town (e.g. schools).

J Develop a road scheme that is feasible and deliverable in terms including funding (by developers

and bid).

K Ensure the road infrastructure options for Princes Risborough integrate with the Highway

Authority’s emerging strategy to improve north-south connectivity through Buckinghamshire.

Table 8.1: Scheme objectives

A pre-EAST assessment has been undertaken to eliminate options which do not deliver/ have minimal

alignment with the objectives outlined in Table 8.1. This preliminary assessment utilises a score system of 1 to

5 and does not weight any of the objectives at this stage as the purpose of this step is to define whether an

option is eliminated, rather than determine the preferred option.

The preliminary assessment is shown in Table 8.2. This preliminary assessment suggests that the following

options should be eliminated from further review prior to EAST because they either have a score of 1 against

one or more of the objectives, or achieves a total score of 28 or lower (approximately 50% of the available

marks).

• Option 3: This option is aligned straight through a SAM and is therefore removed.

• Option 5: This option proposed elevating the road and aligning above the railway. There are delivery

issues associated with doing this.


B12798D8/001 57

• Option 7: This option proposed a new road south of Princes Risborough. This will not facilitate growth in

development in the town.

• Option 9: This alignment extends wide of the town centre and would require a significant amount of road

widening. There is also likely to be a negative impact on listed buildings along this alignment.

• Option 14: This option proposes improvement to the B4009 to provide an upgraded route to the M40 via

Chinnor. This is considered to offer less improvement to north-south connectivity between Aylesbury and

High Wycombe as anecdotal evidence provided by the steering group is that the A4010 is the preferred

corridor.

The review also scores option 8 lower than options 1, 11a and 11b due to the feasibility of providing a road

connection through the Parkfield/ Brookfield House area. It is possible to realign the southern section of the

route to the same alignment shown in options 11a, 11b, 13a and 13b. The amended option 8 evolved into

options 16a and 16b which are included in the preliminary assessment table below.

Option Objective

Score

A B C D E F G H I J K

1 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 48

2 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 41

3 4 4 3 4 5 4 1 4 3 3 4 39

4 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 41

5 5 5 3 5 5 5 1 5 3 1 4 42

6 3 3 4 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 37

7 5 5 1 1 1 5 1 5 3 1 4 32

8 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 2 4 46

9 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 28

10 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 2 4 40

11a 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 2 4 4 47

11b 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 48

12 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 41

13a 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 2 4 4 42

13b 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 2 4 4 41

14 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 24

15a 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 2 4 4 47

15b 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 48

16a 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 2 4 4 47

16b 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 4 48

17 4 5 4 5 5 5 2 5 3 3 4 45

Scoring system for options

1 (Low) Does not meet objective

2

3

4

5 (High) Higher level of support/ delivery of objective

Table 8.2: Preliminary assessment of options against scheme objectives


B12798D8/001 58

The road alignment at the northern end of the route for all options (between the A4010 and B4009) will need to

be explored in greater detail as part the road design study. The reason for this is that a new alignment will be

required and this would need to include a new road/ rail bridge offline of the existing route.

8.3 Early assessment and sifting

EAST has been utilised to guide this process and considers the options carried forward from the previous pre-

EAST assessment. Both processes are designed to be high level review of options to identify the merits and

weaknesses of different options. EAST is consistent with transport business case principles and has been

developed to summarise and present evidence on options in a clear and consistent format. It utilises a 5-point /

Red/Amber/Green (RAG) scoring system for each of the assessment areas, which aims to facilitate the early

assessment and comparison of scheme options.

EAST guidance states that it is a decision support tool that can be used to:18

• help refine options by highlighting adverse impacts or unanticipated consequences;

• compare options;

• identify trade-offs between objectives aiding package development;

• filter the number of options to discount non-runners early in the process; and

• identify key uncertainties in the analysis and areas where further appraisal efforts should focus.

As every result from each area must be converted to a standardised number score during the process, it is

necessary to explain the underlying considerations to clarify the sifting process. The following aspects were

considered:

• The strategic score relates to the scale of impact, fit with objectives, and consensus over scheme

outcomes.

• In order to determine the economic score, all values derived from EAST are scored and summed.

Accordingly, the higher the economic score of an individual scheme, the more positive its economic

impacts on the area considered. The value for money score is omitted as the benefit cost ratio will be

determined post modelling of options.

• The managerial score considers the expected implementation time, practical feasibility and public

acceptance of each option. Hence, a high score in this category represents a combination of a short

implementation time and high feasibility and public acceptability that is supported by a robust assessment

framework and evidence. For the purposes of this assessment, the implementation timetable is considered

to be the same for all options (road opening by 2021). Therefore, no score is considered for this criteria

within the managerial score.

• In the finance category, attention has been paid to the affordability, capital cost, and overall cost risk of the

scheme. Given no revenue is expected from any of the options, no score for this aspect is applied to any

of the options. The capital cost of each option is ranked from low to high. Therefore, the score applied

need to be inversed so that lower cost options are considered more favourably.

• Finally, the commercial score mainly represents the flexibility of every single option. The more flexible it is,

the higher the rating applied. At this stage the alignment can still be fluid should the masterplan require

moderate realignment.

The outcomes of the EAST analysis are shown in the summary Table 8.3, which is intended to provide a visual

guide of the relative performance of each option. Detail of the assessment of each option is included in

Appendix D.

18 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4475/east-guidance.pdf


B12798D8/001 59

Option

Str

ate

gic

Econom

ic

Managem

ent

Fin

ancia

l

Com

merc

ial

TO

TA

L

Comments

1 16 21 11 12 3 63

This route was determined as being preferable in previous

work which considered this option against option 2. The

southern section of the route via Shootacre Lane might be

more preferable if via the potential development site north

east of Shootacre Lane.

2 13 18 10 11 2 54

This route is via Horsenden and is therefore likely to meet

with local opposition. There are also environmental and

heritage issues which will make the option less attractive.

The alignment of the road is longer than other options and

therefore likely to result in less economic benefit than

alternatives such as 13a/13b and 17.

4 14 19 11 11 3 58 This route is west of Horsenden and ties into Shootacre

Lane. It will require multiple railway bridges to be upgraded

and new bridges to be provided.

6 11 18 8 10 3 50

This route is via the north western side of the development

site, west of Horsenden and ties into Shootacre Lane. It will

require multiple railway bridges to be upgraded and new

bridges to be provided. The alignment is very circuitous to

avoid constraints but as a consequence is unlikely to provide

the journey time benefit required to facilitate traffic

reassignment.

8 16 21 9 11 3 60

The route runs close to the railway line. It would offer similar

access to the planned development. At this stage

constraints/ significant unknowns are the sewerage treatment

works and the existing residential area which would need to

be acquired.

10 12 18 8 9 3 50 This route crosses railway lines multiple times and is wider

which means that design would need to be higher speed to

deliver journey time benefits.

11a 16 21 11 12 3 63 This route was defined in the Princes Risborough Steering

Group workshop. The southern section of the route is via the

AONB.

11b 16 21 11 12 3 63 This route was defined in the Princes Risborough Steering

Group workshop. The southern section of the route is via

Shootacre Lane.

12 14 19 11 11 3 58 This route is west of Horsenden and ties into Shootacre

Lane. It will require multiple railway bridges to be upgraded

and new bridges to be provided.

13a 15 21 11 11 2 60

This route was defined in the Princes Risborough Steering

Group workshop. The route is via Lower Icknield Way and

Summerleys Road. The route requires improvements to four

railway bridges. The route is via the AONB.

13b 15 21 11 11 2 60

This route was defined in the Princes Risborough Steering

Group workshop. The route is via Lower Icknield Way and

Summerleys Road. The route requires improvements to four

railway bridges and follows Shootacre Lane.

15a 16 21 11 12 3 63

The alignment of this route was defined in the Princes

Risborough Steering Group workshop. The southern section

of the route is via the AONB. The character of the road

corridor will be designed to accord more with the principles of


B12798D8/001 60

Option

Str

ate

gic

Econom

ic

Managem

ent

Fin

ancia

l

Com

merc

ial

TO

TA

L

Comments

Manual for Streets and will be more akin to a ‘boulevard’.

15b 16 21 11 12 3 63

The alignment for this route was defined in the Princes

Risborough Steering Group workshop. The southern section

of the route is via Shootacre Lane. The character of the road

corridor will be designed to accord more with the principles of

Manual for Streets and will be more akin to a ‘boulevard’.

16a 15 21 11 12 3 62




works. The southern section of the alignment is via the area

of AONB.

16b 15 21 11 12 3 62




works. The southern section of the alignment is via the

Shootacre Lane.

17 14 20 11 11 3 59 This route is east of Horsenden and ties into Shootacre Lane.

It will require multiple railway bridges to be upgraded and

new bridges to be provided.

Table 8.3: EAST summary

The EAST process indicates that there are further options that can be removed from further appraisal, including:

• Option 1: Similar to option 11a. Therefore only option 11a will be considered for further appraisal.

• Option 2: This route is via Horsenden Lane and has already met with local opposition. There are also

environmental and heritage issues which will make the option less attractive. The alignment of the road is

longer than other options and therefore likely to result in less economic benefit than alternatives such as

13a/13b and 17. Option 17 is also seen as a positive option by the Princes Risborough Steering Group.

• Option 4: It will require multiple railway bridges to be upgraded and new bridges to be provided. It has a

similar alignment to option 12 which was proposed by the Princes Risborough Steering Group. Therefore

option 12 will be considered for further appraisal.

• Option 6: The alignment is very circuitous to avoid constraints but as a consequence is unlikely to provide

the journey time benefit required to facilitate traffic reassignment.

• Option 8: The route has constraints/ significant unknowns including the sewerage treatment works and the

existing residential area which would need to be acquired. An amended alignment has been incorporated

into the appraisal.

• Option 10: Crosses railway line multiple times and route is wider which would increase the cost of the

scheme to a level that is likely to be significantly higher than other options.

8.4 Options for appraisal

The following options were considered for modelling and further appraisal:

• Option 11a and 11b

• Option 12



B12798D8/001 61



• Option 17


B12798D8/001 62

9. Development and Assessment of Options

9.1 Introduction

This section presents the assessment of the scheme in terms of overall network performance and value for

money (VfM). It outlines the appraisal process and assessment methodology adopted in order to distinguish the

costs, benefits and impacts of the scheme. The outcomes of this section will demonstrate the suitability of the

scheme for funding through the local growth deal and will inform a full business case for the scheme.

This section also presents the further assessment of the scheme against the ‘5 Cases Model’ criteria – strategic,

value for money (economic), financial, commercial and delivery (management) to further understand the

potential benefits of the preferred options.

9.2 Assessment methodology

The assessment requires four scenarios to be considered. Scenarios A and B were covered in Chapter 4 of this

report. Scenario C is used to determine the options for economic assessment and Scenario D is used to

determine the transport economic benefit.

The development growth scenarios for the above are shown in Appendix C. It is noted that Scenarios A and D

are capped to NTEM/ TEMPRO growth, but the development growth included in Scenarios B and C comprises

NTEM plus the emerging PRTP development.

The BCC Countywide Model has been used as the basis for producing a local area model. The model reflects

typical weekday morning and evening peak traffic conditions.

For the purposes of this report, the potential options are referred to as ‘do something’ scenarios. Model

forecasts were prepared for two forecast years: 2021 and 2036, corresponding to the preferred and next best

scheme opening year and fifteen years thereafter. The land-use and highway network has been updated to

reflect projected schemes anticipated to be in place by each of the respective years.

The assessment of the options initially uses the outputs from Scenario C to refine the shortlist. These are then

considered using guidance set out in the DfT’s Transport Appraisal Process, with evidence presented in relation

to the:

• Strategic case – including fit with other relevant local, regional and national objectives, programmes and

strategies;

• Economic (value for money) case – including an assessment of the impact of each option on the economy,

environment, and society. This assessment includes distributional impacts wherever feasible;

• Managerial (delivery) case – including deliverability analysis and stakeholder and public acceptability;

• Financial case – including funding and affordability analysis (including commercial viability where

applicable) and a preliminary cost/risk/optimism bias assessment; and

• Commercial case – analysis of potential route to procurement.


B12798D8/001 63

Figure 9.1: Assessment methodology


B12798D8/001 64

9.3 Stages 1 to 3

The modelling results from the 2013 base and 2036 do minimum scenario were discussed in Chapters 3 and 4

of this report. They show that the emerging development is dependent upon new road infrastructure, and that

traffic congestion increases in the future.

9.4 Stage 4

The modelling of Scenario C is undertaken for the road alignment options shortlisted. Chapters 5 and 6 defined

the need for the intervention and project objectives against which the schemes have been appraised. The

following nine road alignment options were taken forward for further appraisal and modelling using the BCC

Countywide VISUM traffic model.

• Option 11a

• Option 11b

• Option 12

• Option 13a

• Option 13b

• Option 15a

• Option 15b

• Option 16a

• Option 16b

• Option 17

9.4.1 Evaluation of options against project objectives

The performance of these options is considered in the context of the project objectives which have been defined

in consultation with stakeholders and the Princes Risborough Steering Group. The objectives are considered in

turn.

Maintain or improve journey times and reliability for north-south traffic movement via the Princes


A key objective of the BTVLEP is to improve north-south connectivity between major settlements and key

economic centres through improvement of journey times and journey time reliability. This is echoed in

Buckinghamshire County Council’s LTP3, and stakeholder and steering group objectives for the scheme.

The north-south journey times between locations north of Grove Lane and south of Shootacre Lane have been

compared for 2013 and Scenario C. The comparison vs 2013 base journey times on the A40101 are shown in

Table 9.1. This shows that all options offer some improvement against the existing situation, with options 11a,

11b, 16a, 16b, and 17 appearing to offer the greatest benefit, followed by option 12.

In general, there is not a significant difference between results for the A and B options for an alignment.

Therefore, other considerations regarding deliverability, environment and heritage may take precedence when

selecting between the A and B route of an option.


B12798D8/001 65

Table 9.1 North-south journey times (minutes: seconds) for the A4010 and road alignment option

(Scenario C), and comparison vs 2013 base

Scenario/

Option Direction

A4010 New Road Alignment Option

AM PM AM PM

2013 base Southbound 11m 7s 10m 8s

Northbound 10m 9s 11m 41s

C/11a Southbound 10m 35s 9m 41s 10m 37s 9m 34s

Northbound 10m 26s 10m 43s 10m 15s 10m 31s

C/11b Southbound 11m 5s 9m 48s 10m 52s 9m 41s


C/12 Southbound 11m 44s 10m 22s 10m 57s 10m 5s






C/15A Southbound 10m 40s 9m 51s 12m 13s 10m 52s








17 Southbound 11m 12s 9m 47s 10m 47s 9m 30s



B12798D8/001 66

Reduce through traffic volumes, congestion and severance on the A4010 in Princes Risborough Town

Centre by redistributing this traffic onto the new road.

The traffic model allows comparison of traffic volumes on different sections of the road for the different

scenarios. Tables 9.2 and 9.3 provide traffic data and percentage changes for three roads, which were

identified by the steering group as being sensitive in the local area (Poppy Road, New Road, and C63 through

Askett) for the AM and PM peak hours in both directions.

This shows that vs 2013 base, options 11a, 11b, and 13a are best for reducing traffic volumes on Poppy Road.

Options 12 and 17 show an increase in traffic, but this could be mitigated by introducing the new link road

through the site south of the railway station. Option 17 offers the greatest traffic reduction on New Road in the

town centre. In all options there is a similar trend for the changes in traffic through Askett. The model shows an

increase in traffic through Askett vs 2013 base, which emphasises the need for the wider emerging transport

strategy.

The attractiveness of the existing A4010 or the new road is dependent upon the journey time, delay and

congestion on each route. Review of the model shows:

• Options 11a/ 11b:

- AM peak hour: northbound traffic uses the new road, but southbound traffic remains on the A4010.

- PM peak hour: northbound traffic split across the new road and A4010, but southbound traffic remains

on the A4010.

• Option 12:

- AM peak hour: southbound traffic split across the new road and A4010, but northbound uses the new

road.

- PM peak hour: southbound traffic uses the A4010, and northbound traffic uses the new road.

• Option 13a/ 13b:

- Through traffic remains on the A4010. No traffic using the new road, except in the AM peak for option

13b, where a nominal amount of traffic uses the new road.

• Option 15a/ 15b:

- Through traffic remains on the A4010 in both peak hours. Interrogation of the model shows higher

development traffic volumes on the new road, which is facilitating the development, but making the

new road less attractive for through traffic to use.

• Option 16a/16b:



on the A4010.

• Option 17:



on the A4010.

This shows that options 11a, 11b, 12, 16a, 16b and 17 each remove a varying proportion of the through traffic

from the town centre. The modelling shows that through traffic remains on the A4010 in both peak hours in

options 15a and 15b.

Traffic congestion can be considered to be a measure of delay at junctions and on links. The delay at junctions

has been determined from the BCC Countywide Model and a summary of the delay at junctions in the A4010

corridor between the Grove Lane/ A4010 and Shootacre/ A4010 junctions is shown in Table 9.4. Using a

scoring system, where junctions delays of less than 30 seconds equals 0, 30 seconds to one minute equals

one, one to two minutes equals two, and greater than two minutes equals three, the options can be reviewed in

terms of the junction delay in the A4010 corridor through Princes Risborough. The scores show that options

11b, 17,15b, and 16b perform best, and options 12, 13a and 15a perform worst.


B12798D8/001 67

Table 9.2 2013 and 2036 Traffic volumes on sections of the road network identified in consultation

2013 2036 Scenario

Base C-11A C-11B C-12 C-13A C-13B C-15A C-15B C-16A C-16B C-17

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

Poppy Road Southbound 116 146 118 82 61 81 191 194 108 78 195 198 153 148 141 169 121 82 199 215 93 147

Northbound 107 113 78 108 83 108 595 558 82 108 210 178 83 109 83 109 80 108 160 166 441 264

New Road Southbound 734 720 637 697 629 683 713 761 666 740 651 744 667 743 665 726 628 711 640 722 562 568

Northbound 814 1001 814 742 824 770 849 763 919 866 876 867 937 874 911 875 845 781 872 801 693 618

Askett (C63) Southbound 196 194 412 299 401 298 423 342 386 281 391 279 400 291 386 289 395 286 414 309 415 303

Northbound 138 179 281 336 288 336 229 289 211 311 218 298 281 351 283 348 271 341 286 356 276 308

Table 9.3 % change in traffic volumes (2036 Scenario and 2013 Base)

2036

C-11A C-11B C-12 C-13A C-13B C-15A C-15B C-16A C-16B C-17

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

Poppy Road

SB 2% -44% -47% -45% 65% 33% -7% -47% 68% 36% 32% 1% 22% 16% 4% -44% 72% 47% -20% 1%

NB -27% -4% -22% -4% 456% 394% -23% -4% 96% 58% -22% -4% -22% -4% -25% -4% 50% 47% 312% 134%

New Road SB -13% -3% -14% -5% -3% 6% -9% 3% -11% 3% -9% 3% -9% 1% -14% -1% -13% 0% -23% -21%

NB 0% -26% 1% -23% 4% -24% 13% -13% 8% -13% 15% -13% 12% -13% 4% -22% 7% -20% -15% -38%

Askett (C63)

SB 110% 54% 105% 54% 116% 76% 97% 45% 99% 44% 104% 50% 97% 49% 102% 47% 111% 59% 112% 56%

NB 104% 88% 109% 88% 66% 61% 53% 74% 58% 66% 104% 96% 105% 94% 96% 91% 107% 99% 100% 72%

Reduction Increase

-1% to -10% 1% to 10%

-11% to -25% 11% to 25%

-26% to -50% 26% to 50%

-51% to -100% 51% to 100%

>-100% >100%


B12798D8/001 68

Table 9.4 Junction delay at locations along A4010 corridor between Shootacre Lane and Grove Lane

Junction 2013 2036 Scenario

Base C-11A C-11B C-12 C-13A C-13B C-15A C-15B C-16A C-16B C-17

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

Shootacre Lane/ A4010

Woodway/ A4010

Upper Icknield Way (S)/ A4010

Upper Icknield Way (N)/ A4010

Poppy Road/ A4010

Jasmine Crescent/ A4010

New Road/ Bell Street/ New Road A4010

New Road A4010/ Duke Street/ Longwick Road/ A4010

The Avenue/ A4010

Peters Lane/ A4010

Mill Lane/ A4010

Cadsden Road/ A4010

Church Lane/ A4010

Grove Lane/ A4010

TOTAL 7 6 9 8 5 2 10 10 11 9 9 5 12 9 6 6 10 8 7 3 4 3

Combined TOTAL 13 17 7 20 20 14 21 12 18 10 7

Junction Delay

<30 seconds 0 1 minute to 2 minutes 2

30 seconds to 1 minute 1 > 2 minutes 3


B12798D8/001 69

Facilitate the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough,

north of the east-west railway line.

Provide network capacity to facilitate the housing growth of Princes Risborough and manage/ mitigate

the wider road network capacity.

Stimulate growth in employment development in Princes Risborough through improved accessibility,

business efficiency, and resilience.

The three objectives above are closely related and for the purposes of this OAR draw upon the same transport

evidence to determine the merits of each of the options.

A sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough north east of the railway line would

require the development to provide infrastructure to facilitate travel to/ from the town centre by walking, cycling,

and public transport.

Options which provide the road through development (11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, and 16b) afford an opportunity

to provide dedicated footways and cycleways as part of the scheme. 11a, 11b, 15a and 15b provide a more

centralised route through the development site, compared to 16a and 16b, so these would logically be better for

travel along the corridor for a greater number of residents and employees. It is assumed that the development

would provide an internal road, footway/path and cycleway/ path network, if one of options 12, 13a, 13b or 17

were promoted as the preferred scheme. It is also assumed that access for all modes would be provided to

Summerleys Road in the southern corner of the development site.

Overall, it is anticipated that the expansion of Princes Risborough would need to incorporate facilities which

increase the number of people walking, cycling, and use of public transport to destinations including the station

and town centre. Therefore, prior to the development of a masterplan, it has to be assumed that the

development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough, north of the east-

west railway line is an absolute requirement of the development and therefore common to all schemes that are

being considered in this OAR.

Chapters 3 and 4 demonstrated that the planned development is dependent upon new road infrastructure as the

growth would exacerbate delay and congestion. Therefore, it is reasonable to appraise performance of an

option against the volume of development traffic forecast to use the road, and the change in traffic volumes at

locations identified in the road network as being locally sensitive.

The development traffic is forecast to take varying routes, depending upon the new road infrastructure that is

provided. Broadly roads which are aligned through the development (options 11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, 16b, and

17) are more attractive to trips to/ from the proposed development, and the connection between Summerleys

Road and the A4010 via the emerging development site south of the Princes Risborough Station is important to

reduce traffic on Poppys Road and the section of Station Road between Summerleys Road and Poppy Road.

The model also shows that the lowest volume of development traffic using any of the schemes is shown to be

for option 12. Whilst the new section west of Horsenden provides wider road network capacity and therefore

would be attractive to through traffic, no development traffic is forecast to use this section of the road.

Therefore, this section appears to serve no purpose in the context of facilitating growth in housing and

employment in this area. Options 13a and 13b also seem to provide some benefit to development traffic.

All options would include realignment of the Grove Lane/ A4010 junction, which would help facilitate the

proposed development as this would overcome the bottleneck at the existing Grove Lane/ A4010 junction.

Improve the vitality of the town centre in Princes Risborough.

This objective has greater relevance to the emerging transport strategy for the town centre and surrounds. The

proposed development will increase the local population and therefore provide a greater number of local

residents to help boost the vitality of the town centre.

Delivering an alternative traffic route creates the opportunity to improve the town centre highway environment

by introducing measures to calm and civilise traffic, increasing its ‘place’ values. It will reduce severance across

the town centre, creating a safer and more congenial environment for shoppers and visitors. It introduces the

capacity to dedicate more highway space for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and parking. This will boost the

economic potential of the town centre, attracting more shoppers and retail uses.


B12798D8/001 70

Protect, improve, and maintain the local environment and heritage.

This section summarises the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed alignments in relation to the

environmental receptors discussed in the previous sections.

Air quality

All of the proposed options could result in negative air quality impacts along Picts Lane, Lower Icknield Way,

and Grove Lane. All options, with the exception of options 12 and 17, could result in impacts to Summerleys

Road (south) and Station Road. Option 12 and 17 could have an additional impact on Horsenden. Options 11b,

12, 13b, 15b, 16b and 17 could have additional impact on Shootacre Lane. Options 13a and 13b could have

additional impacts on Summerleys Road. All options except 15a and 15b have the potential to improve air

quality in the Princes Risborough Town Centre through reduced traffic volumes.

Although there are differences between the proposed options, all of them have the potential to result in changes

in traffic flow across different sections of the road network. Therefore at this stage no preferred option has been

identified for air quality.

Noise and vibration

Similar noise impacts could be expected on the receptors around the existing road network. In addition, the

setting of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery on Hemley Hill Scheduled Monument could be affected by noise impacts

as it is located approximately 70m from options 11b, 12, 13b, 15b, 16b and 17.

Although there are differences between the proposed options, all of them have the potential to result in changes

in traffic flow across the network. Therefore at this stage no preferred option has been identified for noise and

vibration.

Cultural heritage

Options 11b, 12, 13b, 15b, 16b and 17 would be located within 500m of four SAMs located around Saunderton.

There are also ANAs in this area associated with the SAMs, with options 12 and 17 travelling across one ANA,

just south of Horsenden. The majority of Listed Buildings in the study area are located in the Conservation

Areas, and are unlikely to be impacted by any of the proposed options. However, the setting of these

Conservation Areas could be affected, particularly Alscot Conservation Area (options 11a, 11b, 15a, and 15b)

and Horsenden Conservation Area (options 12 and 17).

Based on this option 13a is least likely to impact heritage assets. Options 12 and 17 are the least preferable

options as they have the most potential to impact Conservation Areas and archaeological remains.

Landscape

All of the proposed options would require development in the Chilterns AONB and Metropolitan Green Belt. All

options with the exception of options 12 and 17 would likely impact TPOs located on Picts Lane; options 13a,

13b and 17 could have an additional impact on TPOs located on Summerleys Road and Horsenden Lane.

Options 11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, 16b and 17 would take place within strategic land designated for future

development, and this is assessed as having a low sensitivity to landscape impacts. Options 12 and 17 would

be developed in land west of Princes Risborough, which could permanently impact the openness of the

landscape.

Options 11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, and 16b would all be located in designated development land assessed as low

sensitivity to visual impact, and are therefore the preferred options. Options 12 and 17 are the least preferable

options in relation to landscape as they could be expected to have the most impact on landscape setting,

particularly around Horsenden.


B12798D8/001 71

Ecology and nature conservation

It is considered unlikely that any of the proposed options will have a direct impact on the national and European

designated sites and ancient woodland located within the study area. However, it is possible that designated

sites could be indirectly impacted by poor air quality as a result of the scheme; this is particularly true for the

Chilterns Beechwoods SAC, which is located approximately 800m from all options.

Options 16a, 16b, and 17 will have a direct impact on Longwick Bog LWS, as the alignments pass directly

through the site. Options 12, 13a, and 13b could have an impact on BNSs as the alignments are adjacent the

sites. During the design development these impacts would need to be reduced as far as reasonably practicable

and mitigation implemented for the residual impact. This could include for example, measures to reduce the

construction footprint of the scheme and reviewing specific site sensitivities in order to investigate ways of

avoiding areas of higher sensitivity.

There is the potential for protected species at sites in proximity to all the considered options. However, there is

greater potential for option 12, 13a, 13b, 16a, 16b, and 17 to impact protected species due their proximity to

Local Wildlife Sites and sites designated for their ecological importance.

Options 11a, 11b, 15a, and 15b could be expected to have the least impact on ecology as they are the least

likely to impact Local Wildlife Sites. Options 16a, 16b, and 17 are the least preferable options as the alignments

would involve a direct uptake of land within an Local Wildlife Site.

Geology and soils

There is potential for contaminated land across all the proposed options. The historic landfill is not located in

close proximity to any option, and it is unlikely that there will be land contamination related to the sewage works.

At this stage no option is preferable in relation to land contamination.

Road drainage and the water environment

All of the proposed options would be required to cross the Kingsley Cuttle Brook WFD waterbody and its

tributaries, which are designated as flood zone 3. It is unlikely that options 13a and 13b would require new

crossings as the route follows Summerleys Road, which will already have crossings in place. There is a risk that

water pollution could occur in waterbodies associated with all of the proposed options.

Options 13a and 13b would require the fewest new waterbody crossings, and could therefore be expected to

have to lowest impact on the water environment.

Effect on all travellers

All of the proposed options would need to cross the Ridgeway National Trail and National Cycle Route 57. All

options would cross or travel adjacent to additional PRoW: options 11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, 16b and 17 could

affect 13 additional PRoW; options 13a and 13b could affect an additional 14 PRoW; and option 12 could affect

an additional 15 PRoW. Options 12, 13a, 13b and 17 would need to cross the Chilterns Mainline at two

locations but all other options would cross the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury line once, which is only a

branch line. Therefore it would be expected that options 12, 13a, 13b and 17 would cause the most disruption to

railways during the scheme construction.

Options 16a and 16b are likely to cross the fewest PRoW; therefore these options could be expected to have

the lowest impact on all travellers. Option 12 is the least preferable option in relation to PRoW and options 12

and 17 are least preferable in terms of railway disruption.

Community and private assets

All of the proposed options have the potential to cause disruption to community assets along the B4009.

Options 16a and 16b are located close to allotment gardens and align through a sewage works. All options


B12798D8/001 72

would result in temporary and permanent loss of agricultural land. Options 13a and 13b would require the least

extent of agricultural land uptake and option 12 would require the largest extent of agricultural land uptake and

therefore would result in the greatest loss of the land.

Based on this options 13a and 13b would be expected to have the least impact on community and private

assets. Option 12 is the least preferable option as it would result in the largest loss of good quality agricultural

land.

Materials

No comparison has been made at this stage as to which option would have the greatest impact on materials

and waste.

Summary of environmental considerations and future studies

Based on the high level analysis described previously options 13a and 13b could be expected to have the least

environmental impact, and are on balance the preferred options from an environmental perspective. Options 12

and 17 are the least preferred options from an environmental perspective. Further study is needed to

understand the most appropriate approach to mitigation required for options that are carried forward.

Improve the safety/ reduce the risk of death or injury on roads in Princes Risborough, but particularly

the A4010 through Princes Risborough.

At this stage of business case and option assessment process traffic volumes on the A4010 are used as a

proxy for accident likelihood for each of the options. The baseline data review identified three accident

‘hotspots’, including the A4010/ Grove Lane junction, New Road in the town centre (between the two

roundabouts), and Upper Icknield Road/ A4010 junction (north of Shootacre Lane).

The modelling shows that in general traffic volumes on the A4010 between Grove Lane and Shootacre Lane are

lower with all road options, although it appears that options 12 and 13a/ 13b have the least benefit.

All options propose a realignment of Grove Lane and therefore it is anticipated that the risk of collisions could

reduce in this location. The road traffic volumes on New Road reduce by the greatest amount in option 17,

which suggests that this is the best option in terms of reducing the risk of accidents in this location. Options

11a, 13a, 15a and 16a all increase delay at the Upper Icknield Road/ A4010 junction and, unmitigated, this

could increase the risk of accidents in this location.

Improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport to, from and within the town to the


This objective relates mostly to the wider emerging transport strategy for the town, however reduced traffic

volumes can be used as a proxy for easier pedestrian crossing of roads. As discussed previously all options,

except 15a and 15b, reduce traffic volumes in the town centre. All options also result in an increase in traffic on

Summerleys Road (south of the railway), which would reduce ease of access to the station from the town

centre. Pedestrian access to/ from the station will need to be considered in more detail at a later stage of the

design process.

Develop a road scheme that is feasible and deliverable in terms including funding (by developers and

bid).

The feasibility and deliverability of the road scheme is a balance between cost and benefits. The purpose of

this stage of the review process is to refine the options that will be assessed using TUBA. Table 9.5 provides a

summary of the transport challenges of each of the options.

The main differentiator in terms of delivery are route length, proportion of overall cost covered by developer

funding, and number of rail bridges. This would suggest that options 12, 13a, 13b and 17 are less deliverable

than other options. Options 16a and 16b may not be deliverable as they are contingent upon the sewerage

works being relocated. Options 11a, 11b, 13a, 13b, 15a, 15b, 16a and 16b would have a higher proportion of

overall scheme cost covered by developer contribution as these are less expensive schemes, when compared

to options 12 and 17.


B12798D8/001 73

Option Approximate

road length

Approximate length

of road inside

masterplan area

boundary

Road/ rail bridges Crossings of

water bodies/

flood risk

areas

Purchase of houses/

property and land

11a/11b 11a: ~

6.4km

11b: ~

6.9km

11a/11b: ~2km Grove Lane

Summerleys Road

4 Near Grove Lane/

A4010.

Adjacent to Summerleys

Road, south of railway

bridge.

Widening of Shootacre

Lane into the AONB.

12 ~ 8.1km Nil Grove Lane

Lower Icknield Way

Chinnor Branch Line

Shootacre Lane

4 Near Grove Lane/

A4010.

North of Shootacre

Lane.

Greenfield land between

Lower Icknield Way and

Shootacre lane west of

Horsenden.


Lane into the AONB.

13a/13b 13a: ~

7.3km

13b: ~

7.8km

Nil Grove Lane

Lower Icknield Way

Summerleys Road

4 Near Grove Lane/

A4010.



bridge.


Lane into the AONB.

15a/15b 15a: ~

6.4km

15b: ~

6.9km

15a/15b: ~2km Grove Lane

Summerleys Road

4 Near Grove Lane/

A4010.



bridge.


Lane into the AONB.

16a/16b 16a: ~

6.6km

16b: ~

7.1km

16a/16b: ~2.1km Grove Lane

Summerleys Road

4 Near Grove Lane/

A4010.



bridge.


Lane into the AONB.


B12798D8/001 74

Option Approximate

road length

Approximate length

of road inside

masterplan area

boundary

Road/ rail bridges Crossings of

water bodies/

flood risk

areas

Purchase of houses/

property and land

17 ~ 7km ~1.2km Grove Lane

South of Lower

Icknield Way

Chinnor Branch Line

Shootacre Lane

4 Near Grove Lane/

A4010.

North of Shootacre

Lane.

Greenfield land between

crossing of London to

Birmingham railway and

Shootacre Lane (east of

Horsenden).


Lane into the AONB.

Table 9.5 Deliverability challenges (transport focus)

Ensure the road infrastructure options for Princes Risborough integrate with the Highway Authority’s

emerging strategy to improve north-south connectivity through Buckinghamshire.

There are currently sections of the A4010 in Princes Risborough which experience reduced link speeds, and

there are junctions where road users experience delay. This and previous studies forecast significant growth in

traffic, even without the additional growth being considered in the Princes Risborough area. This will exacerbate

the existing problems, and likely result in more widespread delay, which will impact on north-south connectivity

on the A4010 corridor.

The project represents an opportunity to improve an alternative north-south connection between the M40 and

the M1 in the north (via the main population centres, including Beaconsfield, High Wycombe, Princes

Risborough, Aylesbury and up to Milton Keynes), and centres including Marlow, Maidenhead and Reading to

the south. Therefore, this project provides benefit to both the Aylesbury – Princes Risborough – High Wycombe

corridor and the wider sub-region.

All of the road options provide an additional route for north-south traffic movement, with options 11a, 11b and 17

performing best. 16b and 12 also offer some improvements to journey time.

It is noted that the definition of the preferred north-south strategic road corridor will be the subject of a separate

BCC study.

The previous discussion in this chapter of the OAR suggests that four options will be short listed for TUBA

assessment: 11b, 12, 15b, and 17. Figures 9.2 to 9.9 show the traffic flow changes between Scenarios B and C

for the AM and PM peak hours.

Comparison between Scenario B and Scenario C shows that traffic reduces on the existing A4010, with options

11b and 17 showing the greatest reduction. The traffic volumes on the A4010 towards Aylesbury and High

Wycombe increase compared to 2013 base. This is unsurprising given the additional traffic that would be

generated by the PRTP development.

The comparison plots also show that there is no significant increase or decrease in traffic volume on the A4129

towards Thame or B4009 towards Chinnor as a result of the road schemes.


B12798D8/001 75

Figure 9.2: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for AM peak hour for option 11b

Figure 9.3: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for PM peak hour for option 11b

N

N


B12798D8/001 76

Figure 9.4: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for AM peak hour for option 12

Figure 9.5: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for PM peak hour for option 12

N

N


B12798D8/001 77

Figure 9.6: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for AM peak hour for option 15b

Figure 9.7: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for PM peak hour for option 15b

N

N


B12798D8/001 78

Figure 9.8: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for AM peak hour for option 17

Figure 9.9: Flow difference plot (Scenarios C and B) for PM peak hour for option 17

N

N


B12798D8/001 79

9.4.2 Summary of stage 4

The transport modelling results for the schemes have been evaluated against the project objectives. In

summary the following is found.

The comparison of journey times vs 2013 base shows that all options offer some improvement against the

existing situation, with options 11a, 11b, 16a, 16b, and 17 appearing to offer the greatest benefit, followed by

option 12. Review of the options performance against Scenario A journey times shows that options 11a and

11b offer the best journey times, with 16a and 17 performing next best. 16b and 12 also offer some

improvements to journey time.

The options provide varying levels of reduction in traffic. The point of reference should be Scenario A as this

includes background traffic growth by 2036 for the wider area (excluding the proposed development). It is

shown that option 17 provides the greatest reduction in two-way traffic volumes on New Road. Options 11a,

11b, 12, 16a, and 16b also offer some traffic reduction on New Road.

Traffic congestion can be considered to be measured by delay at junctions and on links. The delay at junctions

has been determined and show that options 11b, 17,15b, and 16b perform best, and options 12, 13a and 15a

perform worst.

A sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough north-east of the railway line would

require the development to provide infrastructure to facilitate travel to/ from the town centre by walking, cycling,

and public transport.

Options which provide the road through development (11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, and 16b) afford an opportunity

to provide dedicated footways and cycleways as part of the scheme. 11a, 11b, 15a and 15b provide a more

centralised route through the development site, compared to 16a and 16b, so these would logically be better for

travel along the corridor for a greater number of residents and employees. As these are integrated with the

scheme this may present better value for money in terms of development economics.

It is assumed that the development would provide an internal road, footway/path and cycleway/ path network, if

one of option 12, 13a, 13b or 17 was promoted as the preferred scheme. It is also assumed that access for all

modes would be provided to Summerleys Road in the southern corner of the development site.

Therefore, prior to the development of a masterplan, it has to be assumed that the development of a sustainable

and integrated residential expansion of Princes Risborough, north of the east-west railway line is an absolute

requirement of the development and therefore common to all schemes that are being considered in this OAR.

The case for development to contribute to the scheme and the impact on the overall economic viability of the

development will need to be discussed with the landowners and developers of the site.

The development traffic is forecast to take varying routes, depending upon the new road infrastructure that is

provided. Roads which are aligned through the development are more attractive to trips to/ from the proposed

development. The connection between Summerleys Road and the A4010 via the development site south of the

station is important to reduce traffic on Poppys Road, and the section of Station Road between Summerleys

Road and Poppy Road. The modelling shows that the lowest volume of development traffic using any of the

schemes is shown to be for option 12.

The plots also show that whilst the new section west of Horsenden provides wider road network capacity and

therefore would be attractive to through traffic, no development traffic is using this section. Therefore, this

section appears to serve no purpose in the context of dependent development in housing and employment in

this area. Options 13a and 13b seem to provide some benefit to development traffic, but this is less than

options 11a, 11b, 15a, 15b, 16a, 16b and 17.

All options would include realignment of the Grove Lane/ A4010 junction, which would help facilitate the

proposed development.

Based on the high level analysis described previously options 13a and 13b could be expected to have the least

environmental impact, and are on balance the preferred options from an environmental perspective. Option 12

is the least preferred option as it would likely have the greatest impact on heritage, landscape, ecology, PRoW,

and community assets. However, it should be noted that none of the options are considered at this stage to

have insurmountable issues. Providing appropriate mitigation can be implemented, any of the proposed options


B12798D8/001 80

could be potentially viable. Further study is needed to understand the detail of the mitigation required for

options that are carried forward.

At this stage of business case and option assessment process traffic volumes on the A4010 are used as a

proxy for accident likelihood for each of the options. Traffic flow plots which show changes in traffic volumes on

the A4010 through the Princes Risborough area show that in general traffic volumes on the A4010 between

Grove Lane and Shootacre Lane are lower with all road options, although it appears that options 12 and 13a/ 13b have the least benefit.

In general, with the exception of junction delay in the A4010 corridor through Princes Risborough, there is not a

significant difference between results for the A and B options for an alignment. Therefore, other considerations

regarding deliverability, environment and heritage may take precedence when selecting between the A and B

route of an option. For the purposes of this OAR, options B are considered.

Based on the findings of this stage of the project the options that are considered appropriate to consider in

stage 5 are:

• 11b,

• 12,

• 15b, and

• 17.

Whilst it is not the optimal solution in local transport and environmental terms, option 12 is carried forward into

stage 5 on the basis that it provides a strategic function for north-south movements and is understood to be a

preferred scheme of the Princes Risborough Steering Group. Option 15b is considered as it allows

understanding of the operation of a scheme when a speed of 30mph is used on the section of road through the

development site.

Options 13a/ 13b are removed because they do not appear to serve a strategic traffic function. 16a/ 16b are not

carried forward into stage 5 because of the deliverability risks associated with whether the existing sewerage

works will be relocated.

9.5 Stage 5

9.5.1 Overview

In line with WebTAG guidance, the transport benefit of the scheme is determined from analysis of the road

alignment without the anticipated development growth north west of Princes Risborough (Scenario D).

The economic assessment of the intervention options shortlisted from stage 4 of the process uses the DfT

TUBA software (version 1.9.3) to capture transport user benefits in terms of potential journey time savings and

vehicle operating cost savings. The primary inputs to the TUBA process are:

• trip number, journey time and distance matrices from the traffic models for the 2021 do something and do

minimum, and 2036 do something and do minimum scenarios, for each hourly time slice within the model

period (weekday AM (0700-0800) and PM (1700-1800) peak periods) and modelled vehicle type (Car, LGV

and HGV);

• scheme costs and delivery programme; and

• standard TUBA economic parameters for the growth in values of time and fuel costs over the appraisal

period.

The economic assessment results are presented in a Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE), Public Accounts

(PA) and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) tables. The overall impact is presented as a net

present value (NPV) and benefit to cost ratio (BCR).

The strategic, value for money, financial, commercial, and management cases are also explored and

summarised. It is noted that these are discussed in further detail in the SOBC that accompanies this report.


B12798D8/001 81

9.5.2 Summary of scheme costs for TUBA

For the purposes of the economic appraisal, it has been necessary to develop preliminary indicative scheme

costs for the road options that are being considered. These are based on estimated unit rates and quantities

determined from a potential road centre line and preliminary indicative cross sections for the road. The

alignment of the road options are indicative and would be contingent on future planning decisions, including the

emerging masterplan for the development site. Table 9.6 provides a summary of the costs input to TUBA.

In order to develop the cost estimates for use in the economic assessment of the options, the following

adjustments have been applied:

• The cost estimate has been prepared from the design information produced to date for similar schemes,

using approximate quantification for the major elements of the works (Method of Measurement for Highway

Works) that reflects our current understanding of the proposed scheme.

• The cost estimates assume that works will be procured using traditional method of procurement and a

standard form of contract.

• The cost estimates are based on approximate road lengths and road cross sections at an accuracy

commensurate with this stage in the OAR process. The rates used reflect construction projects of a similar

size and nature and are at current day prices (2nd Quarter 2015).

• Tender inflation and construction inflation are excluded.

• Value Added Tax (VAT) is excluded.

• The estimate produced at this stage is assumed to have an accuracy level of -40% to +40%.

• An optimism bias adjustment of 44% (in line with WebTAG A1.2) has been applied to the road elements of

the scheme. An optimism bias of 66% has been applied to the bridge costs.

• A scheme risk budget of 20% is included within the cost estimate to broadly reflect a level of design

development risk.

• Allowance for land purchase for land along the corridor is an estimate. £3 million has been used in other

business cases recently produced in BCC, so this is used as the basis for options 11b and 15b. 17 and 12

have additional road infrastructure across greenfield land and therefore allowances of £4 million and £5

million are included respectively.

• The estimate assumes that Construction Works will generally be undertaken during normal working hours

unless specifically identified as being undertaken out of normal working hours (evenings and weekends),

and access to the site is unrestricted.

• The estimate also excludes removal of toxic or hazardous materials, removal and/or treatment of

contaminated ground material, eradication of invasive plant growth, ground gas venting measures, soil

stabilisation measures, site dewatering and pumping, temporary diversion works, extraordinary site

investigation, charges and rates on temporary accommodation, licences associated with hoardings,

fencing, road traffic orders etc., decanting and relocation costs, employer finance costs associated with the

project, planning, building control and licence fees, railway possession, insurance, marketing costs,

planning contributions, and compensation to third parties.

Cost Type Option 11b Option 12 Option 15b Option 17

Preparatory £1,960 £1,630 £1,960 £2,040

Construction (inc. preliminaries and site supervision) £26,730 £36,690 £26,730 £40,430

Land (assumption based on previous projects) £3,000 £5,000 £3,000 £4,000

Risk Allowance £5,740 £7,660 £5,740 £8,490

Optimism Bias £15,080 £22,080 £15,080 £24,020

Total £52,510 £73,060 £52,510 £78,980

Table 9.6 TUBA input scheme costs (000’s) + or – 40% range of accuracy


B12798D8/001 82

The amount of developer contribution has been estimated based on the infrastructure that could be considered

a minimum scheme to facilitate the development only, but not deliver the strategic objectives of the scheme.

The indicative cost estimate of this scheme is £46.5 million and has been applied to all of the scheme options.

There are discussions being held outside of this project regarding the mitigation of HS2 construction traffic, and

the desire to see traffic avoid the roads in and around Princes Risborough. Should the roads in and around

Princes Risborough need to accommodate HS2 construction traffic, the B4009 may be a better route and would

therefore require upgrade to the Grove Lane railway bridge/junction with A4010 to accommodate HGV traffic.

This could be another funding contribution towards the project, but at this stage is not included due to the

uncertainty surrounding it.

9.5.3 Economic impacts of the options

A summary of some of the economic statistics for the scheme options are presented in Table 9.17, with full

details provided in the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE), Public Accounts (PA) and Analysis of Monetised

Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Tables in Appendix E of this report.

The TUBA results in Table 9.17 demonstrate that the options provide a variable amount of benefit, with options

17 and 11b having a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of greater than 1, and options 12 and 15b having a BCR of less

than 1. The BCR values are compared to the value for money thresholds shown in DfT guidelines19

and provide

the following:

• Option 11b has a BCR of 2.9 provides a high value for money.

• Option 12 has a BCR of 0.6 which has a poor value for money.

• Option 15b has a BCR of -0.8 which gives a negative value for money (the scheme costs more than the

benefits accrued).

• Option 17 has a BCR of 3.3 which gives a high value for money.

As expected for a scheme of this nature, the majority of economic efficiency benefits are generated in the form

of journey time savings, with smaller proportions attributable to vehicle operating costs. Table 9.7 provides a

summary of the benefits. This shows that whilst option 15b provides travel time benefit to the users, the

developer contribution provided results in a negative present value benefit.

The modelling work to date also forecast that option 17 will improve network performance by the greatest

amount, when time saving (in veh-hours per peak per average day in a year) is considered for each of the

schemes. The time savings are shown in Table 9.8.

Monetised Cost and Benefits (£000s)

Option Option 11b Option 12 Option 15b Option 17

Greenhouse Gases 449 311 279 1801

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting)

Travel Time 11,996 11,292 7,458 25,864

Vehicle Operating Costs 696 393 474 3,149

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other)

Travel Time 15,025 14,549 9,418 32,454

Vehicle Operating Costs 682 406 468 3,035

Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers

Travel Time 25,706 23,910 15,667 57,562

Vehicle Operating Costs 1,657 1,018 928 7,581

19 DfT. 2013. Value for Money Assessment: Advice Note for Local Transport Decision Makers.


B12798D8/001 83

Monetised Cost and Benefits (£000s)

Developer Contributions -38,422 -38,422 -38,422 -38,422

Wider Public Finances (indirect taxation) 1,095 743 668 4,375

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 16,694 12,715 -4,398 88,651

Broad Transport Budget 5,706 21,451 5,706 26,650

Present Value of Costs (PVC) 5,706 21,451 5,706 26,650

Overall Impacts

Net Present Value (NPV) 10,988 -8,736 -10,104 62,001

Initial Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.9 0.6 -0.8 3.3

Note 1: Benefits for a 60 year appraisal period

Note 2: Figures shown as 2010 prices and values

Table 9.7 Monetised cost and benefits

Year Time period Total saving (veh-hours)

Option 11b Option 12 Option 15b Option 17

2021 AM 51 41 26 102

2021 PM 57 52 29 105

2036 AM 81 70 54 158

2036 PM 83 97 61 172

Table 9.8 Time savings (from BCC Countywide model)

The appraisal also considers greenhouse gases a result of changes in traffic flows, speed and traffic

composition associated with the introduction of the scheme. All of the options provide benefit, but option 17

provides the greatest benefit.

The public accounts sub-objective comprises cost to broad transport budget and indirect tax revenues. Full

details for the appraised options are presented in the PA table in Appendix E.

The broad transport budget is the net cost to the public sector. It is the same as the PVC which includes

optimism bias and is discounted to 2010 prices. The PVC for the options varies. Options 15b and 11b have the

lowest PVC so therefore are assumed to require less public funding. Option 12 has the highest PVC at

approximately two and a half times that of options 11b and 15b. Option 17 has an PVC of £36,956,000, of

which a significant proportion of the cost can be attributed to the bridges and associated optimism bias.

An additional cost to the government and ultimately wider society can result from a reduction in indirect tax

revenues, primarily from reduced fuel purchase. This shows that option 17 has the greatest disbenefit in terms

of indirect tax revenues.

This suggests that the best option is 17 in BCR terms. The next sections of the report consider the strategic,

financial, management and commercial cases of each of the options.

9.5.4 Strategic case

The strategic case needs to demonstrate that there is a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy

objectives. The impacts of the options should also be considered in the context of the project objectives and


B12798D8/001 84

targets which have been derived following review of policy and discussion with stakeholders and the Princes

Risborough Steering Group.

Strategic aims, responsibilities and objectives

The strategic aims of the project are led by the aspirations of the BTVLEP and the need to accommodate

significant growth in housing in Wycombe District. The project responsibility is within the jurisdiction of the LEP,

BCC and WDC, although the primary drivers for change vary across each organisation.

The BTVLEP Strategic Economic Plan sets out the key transport aims of the BTVLEP. The focus being the

need to improve connectivity between major settlements and key economic centres, to reduce congestion,

improve journey times, and journey time reliability.

WDC is preparing an Area Action Plan to set out options for significant growth in Princes Risborough, including

up to 2,500 new homes to the west of the town, and 27,000 sqm of new business floor space. Buckinghamshire

County Council (BCC) worked, and is working, closely with WDC to facilitate this growth.

Local stakeholders and the Princes Risborough Steering Group have been engaged in the process of

developing project specific objectives which are cognisant of the wider strategic transport and economic growth

demands of the BTVLEP, and informed by review of transport data, and national, regional, and local policies

pertinent to this project.

The schemes that have been considered all support the project objectives (to a varying degree), which in turn

align with the strategic objectives of the LEP. The achievement of the aims is stated in the BTVLEP Strategic

Economic Plan as being ‘fundamental to ensuring the future smooth operation and growth of the

Buckinghamshire economy’, and therefore they are considered to be of primary importance.

All of the options have been sifted and assessed against the project objectives. Therefore as the options

support the project objectives, they must also support the wider strategic objectives set out by the BTVLEP.

Problems identified and impacts of not changing

The town is sensitive to relatively low levels of traffic growth. There are currently sections of the A4010 in

Princes Risborough which experience reduced link speeds, and there are junctions where road users

experience delay. There is forecast to be significant growth in traffic by 2031, even without the additional

growth being considered in the Princes Risborough area as part of Wycombe District Council’s (WDC’s)

development plan. This will exacerbate the existing problems, and likely result in more widespread delay, which

will impact on north-south connectivity on the A4010 corridor.

Therefore, this investment needs to be made up-front, to reduce congestion and delay to existing users of the

A4010. Developer contributions raised from the emerging development would then provide the funding to repay

part of the finance awarded from the bid. This would allow the LEP to re-invest and promote further economic

growth elsewhere.

Failure to address the challenges facing the A4010 corridor would likely deter business investment and reduce

the viability of existing businesses in the Aylesbury – Princes Risborough – High Wycombe corridor.

Unmitigated, this bottleneck on the A4010 would inhibit the delivery of the key strategic transport aims outlined

in the BTVLEP Strategic Economic Plan.

There is also a local aspiration to deliver an improved town centre environment, which has slower traffic speeds

and is therefore more pedestrian and cycle friendly. Key to this will be the reduction in traffic on the existing

A4010, and therefore options 11b, 12 and 17 support this. Of these three options, option 17 is forecast to

provide the greatest traffic reduction in the town centre.

Scope of the project and measures of success

The solutions propose a new road, which could be delivered in conjunction with new development, to the west

of Princes Risborough bypassing the existing A4010 through the centre of the town. The viability of the road

options are discussed further in the economic, financial, commercial and management cases.

The main measures of success are the performance against the project objectives. Journey time is the main

measureable, and information is extracted from TUBA. The road must also facilitate the planned development,

which supports the case for options 11b, 15b and 17.


B12798D8/001 85

The results reported by TUBA support the objective to improve journey time. There is interdependency

between many of the objectives e.g. by managing the congestion hotspots and improving journey time reliability,

connectivity is improved, which in turn supports growth. Whilst all options provide travel time benefit, the results

show that option 17 provides the greatest benefit across the network which is approximately double that

reported for the other options.

The reduced journey times demonstrated through the TUBA assessment are themselves indicative of

reductions in congestion, and as detailed in TAG unit A1.3 a reduction in journey times leads to improved

journey time reliability. The journey time savings also suggest an improvement in connectivity for north-south

movement, due to the increased capacity in the highway network to facilitate this movement.

Furthermore, improvements in journey times and connectivity support economic growth as the reduction in time

spent travelling reduces the amount of non-productive time for business travellers. The reductions in journey

times and congestion also hint at improvements to noise and air quality.

Interdependencies and constraints

The delivery of a successful project requires alignment of stakeholders, landowners, and local residents.

Coordination of this project with emerging projects such as East-West Rail and HS2 should also be considered.

An extensive stakeholder consultation exercise has been undertaken throughout the project, with members of

the local steering group favouring options 12 and 17, but understanding that there are merits of a through

development alignment as shown by options 11b and 15b. The challenge that is being faced is the visualisation

of how a through residential development route can be designed to facilitate both development and north-south

through traffic. Option 11b provides medium benefit and therefore could be pursued, but would require further

enterprise to convince the local steering group that the road could serve a dual function.

As discussed previously there are environmental constraints to overcome, and this will require further study.

The schemes all require new bridges to be constructed so early discussions will be required with Network Rail.

It is understood that there is typically a two year notice period required for possession of the railway for works.

This will need to be factored into the project programme.

9.5.5 Economic case (value for money)

The economic (value for money) case considers the likely benefits and disbenefits of each intervention option in

terms of economic, environmental and social impacts, as well as impacts on public accounts. The results of the

Value for Money assessment for each option is presented in the Appraisal Summary Tables (AST) included in

Appendix F.

At this stage potential benefits/disbenefits to be accrued from sub-objectives such as noise, local air quality,

landscape, biodiversity, water environment, accident savings, physical activity and journey quality have not

been quantified as this is commensurate with the level of detail required for a Stage 1 OAR and SOBC.

Table 9.9 provides a summary of the performance options 11b, 12, 15b and 17 against the economic case

criteria. This includes the BCR, qualitative assessment and overall value for money category for the four options

that have been assessed. The assumptions made in determining the economic case are documented

throughout this transport study, and suggest that option 17 offers the greatest value for money and transport

benefit.

It is noted that key risks associated with the value for money case can be categorised as:

• Financial – the consideration of financial risks has focused on a range of contributory factors related to cost

and programme risk. The financial risks are discussed further in the financial case.

• Performance-related – linked to level of demand and consequent impacts on the potential benefits of the

scheme.

The consideration of performance-related risks for the scheme centres on the level of overall growth

experienced by 2021 and 2036, which are the two forecast years. At this stage the scale of development that

will be allocated in the Local Plan is still to be defined, and will evolve during the Local Plan process. It is noted

that the VfM has been calculated for each of the road options in isolation of the predicted traffic demand from

the proposed PRTP development (Scenario D).


B12798D8/001 86

There are environmental considerations to be factored into the assessment. The impact of the options on the

environment was discussed previously in this report. This has been incorporated into the AST for each of the

options.

In economic terms option 17 has the highest BCR and offers high value for money. Option 11b also offers high

value for money but has a lower BCR than option 17.

Criteria Option Assessment

Detail

11b 12 15b 17

BCR 2.9 0.6 -0.8 3.3

As defined by Table 9.13

and TEE, PA, and AMCB

tables in Appendix E.

Qualitative

assessment

Overall slight to

moderate

benefit

Overall slight

benefit

Overall slight

benefit Overall benefit

Benefits anticipated

through a reduction in

traffic flows on existing

sections of the network

and at particular junctions,

contributing positively to

local accessibility,

reduced congestion and

noise, improved and air

quality. Adverse impacts

on landscape, biodiversity

and the water

environment are

expected, however,

associated with new road

construction.

Key risks

and

sensitivities

Risk budget

applied to

scheme cost

Environmental

challenges.

Constructing

two bridges

beneath and

above railways

Risk budget

applied to

scheme cost

Environmental

challenges.

Constructing

bridges four

beneath and

above

railways

Risk budget

applied to

scheme cost

Environmental

challenges.

Constructing

two bridges

beneath and

above railways

Risk budget

applied to

scheme cost

Environmental

challenges.

Constructing

four bridges

beneath and

above railways

Consistent with the level

of scheme design, an

Optimism Bias adjustment

of 44% has been applied

to construction costs in

relation to the roads and

66% applied to the

bridges.

Key risks include potential

environmental

implications and required

mitigation measures, and

construction of the railway

bridges. A risk allowance

of 20% has been applied

to total scheme costs.

VfM

category High Low Low High

As defined by criteria set

out in DfT guidance:

Value for Money

Assessment: Advice Note

for Local Transport

Decision Makers

Table 9.9 Summary of value for money criteria


B12798D8/001 87

9.5.6 Financial case

The financial case considers the affordability of the scheme and the cost of each option has been outlined

previously. The scheme with the highest cost is option 17 and the lowest cost are options 11b and 15b.

The cost estimates for each scheme include preparatory costs associated with the scheme design, planning

application, and planning and statutory processes, construction preliminaries, and scheme construction. These

were shown previously in Table 4.6. Land acquisition costs are assumed at this stage and are consistent with

other road schemes in the county, although there has been differentiation between the options with land costs

for options 11b and 15b being assumed as £3 million, option 17 at £4 million, and option 12 at £5 million. This

reflects the cost associated with the additional length of road through greenfield land outside of the masterplan

area. At this stage it is assumed that road widening can be accommodated within the highway boundary. This

will need to be confirmed as the design of the road evolves parallel to later stages of the business case process.

The cost of the scheme funded via public finances can be reduced through developer contribution. This

assessment assumes a developer contribution of £46.5 million towards each option. This contribution was

estimated from infrastructure that could potentially facilitate the emerging development, but does not necessarily

meet the wider strategic objectives of the scheme.

The developer contribution contributes approximately 90% of the total cost of options 11b and 15b, 65% of

option 12, and 60% of option 17. Therefore options 11b and 15b can be considered more affordable as they

yield a higher proportion of the scheme cost from developer contribution. A risk budget of 20% is included in

the cost estimate to broadly reflect a level of design development risk, construction risk, employer change risk

and employer other risks. In addition to this, optimism bias of 44% has been applied to road works, and 66%

applied to the bridges. The cost estimates produced at this stage have an accuracy level of - 40% to + 40%.

The risk allocations and optimism bias included are commensurate with the stage in the scheme development

process. The cost difference between the developer contribution and the scheme cost is less for options 11b

and 15b, compared with 12 and 17. This suggests that 11b and 15b are more viable in terms of funding gap to

be filled from the public purse.

Costs estimates reflect the level of design development that has been completed at this stage of the project.

The estimate is typically based on a coast per unit area. The area of the road has been determined using a

centre line of an indicative alignment, and assumptions on the road cross sections. This level of detail is

commensurate with a Stage 1 OAR.

Maintenance costs are assumed to place a medium to long term ongoing maintenance liability on BCC following

adoption of the new road e.g. resurfacing, renewal of the road, drainage clearance, lighting operation, structural

inspections etc.

The scheme would likely reduce traffic volumes on existing roads, which could have a positive impact upon the

condition of these roads. At this stage, however, the cost implications of this are unknown, and have not been

incorporated into a whole life VfM assessment.

Budget provision for the scheme is could be made through a combination of the following possible sources:

• S106 Developer contributions

• The central section of options 11b (~2km of road), 15b (~2km of road) and 17 (~1.2km of road) could be

delivered as part of the proposed development via appropriate legal agreements. This is also the case for

the section of 11b and 15b (~300m of road) through the former Whiteleaf site south of the railway station.

• Future BTVLEP Local Growth Funds.

• BCC capital programme and revenue funding, but this is considered unlikely at this time.

• Property & land value funding mechanism.

• Other Government departments e.g. Network Rail through potentially synchronising bridge works required

for East-West Rail Phase 2 (Aylesbury Line).

Overall options 11b and 15b are considered to be the most affordable.


B12798D8/001 88

9.5.7 Commercial case

The commercial case relates to the commercial viability of a proposal and the procurement strategy. The

viability of a £46.5 million contribution will need to be agreed with the developers of the masterplan area.

Sections of the route could be delivered via established legal agreements within the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990 and Highways Act, 1980. Options 11b and 15b would have a greater proportion of the overall scheme

cost within the extent of these agreements.

BCC has a strong track record in the procurement and delivery of major schemes with three notable examples

of recent projects that have been delivered or are nearing completion include Aylesbury Vale Parkway,

Aylesbury Public Transport Hub and the Chapel Lane Improvement Scheme.

The procurement of the business case development, scheme design, and associated services could be via the

Transport for Buckinghamshire (TfB) Contract which is an ‘Alliance’ model comprising BCC functions supported

by the services of Ringway Jacobs Ltd and Amey.

The TfB Alliance contract began in 2009/10 on the basis of an initial 8 year contract period to 2017/18 with an

option for annual extensions beyond this period for a further 7 years through to 2024/25. The Alliance brings

together a core of professionals to deliver its maintenance and construction programmes. This successful

partnership could manage the delivery of the complementary measures on the existing highway network.

Risks associated with the overall delivery of the BTVLEP scheme programme would be managed according to

the overall monitoring responsibilities set out in the Governance and Accountability Assurance Framework. The

Project Board would have overall responsibility for governance and risk associated with the delivery of the

scheme.

As with all construction projects, there is a need for time, cost and quality issues to be managed and their

inevitable tensions balanced. The process of contract selection and formulation will help to ensure scope of

project and project-specific risks are controlled through procurement. The construction will need to be an OJEU

advertisement and competitive tender. At this stage of business case development, the commercial case has

been developed at a strategic level. Details on contract length, human resource issues and contract

management will be finalised and updated subject to approval, at a later stage of scheme development.

The preliminary output-based specification has been prepared for the schemes as part of the development of

the commercial case. This is shown in Table 9.10 and the specification takes into account cost, plus the

Scheme’s role in contributing towards job growth in the Aylesbury area, in-line with current growth estimates.

Due to the current stage of scheme development and the limited information currently available, a number of

assumptions have been made, this includes:

• Total Gross Value Added (GVA) increase associated with the Scheme has been calculated based on a

GVA estimate of £33,310 per head taken from the 2013 sub-regional GVA figures. It is assumed that 10%

to 20% of the jobs created in the area are the result of this scheme.

• Direct FTE jobs associated with the Scheme have been assumed to equate 10% to 20% of the 22.5k to

34.5k new jobs anticipated in Aylesbury Vale and Wycombe District by 2031.

• Indirect FTE jobs associated with the Scheme have been derived from a typical ratio of project cost to

construction worker requirements, assumed to be one construction worker per £100,000 of full project cost.

Outputs Option 11b Option 12 Option 15b Option 17

GVA increase (total) £75,000,000 to £230,000,000

Direct FTE jobs (post construction to 2036) 2,250 to 6,900

Indirect FTE jobs (construction jobs to 2021) 530 702 530 775

Table 9.10 Preliminary output-based specification

This shows that options 17 and 12 offer more indirect FTE construction jobs. Overall the commercial viability of

the scheme is greater for 11b and 15b compared to options 12 and 17.


B12798D8/001 89

9.5.8 Management case

The management case assesses whether a proposal is deliverable in areas such as project planning,

governance structure, risk management, and benefits realisation.

Locally the scheme is important in delivering the dependent development identified in the PRTP, and a viable

scheme is necessary for the PRTP to be considered sound by a planning inspector. Absence of a sound PRTP

will result in speculative and piecemeal planning applications which are unlikely to deliver road infrastructure

that meets the strategic objectives of the scheme, and facilitate a comprehensive and major expansion of the

town.

The management / delivery approach that has been proposed for the scheme has been developed with

consideration of the overall scheme cost, deliverability and level of risk. It is likely to be tailored to the specific

circumstances of each element in line with the development of the scheme. At this stage, the key points to note

are:

• A project board will be established for road, comprising representation from WDC, BCC, BTVLEP and

developers, to oversee delivery of the scheme. An executive/SRO and project manager will be appointed,

with the project manager providing the interface between the project board via the project executive and

the team managers.

• Outline project plans will be developed for the scheme. At this stage, the timescale for project delivery is

indicative, and subject to change as the business case develops. Commencement of works on site is

estimated to begin Q1 2019/20, with the road opening to traffic in Q4 2020/21.

• Consultation activities will continue through the next stage of the business case and a stakeholder

engagement strategy will also be prepared to seek views, communicate progress and create consensus

during development of proposals for the scheme.

• A high level risk register will be developed through the next stage of the business case and updated

regularly, with risk owners appointed as appropriate to the type of risk and the stage of scheme delivery at

which the risk could be realised. Some relevant risks include:

- Acquisition of land outside of the highway boundary (greater risk for options 12 and 17).

- Completion of scheme designs and legal agreements, where appropriate.

- Political backing and funding from funding streams.

- Local public agreement/ opposition.

- Possession of the railway to construct the new bridges required. This represents a greater risk to

options 12 and 17 as an extra two railway bridges are required, including the London to Birmingham

mainline. The bridge work required at Summerleys Road and Grove Lane for options 11b and 15b

could potentially be undertaken in conjunction with the East-West Rail project.

- Environmental constraints impacting on the scheme alignment and delivery. Longwick Bog is a LWS

and the impact of option 17 would need to be considered in further detail to determine whether the

impact of this option can be mitigated.

• The benefits realisation, monitoring and evaluation plan will be developed as an output of the full business

case work to ensure that data collection and reporting is focused tightly on the objectives and success

indicators that have been set out in the strategic case.

Overall, options 11b and 15b are considered to be more deliverable at this stage as they have a greater

proportion of the scheme funded by developers and there are fewer risks associated with providing new road/

railway bridges.

9.6 Preferred option

The selection of the preferred option must be based on a balanced review of the strategic, economic, financial,

commercial, and management cases. A summary of the schemes against these cases is:


B12798D8/001 90

• Strategically the schemes that meet the project objectives best are 11b and 17. Option 12 offers less

benefit in terms of facilitating the PRTP development and option 15b offers less benefit to the strategic

objective of improving north-south journey time reliability.

• In economic terms option 17 has the highest BCR and offers high value for money. Option 11b also offers

high value for money but has a lower BCR than option 17. Option 12 offers poor value for money and

option 15b has a negative BCR.

• Overall options 11b and 15b are considered to be the most financially affordable.

• In commercial terms options 17 and 12 offer more indirect FTE construction jobs, but overall the

commercial viability of the scheme is greater for 11b and 15b compared to options 12 and 17.

• Overall, options 11b and 15b are considered to be more deliverable at this stage as they have a greater

proportion of the scheme funded by developers and there are fewer risks associated with providing new

road/ railway bridges.

Additional benefits are anticipated through changes in traffic volume as well as improvements in the walking and

cycling environment, providing accident savings, physical activity and journey quality enhancements. Changes

in noise and local air quality will be assessed as part of the further stages of business case development, and

outcomes will be used to inform any noise mitigation requirements.

Key risks that would have the potential to lead to an overall increase in scheme costs have been identified and

a risk budget has been included in both the scheme cost estimate and the economic appraisal. The additional

rail bridges required represent a deliverability risk to options 12 and 17.

The developer contribution provides approximately 90% of the total cost of options 11b and 15b, 65% of option

12, and 60% of option 17. Therefore options 11b and 15b can be considered more affordable as they yield a

higher proportion of the scheme cost from developer contribution.

There are also environmental considerations to be made when selecting the preferred scheme, with all options

having challenges that require further analysis and study.

The results of the appraisal has identified that option 17 is the best performing scheme in economic terms.

However, 11b is more affordable, viable, and deliverable than option 17.

9.7 Wider transport strategy

The delivery of the western road and emerging PRTP development will facilitate opportunities for a separate

transport strategy for the wider town. It is noted that this is not part of the funding ask for the scheme

considered in the business case. This has been discussed with stakeholders and the local steering group, and

will evolve in conjunction with the emerging plan. A preliminary transport strategy of other schemes is set out in

Figure 9.10, and this includes:

• Road

- town centre local area enhancement to reduce traffic speeds and improve urban realm;

- extend 30mph limit north Mill Lane to north of the Cadsden Road/ A4010 roundabout;

- extend 30mph limit northwards on Longwick Road as part of emerging PRTP development;

- create 20mph zone on Summerleys Road;

- create 20mph zone on A4010 and Peters Lane outside of the school;

- reduce rat-running of traffic through Askett;

- 3.5t weight limit of the existing A4010 (post opening of the new western road);

- provide roundabouts at the The Holloways/ A4010, Mill Lane/ A4010, Peters Lane/ A4010, Windsor

Hill/ A4010, The Avenue/ A4010, Park Street/ A4010, Clifford Road/ A4010, Station Road/ A4010, and

Poppy Road/ A4010 junctions;

- new link road through development site between Picts Lane and Summerleys Road; and

- upgraded road/ rail bridge at Summerleys Road to remove signalised shuttle working.


B12798D8/001 91

• Public transport

- East-West Rail (project being delivered by Network Rail);

- Expand car and cycle parking at railway stations (requires negotiation with Chiltern Rail); and

- Provide bus service through emerging PRTP development, either through a commercial operator or

the local community bus scheme.

• Walking and cycling

- improved crossing of the railway at Princes Risborough Station and across the East-West Railway;

- town centre local area enhancement to reduce traffic speeds and improve urban realm; and

- expanded cycle network north west of the East-West Railway to integrate the new development with

the town and connect better with the Phoenix Trail.


B12798D8/001 92

Figure 9.10: Wider transport strategy

Reproduction from the Ordnance Survey Map with permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s stationary office Crown copyright reserved Licence No. AL 100017326

N


B12798D8/001 93

The schemes above have been assessed broadly against their ability to contribute to the following scheme

appraisal criteria:

• Deliverability: Consideration of issues around deliverability, e.g. in terms of political, planning, timescales or

third party issues.

• Feasibility: Consideration of practicalities which may present issues in delivery, e.g. physical constraints,

land availability and design standards.

• Affordability: Assessing to what extent funding would be required to deliver the scheme, and whether this is

likely to be available through existing funding sources.

Table 9.11 provides an overview of possible constraints, in relation to each scheme and the criteria above. The

process aims to provide an easily presentable means of identifying possible options to be considered further. It

is envisaged that the schemes would be supported by behavioural change programmes.

Any assumptions made regarding cost or timescale, in relation to an option, is purely indicative, and is based on

Jacobs experience of timescales and costs associated with implementing similar schemes; it should not be

used for any purpose other than this initial assessment. The broad categories used are described below:

• Short term: up to 2021; Medium term: 2021 to 2031; Long term: Post 2031

• Outline cost: Low <£1m; Medium £1m to £10m; High>£10m

Option Timescale Cost Deliverability Feasibility Affordability

Town centre local area

enhancement Medium Medium

Likely to be

deliverable but

requires

alternative road

corridor

Likely to be

feasible

The affordability

relates to the

scheme design

Extend 30mph limit north

Mill Lane to north of the

Cadsden Road/ A4010

roundabout

Short Low Likely to be

deliverable

Likely to be

feasible

Funding would

need to be

sourced

Extend 30mph limit

northwards on Longwick

Road as part of

emerging PRTP

development

Short to

medium Low

Likely to be

deliverable

Likely to be

feasible

Delivered in

conjunction with

emerging

development

Create 20mph zone on

Summerleys Road Short Low

Likely to be

deliverable

Likely to be

feasible

Funding would

need to be

sourced

Create 20mph zone on

A4010 and Peters Lane

outside of the school

Short Low Likely to be

deliverable

Likely to be

feasible

Funding would

need to be

sourced

Reduce rat-running of

traffic through Askett Short Low

Likely to be

deliverable but

requires

alternative traffic

route

Likely to be

feasible

The affordability

relates to the

scheme design

3.5t weight limit of the

existing A4010 (post

opening of the new

western road)

Medium Medium

Likely to be

deliverable but

requires

alternative road

corridor

Likely to be

feasible

The affordability

relates to the

funding available


B12798D8/001 94

Option Timescale Cost Deliverability Feasibility Affordability

Provide roundabouts at

The Holloways/ A4010,

Mill Lane/ A4010, Peters

Lane/ A4010, Windsor

Hill/ A4010, The Avenue/

A4010, Park Street/

A4010, Clifford Road/

A4010, Station Road/

A4010, and Poppy Road/

A4010 junctions

Medium Medium

Likely to be

deliverable but

requires

alternative road

corridor

Likely to be

feasible

The affordability

relates to the

scheme design

New link road through

development site

between Picts Lane and

Summerleys Road

Short Medium Likely to be

deliverable

Likely to be

feasible

Link required as

part of emerging

development

Upgraded road/ rail

bridge at Summerleys

Road to remove

signalised shuttle

working

Medium Medium to

High

Potentially

deliverable as

part of emerging

development or

road scheme

option

Likely to be

feasible

Link required as

part of emerging

development

East-West Rail (project

being delivered by

Network Rail)

High Medium to

Long Within jurisdiction of Network Rail

Expand car and cycle

parking at railway

stations (requires

negotiation with Chiltern

Rail)

Short to

Medium Unknown Within jurisdiction of Chiltern Railway

Provide bus service

through emerging PRTP

development, either

through local community

bus scheme or other

provider

Medium Medium Likely to be

deliverable

Likely to be

feasible

Link required as

part of emerging

development

Improved crossing of the

railway at Princes

Risborough Station and

across the East-West

Railway

Short to

Medium Medium

Likely to be

deliverable

Likely to be

feasible

S106 funding

secured for

crossing at

Princes

Risborough

Station

Expanded cycle network

north west of the East-

West Railway to

integrate the new

development with the

town and connect better

with the Phoenix Trail

Medium Medium Likely to be

deliverable

Likely to be

feasible

Links required as

part of emerging

development

Table 9.11: Wider transport strategy options appraisal


B12798D8/001 95

10. Summary and Next Steps

10.1 Summary

10.1.1 Overview

Jacobs is the framework consultants to the Transport for Buckinghamshire Alliance (TfB) between Ringway

Jacobs and Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC). Under the terms of this contract, Jacobs is commissioned

to undertake transport planning, modelling and assessment studies on behalf of the County Council, working in

partnership with the District Councils.

Jacobs has been commissioned by BCC and WDC to produce a Stage 1 OAR and SOBC to support a BTVLEP

bid for financial support from the DfT. The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of a WebTAG

scheme appraisal process to determine the preferred alignment and form of a western relief road at Princes

Risborough.

The findings from this OAR also inform the delivery of the emerging PRTP.

10.1.2 The scheme and project objectives

The western relief road is a new road intended to serve a dual function of facilitating improved north-south

travel, and the emerging PRTP development at Princes Risborough. The project objectives are shown in Table

10.1. An additional outcome from the scheme will be the opportunity to change the character of the existing

A4010 and improve the quality of the public realm in the town centre.

Table 10.1: Project objectives

Identifier Objective

A Maintain or improve journey times and reliability for north-south traffic movement via the Princes


B Reduce through traffic volumes, congestion and severance on the A4010 in Princes Risborough

Town Centre by redistributing this traffic onto the new road.

C Facilitate the development of a sustainable and integrated residential expansion of Princes

Risborough, north of the east-west railway line.

D Provide network capacity to facilitate the housing growth of Princes Risborough and manage/

mitigate the wider road network capacity.

E Stimulate growth in employment development in Princes Risborough through improved

accessibility, business efficiency, and resilience.

F Improve the vitality of the town centre in Princes Risborough.

G Protect, improve, and maintain the local environment and heritage.

H Improve the safety/ reduce the risk of death or injury on roads in Princes Risborough, but

particularly the A4010 through Princes Risborough.

I Improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport to, from and within the town to the


J Develop a road scheme that is feasible and deliverable in terms including funding (by developers

and bid).

K Ensure the road infrastructure options for Princes Risborough integrate with the Highway

Authority’s emerging strategy to improve north-south connectivity through Buckinghamshire.


B12798D8/001 96

10.1.3 Need for intervention

The need for the intervention is driven by the need to encourage economic growth by addressing a known

constraint to north-south movement in the county. Failure to address this constraint will stifle economic growth

and result in greater traffic congestion and delay in the future.

The need for intervention is also driven by the context of dependent development of the major expansion of

Princes Risborough to contribute to meeting the objectively assessed housing need of Wycombe District

Council. Without major new road infrastructure, the potential of Princes Risborough to expand is severely

constrained

The road infrastructure also has the potential to improve the environmental conditions, and reduce the risk of

Personal Injury Accidents on the A4010 through the town.

10.1.4 Scheme development and appraisal

The development of the schemes for appraisal arose from a combination of previous study, public exhibition,

stakeholder discussions, and feedback from the local steering group.

The appraisal of the schemes has been undertaken using the project objectives and EAST. This process

shortlisted four options for consideration using TUBA, and assessment against five criteria: strategic, value for

money (economic), delivery (management), financial, and commercial cases. The shortlisted options were 11b,

12, 15b, and 17.

10.1.5 Economic assessment

The economic assessment for options 11b, 12, 15b, and 17 using TUBA yielded the BCR results shown in

Table 10.2. This shows options 17 and 11b have the best BCR ratios and provide ‘high’ and ‘medium’ value for

money respectively. At this stage the potential benefits/ disbenefits to be accrued from sub-objectives such as

noise, air quality, and accident savings have not been accounted for.

Table 10.2: Summary of option BCR ratios

Criteria Option Assessment

11b 12 15b 17

BCR 2.9 0.6 -0.8 3.3

10.2 Conclusion

The results of the economic appraisal have identified that options 17 and 11b should be taken forward as

schemes for consideration. 11b is a stronger option in terms of the financial, commercial and management

cases because it is more affordable, viable, and deliverable than option 17. Option 17 has a higher BCR than

option 11b. Both options align with the project and policy objectives, provide a good strategic fit, and facilitate

the emerging development.

It is clear that the decision on the preferred scheme is interdependent with the availability of funds to bridge the

gap between the developer contribution and total scheme cost. At this stage option 11b has a greater prospect

of success, although option 17, if deliverable, offers the greatest economic benefit.


B12798D8/001

Appendix A. Transport Planning Policy Review


B12798D8/001

National policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

In March 2012, the Department for Communities and Local Government

published the NPPF20

, which sets out the government’s economic,

environmental and social planning policies. The NPPF aims to reform the

planning system and is underpinned by a presumption in favour of

sustainable development which for plan making means that ‘local planning

authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development

needs of their area’.

There is a focus on planning for prosperity, people and places, promoting

increased levels of development and supporting infrastructure, whilst also

protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment. It is designed,

however, to be interpreted and implemented locally; and delegates

responsibility for achieving this vision to local planning authorities.

Localism Act

The previous Conservative-Liberal Democrat (henceforth termed the

‘Coalition’) Government’s Localism Act21

provides the legislative foundation

for this change. This decentralises power to:

• giving local government new freedom and flexibilities;

• provides new rights and powers for communities and individuals;

• reforms the planning system;

• and enables decisions to be taken locally.

The previous Coalition Government’s vision for transport was also one that

encourages growth, but is greener, safer and improves the quality of life in

our communities. The Government’s transport priorities and key actions are

set out within the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Business Plan22,

which is

updated annually.

There is a focus on improving road safety, reducing congestion and pollution and making changes at a local

level. The ‘Local Transport White Paper – Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local

Transport Happen’23

published in January 2011 set out the previous Coalition Government’s vision for a

sustainable local transport system that supports the economy and reduces carbon emissions.

The focus is on enabling local authorities to meet local transport needs, through a simplified approach to

funding and increased power and flexibility. It emphasises that effective sustainable local transport is achieved

through solutions developed for the places they serve, tailored for the specific needs and behaviour patterns of

individual communities.

20

National Planning Policy Framework http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf 21 Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: an essential guide http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1793908.pdf 22

Business Plan 2013-15 http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/business-plan/11 23

Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7996/7996.pdf


B12798D8/001

Planning Practice Guidance – Transport evidence bases in plan making and decision taking24

On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched the planning

practice guidance. The Transport evidence bases in plan making and decision taking section was updated most

recently on the 13 March 2015. Core messages from this include:

• A robust assessment of the transport implications of the local plan should

be undertaken and establish evidence to support initiatives that enhance

accessibility, sustainable transport, enable new infrastructure, improve

health and wellbeing, and support economic vitality.

• The transport evidence base will need to assess the existing situation,

growth in travel demand, and cumulative impact of development in

economic, environmental, and social terms. Opportunities to support a

development pattern that facilitate travel by more sustainable modes and

reduces the need to travel should be considered. Short, medium, and

long term transport priorities should be determined across all modes,

including an assessment of the quality and capacity of transport

infrastructure to meet forecast demands.

• Transport assessment should be produced in partnership with all relevant transport and planning

authorities, transport providers, and key stakeholders. The assessment is likely to be scenario based and

consider a range of potential options. The use of any area-wide traffic models should be agreed with the

relevant transport and highway authority.

• All modes of transport should be considered and accident analysis will help inform the safety

considerations. Critical locations on the road network with poor accident records should be identified.

• Assessments should adopt the principles and framework of objectives in WebTAG. Although this approach

is typically applied when planning for local transport infrastructure, adopting this approach for Local Plan

transport assessments will ensure that any proposed land allocation impact is considered in the context of

two alternative scenarios – ‘with development’ and ‘without development’ – and will enable a comparative

analysis of the transport effects of the proposed allocation.

Regional/ local policy and guidance

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP):

Executive Summary of Strategic Economic Growth Plan and Local

Growth Deal (2014)

The Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (BTVLEP)

is a business-led 'partnership of equals' between local government and the

private sector, building the conditions for sustainable economic growth in the

county.

The LEP’s Strategic Economic Growth Plan and Local Growth Deal sets out

the transport and business sector priorities for the LEP area. This includes

improving north-south connectivity in Buckinghamshire and references the

development of the A355 improvement scheme. The A4010 is an alternative

corridor connecting the M40 and destinations in the north of the county.

24 Planning Practice Guidance, Updated 13/03/2015, http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/transport-evidence-bases-in-plan-

making/transport-evidence-bases-in-plan-making-guidance/


B12798D8/001

Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP Strategic Economic Plan – Transport and Business Sector

Priorities25

25 http://www.buckstvlep.co.uk/uploads/downloads/BTVLEP%20SEP%20Report%20Summary.pdf


B12798D8/001

Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2011 to 2016

The LTP sets out the council’s policies, strategies, and the way the local

transport authority will prioritise funding over the LTP period. The LTP was

adopted in April 2011 and is the third LTP for the county. The LTP focuses on

five themes, including:

• delivering a thriving economy;

• sustainable environment;

• safer communities;

• health and wellbeing; and

• cohesive string communities.

The LTP recognises the need for cross boundary working due to growth in

neighbouring authorities. The vision outlined in the LTP is:

“To make Buckinghamshire a more successful, healthy and safe place to live, work and visit. Maintaining and

enhancing the excellent environment, whilst ensuring that businesses thrive and grow the county’s economy.

The maintenance or improvement of the reliability of journey times on key routes is cited as an objective in the

LTP.

Buckinghamshire LTP 2011 to 2016: Local Area Strategies

The County LTP3 Strategy is supported by the Local Area Strategy for the

North West Chilterns, covering the same period. The Local Area Strategy

seeks to deliver enhanced access and ease of movement for a vibrant bustling

community. The urban strategy sets out to the following priorities:

• manage the challenge of residential and employment growth;

• manage the negative impacts of the A4010;

• access between princes Risborough centre and rail station; and

• parking provision and management.

The approach contains a mix of schemes and initiatives involving the transfer

of journeys to sustainable modes, improvements to public realm, traffic

management on primary routes, and longer term solutions to managing the

A4010 traffic flows.

Local Area Plan – North West Chilterns (November 2014)

The purpose of this document is to set out a list of local priorities for the area.

The forum is a meeting between local county, district and parish councillors,

emergency services, voluntary community sector partners and local residents

to discuss needs and priorities for an area. The priorities outlined in the local

area plan include:

• public transport in rural areas;

• local access to services;

• traffic management, with focus on speeding; and

• town planning and affordable housing.


B12798D8/001

Wycombe District Local Development Framework

WDC has an emerging Local Development Framework comprising the

following:

• adopted Core Strategy 200826

• emerging New Wycombe District Local Plan27

• Delivery and Site Allocations (DSA) Plan, June 201228

• Wycombe Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), May 201229

The adopted Core Strategy sets out the vision and spatial strategy for

Wycombe District up to 2026. The focus is on setting the overarching

principles to achieve sustainable development and locational principles for

new land use development.

Policy CS6 describes Princes Risborough as a vibrant market town and lists

six key policy development areas which are Community, Economy, Transport and Access, Tourism, Town

Centre and Environment. In relation to Community, the Policy sets out the need to ‘identify specific opportunities

to provide a minimum of 480 new dwellings’ within the plan period (to 2026). In terms of Transport and Access,

the Core Strategy policy sets out the intention to:

• Review the key transport issues in the town, including the divisive effect of through traffic on the A4010

passing through the heart of the town (as part of a strategic review) and the relationship between vehicles

and pedestrians in the High Street and town centre

• Improve access to the station and secure appropriate levels of station car parking

The emerging WDLP will replace the adopted Core Strategy as well as the saved policies from the existing

Local Plan (2004). The new WDLP will also address economic issues and identify land for business

development. The need for a new WDLP is triggered by the abolition of the South East Plan housing targets

through the Localism Bill, which informed the adopted WDC Core Strategy. The new WDLP will set housing

targets for the District and address strategic housing and economic issues. It will also set out the detailed

policies to manage development.

The DSA translates the high level policies of the Core Strategy into more

detailed policies and site specific allocations for town centres. It also identifies

and plans the delivery of the infrastructure needed to support this

development. The DSA includes ‘District-wide Development Management

Policies’ as per policy DM2 which aims to tackle the transport related

challenges created by major developments and adds further detail to

supplement Core Strategy policy CS20.

This policy states ‘all developments that require the submission of a Transport

Assessment, in line with Appendix B of the DfT Guidance on Transport

Assessment (March 2007), or any replacement to this guidance, or as required

by the Highway Authority, should provide’ a range of transport improvements

relating to public transport, walking and cycling, travel plans, car clubs, and car

sharing.

26

Adopted Core Strategy http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/wycombe-development-framework/adopted-core-strategy.aspx 27

New Local Plan http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/new-local-plan.aspx 28

Delivery and Site Allocations Plan http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/delivery-and-site-allocations-plan-examination.aspx 29

Wycombe Infrastructure Delivery Plan http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/community-infrastructure-levy/examination.aspx


B12798D8/001

The design of development should allow for bus penetration through the sites and priority bus routing, traffic

management that ensures queues are managed in a way that mitigates their impact on the primary highway

network, and layout and design that realises high quality places that are not dominated by the needs of

vehicular traffic. WDC will as far as practicable seek to ensure that new development has a neutral effect on the

highway network.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

The Wycombe CIL was formally introduced in 2012. CIL is a local tariff that enables Local Authorities to set a

charge for most types of new land use development. The money is available to fund a wide range of local and

strategic infrastructure that is required as result of development such as transport schemes, green

infrastructure, schools and community facilities.

The DSA sets out that ‘it is vitally important that new development provides appropriate measures to encourage

sustainable transport behaviour as well as, through the CIL, contributions towards the wider strategy as

produced by the County Council so as to offset the wider traffic impacts and meet the travel needs of users of

the development’.

Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Neighbourhood Plan (Consultation Draft, June 2015)

Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish (LcIP) comprises the main village of Longwick

together with the small hamlets of Ilmer, Owlswick, Little Meadle and Meadle

as well as a small part (6 properties only) of Horsenden. In common with many

areas in the south east of England which have seen both population growth

and pressures on housing stocks, Longwick has grown considerably in the last

40 years and it is recognised that this trend is likely to continue up to 2033 (the

Local Plan period) and beyond. The hamlets, with the exception of Little

Meadle, each enjoy the safeguard of having a Conservation Area status and so are not subject to the same expansionary pressures.

The vision for Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish by 2033 includes:

• Be a Parish that has managed growth with infrastructure and services

appropriate to the needs of all its residents, both current and future.

• Have easy access and safe movement for pedestrians and cyclists to and

through Longwick village, with good connections to the hamlets and key

locations in the area.

• Have regular, convenient and long term public transport services by bus to destinations such as Princes

Risborough town centre and railway station.

The objectives set out for transport are:

• To put in place improved bus services, cycle ways and footways on the highway network, together with

better local footpaths and bridleways to facilitate travel within the whole Parish and to neighbouring

communities.

• To provide safe and effective traffic movement within and through the village, for all users of the public

realm – including pedestrians, cyclists, the young and elderly. Transport assessments, including of junction

capacities and the impact of future development site allocations on the local highway network, should seek

to improve current conditions, and make due allowance for known developments in adjoining parishes and

districts, through traffic calming measures, capacity enhancements and speed restrictions.

The transport infrastructure improvements suggested in the plan include:

• Improvements to walking and cycling routes in the village - surface maintenance, overgrown planting,

enforcement of speed limits alongside narrow pavements.


B12798D8/001

• Improvements to walking and cycling routes in the village - add new or increase narrow pavements - e.g.

north side of Chestnut Way, Bar Lane and Thame Road, and add additional pedestrian crossings within the

village.

• Change highway design (with road narrowing etc.), reduce speed limits and apply enforcement on roads

and junctions approaching the hamlets and Longwick: Thame Road, Lower Icknield Way, Bar Lane,

Stockwell Lane at Meadle, Little Meadle and Owlswick, including reviewing recommended lorry routes.

• Improvements to walking and cycling routes from the village to Princes Risborough town centre and railway

station, via Longwick and Summerleys Roads, by adding missing sections of pavement, and cycle

provision.

• Traffic management and safety improvements for drivers and other public realm users in Longwick at the

junctions on Walnut Tree Lane, Bar Lane, Chestnut Way, Thame Road, Lower Icknield Way, and Stockwell

Lane.

• Higher quality, long-term and sustainable public transport services to Princes Risborough and the railway

station

The objectives set out for housing and jobs are outlined below:

• To support local businesses and employment locally, allowing some managed mixed employment growth

both within the village and, if appropriate, in the hamlets. This will be in the form of appropriate facilities for

use by existing and expanding businesses, and new enterprises, as well as for use by community societies

and home-based workers; ideally these should be located within walking distance of the main residential

areas.

• To protect and enhance the needs of an evolving Parish community with housing provision that meets local

needs through a mix of new homes, affordable and starter homes, and appropriate accommodation for an

ageing population, with supporting infrastructure.

The following sites are allocated for housing development:

• Land at Thame Road-Bar Lane corner - 0.56ha site for open space

• Land at Boxer Road/ Barn Road - 0.79ha site for open space

• Land on Thame Road south of Chestnut Way junction - 1 ha site to accommodate around 12-20 residential

units, at 12-20 dwelling units/ha

• Land at Rose Farm - Three sites of 0.24 ha, 0.31 ha, and 0.5ha

Recent studies

Princes Risborough Area Transport Study (January 2014)

Jacobs was commissioned by BCC to undertake a transport study to assess

the implications of housing growth and potential associated transport

infrastructure requirements. Key findings from this study were:

• The patterns of traffic movement are influenced by the A4010 and there is

a relatively high proportion of through traffic in this area.

• The most significant levels of congestion and delay in Princes Risborough

in 2013 are the town centre links and junctions in the vicinity of New Road

and Bell Street, and the Grove Lane arm of the A4010 near Little Kimble.

• ‘do minimum’ traffic volumes were forecast to increase by approximately

20% by 2031.

• Three land use scenarios were considered on land to the west of Princes

Risborough. All had an impact on the operation of the local road network.

• A Western Relief Road provides benefits to vehicle movement and as

part of a package of wider sustainable transport measures can provide


B12798D8/001

benefit to Princes Risborough Town Centre.

Princes Risborough Background Report (December 2014)

Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design was appointed by WDC to undertake a

study exploring the potential expansion of Princes Risborough. The

background report was prepared to summarise the background technical and

physical information to determine the opportunities and constraints.

The following constraints are identified in the report:

• The railway line is a barrier to integrating the existing settlement with the

new development.

• A4010 is congested, particularly around the town centre.

• The main railway station and town centre are not close together which

makes effective public transport routes more difficult.

• Existing roads are not felt to be safe, placing higher reliance on the use of

the private car.

• The area is at the foot of the Chiltern escarpment, with views over the

area being very important.

• Flooding and drainage, including ground and surface water flooding, means that some areas are less

appropriate for development, or need mitigation to deal with the issue.

• Surrounding villages do not want to be subsumed by the expanded town, and Monks Risborough wants to

retain its district identity.

• Alscot Conservation Area lies in the heart of the search area. There is a statutory duty to preserve or

enhance the character and appearance of this built environment.

• There are two designated wildlife sites, and other potential wildlife interests to be protected.

• Former unlicenced landfill on the Hypnos site means that further investigations will be required to establish

whether this land is suitable for residential development.

• The sewerage works alongside the railway may constrain the type and location of development nearby.

• Attracting inward investment in the form of jobs may be difficult.

The following opportunities were identified in the report:

• Use new roads necessary to service the new development to reduce the traffic on the A4010, and identify

opportunities for a better town centre.

• Improve links under/ over the railway to make a connected town so residents support the town centre and

other town centre facilities.

• The relatively flat topography provides an opportunity for cycling to be a convenient travel choice by

improving routes in the existing town and making new routes.

• The Crowbrook provides an opportunity to improve biodiversity, and a leisure use, as a linear park.

• The hedgerows, rights of way, potential views to local landmarks, and the character of the area can provide

a structure to the masterplan for the area.

• To use landscape design as the driving force behind the masterplan to acknowledge the AONB setting.

• To provide new community facilities such as schools and open space, to meet the needs of new residents,

and for the use of the wider town.

• To establish a country park to maintain the gap between Longwick and Princes Risborough.


B12798D8/001

Appendix B. Environmental Constraints Plans

1

2

3

4

5

67

b

c

a

i

ii

iii

Princes Risborough

Drawing Title

Project

© Crown copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 10018341 This drawing is not to be used in whole in or part other than for the intended purposeand project as defined on this drawing. Refer to the contract for full terms and conditions.

Churchill House, Churchill Way, Cardiff, CF10 2HH, UKTel: +44(0)29 2035 4200 Fax: +44(0)29 2035 3222

www.jacobs.com

Scale @ A3Jacobs No.

DO NOT SCALEBXXXXXXX

Drawn Check'd Appr'dPurpose of revisionRev. DateEW MT RSInitial Issue0 20/11/2015

Constraints planSheet 1

1:35,000

SWRev'd

Client

/Route options

Option 11aOption 11bOption 12Option 13aOption 13bOption 15aOption 15bOption 16aOption 16bOption 171km bufferArea of OutstandingNatural BeautyTree PreservationOrderRivers

! Public Right of Way

!(Community andprivate assets

Regional trailsNational CycleNetworkNational TrailsHistoric landfillSpecial Area ofConservation (SAC)Sites of SpecialScientific Interest(SSSI)Ancient WoodlandLocal Nature Reserve

GreenbeltBiological NotificationAreasLocal Wildlife Sites

Ordnance Survey data ©Crown copyright anddatabase right 2014

Constraints 1

P:\Transport Modelling\B0000000 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Spatial\ArcGIS\002_Constraints\Princes_Risborough_001_Constraints_RevA_sheet1.mxd

Community and private assets1) Public place of worship2) Public house3) Allotment gardens4) Allotment gardens5) Sewage works6) Factory7) Football/cricket groundsBiological Notification Areasi) Summerleys Cottage Woodii) Fields around Roundabout Woodiii) Garden and Orchard, SaundertonLocal Wildlife Sitesa) Longwick Bogb) Saunderton Marshc) Saunderton Railway

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000Metres

Ch i l t er n s

AONB

5

1

34

29

8

7

4 56

3

2

1

BearBrook andWendoverBrook

K ingseyCuttle Brook a nd

trib uta riesa tT ha m e

Scots

grove

Broo

k (up

strea

mKin

gsey

Cutt

le Br

ook)

K ings

eyCu

ttleBr

ooka

ndtrib

utarie

satT

hame

K ingseyCuttle Brook a nd

trib uta riesa tT ha m e

Princes Risb orough

Dra wing T itle

Project

© Crown copyright a nd da ta b a se rights 2015 Ordna nce S urvey 10018341 T his dra wing is not to b e used in whole in or pa rt other tha n for the intended purposea nd project a s defined on this dra wing. Refer to the contra ct for full term s a nd conditions.

Churchill House, Churchill Wa y, Ca rdiff, CF10 2HH, U KT el: +44(0)29 2035 4200 Fa x: +44(0)29 2035 3222

www.ja cob s.com

S ca le @ A3Ja cob s No.

DO NOT S CALEBXXXXXXX

Dra wn Check'd Appr'dPurpose of revisionRev. Da teEW MT RSInitia l Issue0 20/11/2015

Constra ints pla nS heet 2

1:35,000

S WRev'd

Client

/Route options

Option 11aOption 11bOption 12Option 13aOption 13bOption 15aOption 15bOption 16aOption 16bOption 171km b ufferArcha eologica lNotifica tion Area sFlood zone

S urfa ce wa terfloodingWFD wa terb odies

XW Listed BuildingsS cheduledMonum entRegistered Pa rksa nd Ga rdensConserva tionArea s

Ordna nce S urvey da ta ©Crown copyright a ndda ta b a se right 2014

Constraints 2

P:\T ra nsport Modelling\B0000000 Princes Risb orough\T echnica l Work\S pa tia l\ArcGIS \002_ Constra ints\Princes_ Risb orough_ 001_ Constra ints_ RevA_ sheet2.m xd

S cheduled Monum ents (la b elled red) 1) Rounda b out wood m oa ted site, fishponds, a nd fa rm ing settlem ent rem a ins2) Anglo-S a xon cem etery on Hem ley Hill3) Rom a n villa 140m ea st of the S t Ma ry a nd S t Nichola s’ church4) Moa ted site a nd a ssocia ted Medieva l rem a ins 430m north of church fa rm5) T he MountConserva tion Area s (la b elled green)1) Ellesb orough2) Mea dle3) Askett4) Alscot5) Monks Risb orough6) White Lea f7) Princes Risb orough8) Horsenden9) Bledlow

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000Metres

Princes Risborough

Drawing Title

Project

© Crown copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 10018341 This drawing is not to be used in whole in or part other than for the intended purposeand project as defined on this drawing. Refer to the contract for full terms and conditions.

1180 Eskdale Road, Winnersh, Reading, RG41 5TU, UK.Tel: +44 (0)118 946 7000

www.jacobs.com

Scale @ A3Jacobs No.

DO NOT SCALEBXXXXXXX

Drawn Check'd Appr'dPurpose of revisionRev. DateEW MT RSInitial Issue0 19/11/2015

Constraints planSheet 3

1:25,000

SWRev'd

Client

/Route options

Option 11aOption 11bOption 12Option 13aOption 13bOption 15aOption 15bOption 16aOption 16bOption 17

Agricultural land classificationGrade 2Grade 3Grade 4Non-agriculturalUrban

Constraints 3

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

\\europe.jacobs.com\Reading\Data\JI_Projects\Transport Modelling\B0000000 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Spatial\ArcGIS\002_Constraints\Princes_Risborough_003_ALC.mxd

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000Meters


B12798D8/001

Appendix C. Uncertainty Logs


B12798D8/001

Scenario A (do-minimum) development uncertainty log

Development Description

Planning Application

Number

Application Status

Business Case 2036 Forecast Year Modelling

Included? Quantum Assumption

Princes Risborough (NTEM zone 11UF6)

Former Whiteleaf, Picts Lane

14/05386/OUT

Resolution to grant planning permission subject to legal agreement.

� 60 houses and 24 flats

Former Molins Sports Ground

14/07148/OUT Application withdrawn

� Not included (90 dwellings)

Ker Maria Nursing Home

15/05349/FUL Pending consideration

� 70 assisted living units

Leo Laboratories No application yet

No application yet � 107 dwellings

Princes Risborough Secondary School

No application yet

No application yet � Not included. Scale unknown

Princes Risborough Expansion

No application yet

No application yet � 2,500 houses

� 2no primary schools 2 forms of entry each

�

27000 sqm business uses located as on preliminary masterplan

� 500 sqm retail in local centre

� Community uses in local centre GP surgery, community hall

Rural (Wycombe) (NTEM zone 11UF0)

Mill Lane 14/06162/OUT Appeal in progress � 192 dwellings

De Gravens Meadow

15/06332/OUT Pending consideration

� 152 dwellings

Thame Road (OS parcel 2075)


� 20 dwellings

Land off Boxer Road/ Barn Road


� 50 dwellings

Thame Road (OS parcels 6232 and 7428)

No application yet


Thame Road (Rose Farm)

No application yet



B12798D8/001

Scenario B (do minimum with development) development uncertainty log

Development Description

Planning Application

Number

Application Status

Business Case 2036 Forecast Year Modelling

Included? Quantum Assumption

Princes Risborough (NTEM zone 11UF6)

Former Whiteleaf, Picts Lane

14/05386/OUT

Resolution to grant planning permission subject to legal agreement.

� 60 houses and 24 flats

Former Molins Sports Ground


� Not included (90 dwellings)

Ker Maria Nursing Home

15/05349/FUL Pending consideration

� 70 assisted living units

Leo Laboratories No application yet

No application yet � New secondary school. 2 form entry expansion

Princes Risborough Secondary School

No application yet

No application yet � 105 houses

Princes Risborough Expansion

No application yet

No application yet � 2,500 houses

� 2no primary schools 2 form entry and 1 form entry

�

27000 sqm business uses located as on preliminary masterplan

� 500 sqm retail in local centre

� Community uses in local centre GP surgery, community hall

Rural (Wycombe) (NTEM zone 11UF0)

Mill Lane 14/06162/OUT Appeal in progress � 192 dwellings

De Gravens Meadow


� 152 dwellings

Thame Road (OS parcel 2075)


� 20 dwellings

Land off Boxer Road/ Barn Road


� 50 dwellings

Thame Road (OS parcels 6232 and 7428)

No application yet


Thame Road (Rose Farm)

No application yet



B12798D8/001

Appendix D. EAST Outputs

Option Name/No.

Date 08/07/2015

Description

Identified problems and

objectives

Scale of impact 4 Expected to provide a preferred route for through traffic which is

more reliable in terms of journey time.

Fit with wider transport

and government

objectives

4 The option supports objectives to improve business efficiency,

stimulate growth, and improve environmental conditions.

Fit with other objectives 4 Option fits well with local objectives identified in policy, and

stakeholder and Princes Risborough Steering Group consultation.

Options is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north-

south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety)

Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes

4 This option is very similar one discussed and raised in consultation

with the Princes Risborough Steering Group. WDC preferred

alignment. BCC support this alignment in principle providing it meets

the objectives set out by the LEP.

Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. Will improve north-south

journey time and journey time reliability.

Carbon emissions 3. Amber The new road is slightly longer in distance, but quicker in journey

time with less delay at junctions.

Socio-distributional

impacts and the regions

4. Amber/green The new road facilitates new residential growth in this area.

Local environment 4. Amber/green The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a

result of removing through traffic. The construction of a new road

will impact the environment on the new alignment, however this is

subject to redevelopment for c. 2500 homes and is also currently

agricultural land only.

Well being 5. Green Journey times should improve. Severance of the A4010 should be

reduced. The number of accidents on the A4010 should reduce.

Expected VfM category 2. High 2-4 No BCR undertaken yet, but anticipate the option will deliver high

benefit.

Implementation

timetable

6. 5-10 years Target year of opening is 2021

Public acceptability 4 Option shortlisted in Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop.

Practical feasibility 4 Option is feasible, but does require third party land and widening of

an existing rail bridge.

Land required to provide new road alignment. East-west rail expansion timing is uncertain, but

unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open.

Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) - Expanded Print View

Strategic

Economic

Managerial

East of railway via dev site

Option 1: Route considered in the 2014 study which runs along Lower Icknield Way, across

development site (east of railway), through railway bridge on Summerleys Road, Picts Lane and

Shootacre Lane to A4010.

North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes Risborough

already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by 2036.

Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business

efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a development

access road for the new development.

What is the quality of the

supporting evidence?

3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Option has

local government and public support. Additional appraisal of the

option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR and

accompanying SOBC.

Key risks

Affordability 4 Affordability to be confirmed, but considered to be one of the most

affordable options. Funding through a combination of government

and developer money.

Capital Cost (£m) 05. 25-50

Revenue Costs (£m) 01. None Road scheme, although ongoing maintenance is likely.

Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs

Flexibility of option 3 There is flexibility in the geometric design and the urban design

context of the corridor.

Where is funding coming

from?

Any income generated?

(£m)

No

Funding submission to the local growth fund. Developer contributions to support.

Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals.

Financial

Commercial

Option Name/No.

Date 08/10/2015

Description


objectives


more reliable in terms of journey time, if a road of a higher speed/

design standard can be provided.


and government

objectives


stimulate growth, and improve environmental condition on the

existing A4010 by removing through traffic.

Fit with other objectives 3 Option supports most local objectives identified in policy, and


Option is consistent with the objectives of the LEP (improve north-

south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety). There

may be heritage and environmental impacts which reduce the

viability of the route.

Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes

3 This option is very similar one discussed and raised in consultation

with the Princes Risborough Steering Group.

Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. Will improve north-south

journey time and journey time reliability.

Carbon emissions 2. Red/amber The new road is longer in distance than options provided east of the

railway, but quicker in journey time with less delay at junctions when

compared with the existing A4010. The attractiveness of the road to

trips generated by the new development is less certain, which may

mean these will use the existing A4010.



4. Amber/green The new road facilitates new residential growth in this area.

Local environment 2. Red/amber The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a

result of removing through traffic, however air quality would be worse

through Horsenden, and the new development trips may still use the

A4010. The construction of a new road will impact the environment

on the new alignment.



Expected VfM category 3. Medium 1.5-2 No BCR undertaken yet, but anticipate the option will deliver medium

benefit.

Implementation

timetable



unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. Horsenden is a sensitive area and is likely

to be met with public opposition.


Strategic

Economic

Managerial

West of railway via Horsenden

Option 2: Route considered in the 2014 study which runs along Lower Icknield Way, across

fields west of railway but crossing former railway to Chinnor, via Horsenden, Picts Lane and

Shootacre Lane to A4010.






Public acceptability 3 Similar to options shortlisted in Princes Risborough Steering Group

workshop. Impact on Horsenden might be less publically

acceptable.


an existing rail bridge, plus a new structure across/ under the railway

to Chinnor.





option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR. Option likely to

be discounted due to impact on Horsenden.

Key risks



and developer money, although the alignment might attract a smaller

developer contribution.



Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs

Flexibility of option 2 There is some flexibility in the geometric design, although will need

to be more of a DMRB design to achieve journey time benefit.


from?


(£m)

No


Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability.

Financial

Commercial

Option Name/No.

Date 14/08/2015

Description


objectives





and government

objectives







south connectivity, support economic growth, improve safety).

However, there is likely to be a high environmental/ heritage impact

as a result of this alignment.

Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes

4 Raised during public exhibition and similar option raised by Princes


Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development, although not all new trips

to/ from the development will use the new road. Providing the design

standards allow it will improve north-south journey time and journey

time reliability.








4. Amber/green

Local environment 3. Amber The air quality and noise on the existing A4010 will improve as a

result of removing through traffic, but the new development trips may

still use the A4010. The construction of a new road will impact the

environment on the new alignment.




benefit.

Implementation

timetable





Strategic

Economic

Managerial

W of railway and Horsenden

Option 4: Route option proposed during public exhibition. The routes bypasses Horsenden and

crosses railway at Picts Lane before joining the A4010 via Shootacre Lane. The route also

crosses the water bodies south west of Horsenden.








acceptable.



to Chinnor.





option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR.

Key risks







Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs




from?


(£m)

No

Funding submission to the local growth fund. Developer contributions to support, although lower

level likely due to alignment not being through the development.

Land ownership, uncertainty regarding east-west rail proposals, public acceptability, cost of the

scheme.

Financial

Commercial

Option Name/No.

Date 14/08/2015

Description


objectives



design standard can be provided, if the design standards and road

speed facilitate this.


and government

objectives








However, there is likely to be environmental/ heritage impacts as a

result of this alignment.

Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes

2 Raised during public exhibition, but less likely to have stakeholder

support.

Economic growth 4. Amber/green Will facilitate new residential development, although not all new trips



time reliability.








4. Amber/green Would facilitate some development locally.








benefit.

Implementation

timetable


Public acceptability 3 Option raised in public exhibition.




Strategic

Economic

Managerial

Via dev site and W of Horsenden

Option 6: Alignment is via the development site, beneath railways, west of Horsenden, via Picts

Lane and Shootacre Lane to A4010.








to Chinnor, and two new rail bridges where the railway line bifurcates





option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR. Option likely to

be discounted due to impact on Horsenden.

Key risks







Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs




from?


(£m)

No




scheme.

Financial

Commercial

Option Name/No.

Date 14/08/2015

Description


objectives




and government

objectives








Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes

4 Raised during public exhibition.

Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development.

Carbon emissions 3. Amber Improvement in the town centre, but construction would have a

carbon footprint.



4. Amber/green


result of removing through traffic. The construction of a new road

will impact the environment on the new alignment. The southern

section of the alignment also passes through existing residential

development which would need to be purchased to and demolished

to provide the route.




benefit.

Implementation

timetable



workshop.

Practical feasibility 2 Option is feasible, but does require widening of railway bridge and

removal of sewerage plant. Houses would also need to be acquired

to deliver the option.


unlikely to occur before road is constructed and open. The status of the sewerage works as to

whether this will be closed or not.


Strategic

Economic

Managerial

Aligns along E edge of railway

Option 8: North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of Princes

Risborough already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic growth by

2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist business













Key risks



and developer money. Additional cost incurred though due to need

to CPO houses.



Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs




from?


(£m)

No



scheme.

Financial

Commercial

Option Name/No.

Date 14/08/2015

Description


objectives



design standard can be provided, if the design standards and road

speed facilitate this.


and government

objectives








However, there is likely to be an unacceptable environmental/

heritage impact as a result of this alignment. The feasibility is

debatable due to crossing railway line south of where it bifurcates.

Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes

2 Raised during public exhibition, but unlikely to have stakeholder

support.

Economic growth 4. Amber/green Will facilitate new residential development, although not all new trips



time reliability.

Carbon emissions 3. Amber The new road is longer in distance than options provided east of the







3. Amber








benefit.




Strategic

Economic

Close to Saunderton











Implementation

timetable




acceptable.



to Chinnor, and two new rail bridges where the railway line bifurcates






Key risks

Affordability 2 Affordability to be confirmed. Funding through a combination of

government and developer money, although the alignment might

attract a smaller developer contribution.



Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs




from?


(£m)

No




scheme.

Financial

Commercial

Managerial

Option Name/No.

Date 14/08/2015

Description


objectives




and government

objectives








Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes

4 Raised during Princes Risborough Steering Group meeting.

Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. Providing the design


time reliability.

Carbon emissions 3. Amber The alignment is likely to be quicker than the existing A4010, with

more free flowing traffic speed and fewer junctions.



4. Amber/green


result of removing through traffic. The construction of a new road will

impact the environment on the new alignment.




benefit.

Implementation

timetable


Public acceptability 4 Option proposed by the Princes Risborough Steering Group

Practical feasibility 4 Option is feasible.






Key risks




scheme.

Financial


Strategic

Economic

Managerial

Option 11a and 11b

Options 11a and 11b: Princes Risborough Steering Group option. Similar alignment to Option 1.











Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs




from?


(£m)

No



Commercial

Option Name/No.

Date 14/08/2015

Description


objectives





and government

objectives








Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes





time reliability.








4. Amber/green




environment on the new alignment. Additional traffic would travel on

Lower Icknield Way.




benefit.

Implementation

timetable





Strategic

Economic

Managerial

Steering Group West of Railway











Public acceptability 4 Option was proposed in Princes Risborough Steering Group

workshop.

Practical feasibility 4 Option is feasible, but does require third party land and amendments

to multiple rail bridges.






Key risks

Affordability 2 Affordability to be confirmed. Funding through a combination of

government and developer money, although the alignment might

attract a smaller developer contribution.



Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs

Flexibility of option 3 There is flexibility in the geometric design, although will need to be

more of a DMRB design to achieve journey time benefit.


from?


(£m)

No




scheme.

Financial

Commercial

Option Name/No.

Date 14/08/2015

Description


objectives





and government

objectives








Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes





time reliability.

Carbon emissions 3. Amber The new road is longer in distance than options provided east of the







4. Amber/green Would facilitate some development locally.








benefit.

Implementation

timetable





Strategic

Economic

Managerial

Options 13a and 13b

Option 13a and 13b: North-south journey time reliability needs to be improved, and the centre of

Princes Risborough already experiences traffic congestion that will be exacerbated by traffic

growth by 2036. Additional road capacity is required to facilitate growth in this area and assist

business efficiency. This option seeks to provide a relief road for the town centre and a

development access road for the new development.






Public acceptability 4 Option shortlisted in Princes Risborough Steering Group workshop.


existing rail bridges.



3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling. Would be

subject to further review as part of OAR.

Key risks

Affordability 3 Affordability to be confirmed.



Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs

Flexibility of option 2 There is minimal flexibility in the geometric design, although will need



from?


(£m)

No




scheme.

Financial

Commercial

Option Name/No.

Date 09/02/2015

Description


objectives




and government

objectives








Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes

4 WDC preferred option. Same alignment as proposed by Princes


Economic growth 5. Green Will facilitate new residential development. The design standards

will need to allow improved north-south journey time and journey

time reliability.

Carbon emissions 3. Amber The route is aligned through existing greenfield sites. The route will

facilitate a traffic reassignment away from the existing A4010 and

therefore improve air quality in this area.



4. Amber/green







benefit.

Implementation

timetable



workshop.






Strategic

Economic

Managerial

15a and 15b













3 Baseline data collection complete but limited modelling at time of

EAST. Option has local government and public support. Additional

appraisal of the option to follow as part of assessment in this OAR.

Key risks






Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs

Flexibility of option 3 There is some flexibility in the geometric design.


from?


(£m)

No



scheme.

Financial

Commercial

Option Name/No.

Date 09/02/2015

Description


objectives




and government

objectives








Feasibility needs review due to alignment through existing sewerage

works.

Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes

4 Alternative alignment that would bypass new development, but still

be located east of the railway.



time reliability.






4. Amber/green







benefit.

Implementation

timetable


Public acceptability 4 Similar to option 8, which was shortlisted in the public exhibition.






Strategic

Economic

Managerial

16a and 16b
















Key risks






Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs



from?


(£m)

No



scheme.

Financial

Commercial

Option Name/No.

Date 28/10/2015

Description


objectives




and government

objectives








Feasibility needs review due to alignment through existing sewerage

works.

Key uncertainties

Degree of consensus

over outcomes

3 Alignment would be through northern part of development and pass

between Horsenden and the London to Birmingham mainline



time reliability.






4. Amber/green



impact the environment on the new alignment. A route east of

Horsenden will need to avoid TPOs and the conservation area.




benefit.

Implementation

timetable


Public acceptability 4 Similar to option 8, which was shortlisted in the public If provides

improved journey times then would attract support.


existing rail bridges. It is achievable.

Land required to provide new road alignment.


Strategic

Economic

Managerial

17
















Key risks

Affordability 3 Affordability to be confirmed. Would be expensive, but might attract

some developer funding.



Cost profile

Overall cost risk 3

Other costs



from?


(£m)

No


Land ownership, public acceptability, cost of the scheme.

Financial

Commercial


B12798D8/001

Appendix E. TEE, PA and AMCB Tables

Consumers ALL MODES Bus & Coach Other

User benefits TOTAL Passengers

Travel time 27021 0 0

Vehicle operating costs 1378 0

User charges 0 0 0

During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0

NET CONSUMER BENEFITS 28399 (1) 0 0

Business

User benefits Goods VehiclesBusiness Cars &

LGVsPassengers Freight Passengers

Travel time 25706 8613 17093 0 0 0 0

Vehicle operating costs 1657 950 707 0

User charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 27363 (2) 9563 17800 0 0 0 0

Private sector provider impacts Freight Passengers

Revenue 0

Operating costs 0

Investment costs 0

Grant/subsidy 0

Subtotal 0 (3)

Other business impacts

Developer contributions -38422 (4)

NET BUSINESS IMPACT -11059 (5) = (2) + (3) + (4)

TOTAL

Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits 17340 (6) = (1) + (5)

Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2010 prices and values.

Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Table (Option 11B)

28399 0

ROAD

0 0

0 0

RAIL

1378

Private Cars and LGVs Passengers

27021 0

Public Accounts (PA) Table (Option 11B)

ALL MODES

TOTAL

0

0

0

-38422

0

-38422 (7)

0

0

44128

0

0

44128 (8)

1095 (9)

5706

1095

Notes: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and ‘Developer and Other Contributions' appear as negative numbers.

All entries are discounted present values in 2010 prices and values.

Wider Public Finances (11) = (9)

TOTALS

Broad Transport Budget (10) = (7) + (8)

Indirect Tax Revenues 1095 0 0 0

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport

Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 0 0

NET IMPACT 44128 0 0 0

Investment Costs 44128 0

Developer and Other Contributions 0 0 0 0

Revenue 0 0

Operating costs 0 0

Central Government Funding: Transport


NET IMPACT -38422 0 0 0

ROAD BUS and COACH RAIL OTHER

Local Government Funding INFRASTRUCTURE

Developer and Other Contributions -38422 0 0 0

Revenue 0 0

Operating Costs 0 0


Noise 0 (12)

Local Air Quality 0 (13)

Greenhouse Gases 449 (14)

Journey Quality 0 (15)

Physical Activity 0 (16)

Accidents 0 (17)

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 12692 (1a)

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 15706 (1b)

Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers -11058 (5)

Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues)-1095 - (11) - sign changed from PA

table, as PA table represents

costs, not benefits

Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB)16694 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) + (15)

+ (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) -

(11)

Broad Transport Budget 5706 (10)

Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) 5706 (PVC) = (10)

OVERALL IMPACTS

Net Present Value (NPV) 10988 NPV=PVB-PVC

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.926 BCR=PVB/PVC

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (Option 11B)

Note : This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport

appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of

which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good

measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions.





User charges 0 0 0



Business



Travel time 23909 8053 15856 0 0 0 0




Subtotal 24928 (2) 8525 16403 0 0 0 0


Revenue 0

Operating costs 0

Investment costs 0

Grant/subsidy 0

Subtotal 0 (3)




TOTAL



Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Table (Option 12)

26640 0

ROAD

0 0

0 0

RAIL

799


25841 0

Public Accounts (PA) Table (Option 12)

ALL MODES

TOTAL

0

0

0

-38422

0

-38422 (7)

0

0

59873

0

0

59873 (8)

743 (9)

21451

743




TOTALS








Revenue 0 0

Operating costs 0 0



NET IMPACT -38422 0 0 0




Revenue 0 0

Operating Costs 0 0


Noise 0 (12)





Accidents 0 (17)






costs, not benefits


+ (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) -

(11)



OVERALL IMPACTS

Net Present Value (NPV) -8736 NPV=PVB-PVC


Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (Option 12)









User charges 0 0 0



Business



Travel time 15666 5086 10580 0 0 0 0




Subtotal 16594 (2) 5566 11028 0 0 0 0


Revenue 0

Operating costs 0

Investment costs 0

Grant/subsidy 0

Subtotal 0 (3)




TOTAL

Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits -4010 (6) = (1) + (5)


Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Table (Option 15B)

17818 0

ROAD

0 0

0 0

RAIL

942


16876 0

Public Accounts (PA) Table (Option 15B)

ALL MODES

TOTAL

0

0

0

-38422

0

-38422 (7)

0

0

44128

0

0

44128 (8)

668 (9)

5706

668




TOTALS








Revenue 0 0

Operating costs 0 0



NET IMPACT -38422 0 0 0




Revenue 0 0

Operating Costs 0 0


Noise 0 (12)





Accidents 0 (17)






costs, not benefits

Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB)-4398 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) + (15)

+ (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) -

(11)



OVERALL IMPACTS

Net Present Value (NPV) -10104 NPV=PVB-PVC

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) -0.771 BCR=PVB/PVC

Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (Option 15B)









User charges 0 0 0



Business



Travel time 57561 20742 36819 0 0 0 0




Subtotal 65142 (2) 26122 39020 0 0 0 0


Revenue 0

Operating costs 0

Investment costs 0

Grant/subsidy 0

Subtotal 0 (3)



NET BUSINESS IMPACT 26720 (5) = (2) + (3) + (4)

TOTAL



Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Table (Option 17)

64502 0

ROAD

0 0

0 0

RAIL

6184


58318 0

Public Accounts (PA) Table (Option 17)

ALL MODES

TOTAL

0

0

0

-38422

0

-38422 (7)

0

0

65072

0

0

65072 (8)

4375 (9)

26650

4375


Revenue 0 0

Operating Costs 0 0





NET IMPACT -38422 0 0 0


Revenue 0 0

Operating costs 0 0







TOTALS





Noise 0 (12)





Accidents 0 (17)



Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers 26721 (5)



costs, not benefits


+ (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) -

(11)



OVERALL IMPACTS

Net Present Value (NPV) 62001 NPV=PVB-PVC


Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (Option 17)






B12798D8/001

Appendix F. Appraisal Summary Table

Appraisal Summary Table 18 11 2015

Name Stephen Moody

Organisation Jacobs

Role Transport Planner

Monetary Distributional

£(NPV)7-pt scale/

vulnerable grp

25.7M

Reliability impact on Business

users

The scheme will improve journey time reliability for all users, including business users, through less congestion and shorter delays during peak hours making the overall traffic situation

more predictable. Overall north-south journey times improve.N/A

Regeneration Not assessed - scheme does not impact upon a designated regeneration area. N/A

Wider Impacts The scheme will contribute to facilitating significant long-term regional economic growth and emerging Local Plan development. N/A

Noise

The scheme would cause an increase in noise levels along the new road alignment. The effect of change in traffic flows on the existing network is yet to be defined. Noise levels could

decrease in the town centre.

WebTAG noise

analysis not carried

out at this stage.

Air Quality Reduced delay and less congestion could have a positive impact on air quality along existing roads. However, air quality could get worse in areas in close proximity to the new road.

WebTAG noise


out at this stage.

-9614

-4

Landscape Disruption of the existing agricultural area and visual impacts on the landscape aesthetic value as scheme would intorduce a new road into rural landscape. N/A

Townscape Not applicable N/A

Historic Environment Potential to disturb archaeological remains. An Archaeological DBA and surveys may be required at a later stage in the project. N/A

Biodiversity Potential to impact protected species and damage natural habitat in the vicinity of the new road. N/A

Water Environment Potential risk of water pollution impacting. The road also crosses flood zones and would require a FRA. N/A

27M

Reliability impact on

Commuting and Other usersThe scheme will increase journey time reliability for commuters and other users through reduced delay and congestion. N/A

Physical activity Reduced traffic volumes on the existing A4010 will improve pedestrian and cycling environment. This should help stimulate walking and cycling. N/A

Journey quality Reduced driver frustration and improved journey quality through higher reliability. N/A

AccidentsAccident rates are generally unpredictable and dependent on external factors. However, smaller level of congestion and improved junction performance

might slightly decrease accident risks, especially at junctions and roundabouts along the A4010 corridor.N/A

Security The scheme will have a negligible impact on security. N/A

Access to services The scheme will improve access to services available in the town centre by all modes. N/A

Affordability The time savings created by the new road will have a positive impact on the generalised costs of a journey and the vehicle operation costs. N/A

Severance The new road is not expected to hinder any movements in the area as there are currently no movements taking place. N/A

Option and non-use values User of motor vehicles would experience improvement in conditions with less congestion. N/A

Cost to Broad Transport

BudgetExpected scheme costs including a 44% optimism bias for road, and 66% for bridges. A 20% risk allowance (at 2015 prices) is also included. £19.5M

Indirect Tax Revenues Negligible impacts on indirect tax revenues. TubaPu

bli

c

Ac

co

un

tsS

oc

ial

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Not quantified at this stage

Unable to quantify at this stage


Commuting and Other users The scheme will reduce journey times for north-south journeys.> 5min

N/A

N/A

Slight beneficial

N/A

N/A

N/A

Slight beneficial

N/A

Slight Benefit

Slight Benefit

Slight beneficial

Slight Benefit

Slight beneficial

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

Slight beneficial

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

Date produced: Contact:

Slight to

Moderate

Beneficial

14,925 12,746 2,387

28.4M

449K

Slight beneficial

N/A


Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

Slight to

Moderate

Beneficial

N/A N/A

Slight beneficial

N/A

N/A

Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e)

Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e)

N/A

0 to 2min

N/A

Value of journey time changes(£)

N/A

0 to 2min 2 to 5min


N/A

N/A

Net journey time changes (£)

N/A


16,444 10,609

Slight to

Moderate

Beneficial

27.4M

Quantitative

2 to 5min > 5min

1,843

Impacts

Name of scheme:

Description of scheme:


The road alignment comprises widening of Lower Icknield Way, a section of new road through a proposed development site, connecting to Summerleys Road through to Picts Lane and Shootacre Lane

Assessment

Qualitative

Princes Risborough Western Relief Road (Option 11b)

Summary of key impacts

En

vir

on

me

nta

l

Business users & transport

providers

Ec

on

om

y

The scheme will reduce journey times and junction delays in the region and facilitate travel around the western side of the town.

The additional capacity will cause a better distribution of traffic volumes amongst the existing roads and reduce the traffic volumes in the town centre of Princes Risborough. Hence, all

road users will benefit from this scheme. This supports the aspirations of the BTVLEP.

The scheme could result in a slight decrease of GHG emissions during the appraisal period as traffic emissions are reduced by shorter travel times and

less stop and go traffic. Moreover, vehicles are expected to get environmentally cleaner during the next years.Greenhouse gases


Name Stephen Moody

Organisation Jacobs



£(NPV)7-pt scale/

vulnerable grp

23.9M


users





Noise



WebTAG noise


out at this stage.


WebTAG noise


out at this stage.

-6620

3






25.8M













BudgetExpected scheme costs including a 44% optimism bias for road, and 66% for bridges. A 20% risk allowance (at 2015 prices) is also included. £51M

Indirect Tax Revenues Negligible impacts on indirect tax revenues. Tuba


Name of scheme: Princes Risborough Western Relief Road (Option 12)

Description of scheme: The road alignment comprises widening of Lower Icknield Way, a section of new road west of Horsenden, and then connecting to Shootacre Lane.

Quantitative

Qualitative

N/A

Impacts


Assessment


0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min

15,038 7,344 3,449

Value of journey time changes(£)Slight to

Moderate

Beneficial

17.6M

N/A N/A

En

vir

on

me

nta

l

Not quantified at this stage Slight beneficial


Greenhouse gasesThe scheme could result in a slight decrease of GHG emissions during the appraisal period as traffic emissions are reduced by shorter travel times and

less stop and go traffic. Moreover, vehicles are expected to get environmentally cleaner during the next years.


Ec

on

om

y


providers


The additional capacity will facilitate some through movement and therefore reduce the traffic volumes in the town centre of Princes Risborough. North-south journey times improve as

a result of the scheme. This supports the aspirations of the BTVLEP.

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Beneficial

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Beneficial

311K


N/AModerate

Adverse

N/A N/A

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

So

cia

l

Commuting and Other users The scheme will reduce journey times for north-south journeys.


Slight beneficial

N/A Slight beneficial


N/A N/A

Slight beneficial



26.6MNet journey time changes (£)


15,411 8,484 3,695

Slight beneficial

N/A Slight Benefit

N/A Slight Benefit

N/A N/A

Unable to quantify at this stage Slight Benefit

Pu

bli

c

Ac

co

un

ts

N/A N/A

N/A N/A


Name Stephen Moody

Organisation Jacobs



£(NPV)7-pt scale/

vulnerable grp

15.7M


users





Noise



WebTAG noise


out at this stage.


WebTAG noise


out at this stage.

-5939

-3






16.9M


Commuting and Other usersThe scheme may increase journey time reliability for commuters and other users as the local road network has greater capacity. N/A

Physical activity Reduced traffic volumes on some sections of the existing A4010 will improve pedestrian and cycling environment. This should help stimulate walking and cycling. N/A

Journey quality Reduced driver frustration and improved journey quality through alternative route option, although journey time savings lower in this option. N/A




Access to services The scheme may improve access to services available in the town centre by all modes. N/A

Affordability The additional local road capacity provides alternative routes, which may allow some users to reduce the cost of their journeys. N/A


Option and non-use values User of motor vehicles would experience improvement in conditions as there are a greater number of route options. N/A




N/A N/A

Unable to quantify at this stage Slight Benefit

Pu

bli

c

Ac

co

un

ts

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

Slight beneficial

N/A Slight Benefit

N/A Slight Benefit



12,767 4,127 3,572

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

So

cia

l

Commuting and Other users The scheme has less benefit in terms of reducing north-south journey times, but does provide additional capacity in the road network.


Slight beneficial



N/A N/A

Slight beneficial



N/A N/A

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

Slight to

Moderate

Beneficial

279K


N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

N/A N/A

En

vir

on

me

nta

l






Ec

on

om

y


providers




N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Beneficial

N/A N/A

Impacts


Assessment



13,206 3,244 2,599

Value of journey time changes(£)Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

minus 8.7M

Quantitative

Qualitative


Name of scheme: Princes Risborough Western Relief Road (Option 15b)

Description of scheme: The road alignment comprises widening of Lower Icknield Way, a section of new road through a proposed development site, connecting to Summerleys Road through to Picts Lane and Shootacre Lane


Name Stephen Moody

Organisation Jacobs



£(NPV)7-pt scale/

vulnerable grp

57.6M


users





Noise



WebTAG noise


out at this stage.


WebTAG noise


out at this stage.

-35,567

24






58.3M















N/A N/A

Unable to quantify at this stage Beneficial

Pu

bli

c

Ac

co

un

ts

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

Beneficial

N/A Slight Benefit

N/A Beneficial



17,358 37,931 3,809

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

So

cia

l

Commuting and Other users The scheme will reduce journey times for north-south journeys.


Beneficial

N/A Beneficial


N/A N/A

Slight beneficial

N/A Beneficial


N/A N/A

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

Slight to

Moderate

Beneficial

1.8M


N/A

Slight to

Moderate

Adverse

N/A N/A

En

vir

on

me

nta

l






Ec

on

om

y


providers




N/A Beneficial

N/A N/A

Impacts


Assessment



16,553 35,780 5,985


Beneficial 37.7M

Quantitative

Qualitative


Name of scheme: Princes Risborough Western Relief Road (Option 17)

Description of scheme: The road alignment comprises widening of Lower Icknield Way, a section of new road through a proposed development site, east of Horsenden and the connecting with Shootacre Lane


B12798D8/001

Appendix G. TUBA Outputs

TUBA_OUT.OUTTransport User Benefit Appraisal TUBA (64-BIT) v1.9.4(1xB)Program run on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 16:05:35

TUBA ECONOMICS FILE DIFFERENCES STANDARD ECONOMICS FILE USED INPUT_SUMMARYRun name Princes Risborough Option 11b DM scheme Do Min DS scheme Do Som Economic parameter file C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt Scheme parameter file M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\11B\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt First year of scheme costs 2015First Appraisal Year 2021Last Appraisal Year 2080Modelled years 2021 2036 Time period Total hoursAM peak 678PM peak 705Total 1383

Note: All monetary values are in 2010 market prices. All monetary values discounted to 2010 unless otherwise stated.

Economy:Economic Efficiency of the Transport System(TEE) Consumer - Commuting user benefits All Modes Road Travel Time 11996 11996 Vehicle operating costs 696 696 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0NET CONSUMER - COMMUTING BENEFITS 12692 12692

Consumer - Other user benefits All Modes Road Travel Time 15025 15025 Vehicle operating costs 682 682 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0NET CONSUMER - OTHER BENEFITS 15706 15706 Business All Modes Road Personal Road Freight Bus Personal Bus Freight Travel Time 25706 17093 8613 Vehicle operating costs 1657 707 950 User charges 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 Subtotal 27364 17800 9563 Private Sector Provider Impacts Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 0 0 Grant/subsidy 0 0

Page 1

TUBA_OUT.OUT Subtotal 0 0 Other business Impacts Developer contributions -38422 -38422 NET BUSINESS IMPACT -11058 TOTALPresent Value of Transport EconomicEfficiency Benefits (TEE) 17340

Note: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices Public AccountsLocal Government Funding ALL MODES Road Revenue 0 0 Operating Costs 0 0 Investment Costs 0 0 Developer Contributions -38422 -38422 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 NET IMPACT -38422 -38422 Central Government Funding: Transport ALL MODES Road Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 44128 44128 Developer Contributions 0 0 Grant/Subsidy Payments 0 0 NET IMPACT 44128 44128 Central Government Funding: Non-Transport Indirect Tax Revenues 1095 1095 TOTALS Broad Transport Budget 5706 5706 Wider Public Finances 1095 1095

Note: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and developer contributions appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Greenhouse Gases 449 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 12692Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 15706Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers -11058Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -1095Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 16694 Broad Transport Budget 5706Present Value of Costs (PVC) 5706 OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) 10988Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.926

Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionallypresented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions.

Page 2

TUBA_OUT.OUT

TUBA Run Information- calculations completed

File Summary - Scheme File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\11B\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt- Economic File : C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt- Output File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\11B\TUBA_OUT.OUT

Elapsed time :

Page 3


TUBA ECONOMICS FILE DIFFERENCES STANDARD ECONOMICS FILE USED INPUT_SUMMARYRun name Princes Risborough Option 12 DM scheme Do Min DS scheme Do Som Economic parameter file C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt Scheme parameter file M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\12\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt First year of scheme costs 2015First Appraisal Year 2021Last Appraisal Year 2080Modelled years 2021 2036 Time period Total hoursAM peak 678PM peak 705Total 1383



Consumer - Other user benefits All Modes Road Travel Time 14549 14549 Vehicle operating costs 406 406 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0NET CONSUMER - OTHER BENEFITS 14955 14955 Business All Modes Road Personal Road Freight Bus Personal Bus Freight Travel Time 23910 15856 8053 Vehicle operating costs 1018 547 472 User charges 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 Subtotal 24928 16403 8525 Private Sector Provider Impacts Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 0 0

Page 1

TUBA_OUT.OUT Grant/subsidy 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 Other business Impacts Developer contributions -38422 -38422 NET BUSINESS IMPACT -13494 TOTALPresent Value of Transport EconomicEfficiency Benefits (TEE) 13147


Note: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and developer contributions appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Greenhouse Gases 311 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 11686Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 14955Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers -13494Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -743Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 12715 Broad Transport Budget 21451Present Value of Costs (PVC) 21451 OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) -8736Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.593

Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionallypresented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should

Page 2

TUBA_OUT.OUTnot be used as the sole basis for decisions.


File Summary - Scheme File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\12\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt- Economic File : C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt- Output File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\12\TUBA_OUT.OUT

Elapsed time :

Page 3

TUBA_OUT.OUTTransport User Benefit Appraisal TUBA (64-BIT) v1.9.4(1xB)Program run on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 16:20:20

TUBA ECONOMICS FILE DIFFERENCES STANDARD ECONOMICS FILE USED INPUT_SUMMARYRun name Princes Risborough Option 15b DM scheme Do Min DS scheme Do Som Economic parameter file C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt Scheme parameter file M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\15B\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt First year of scheme costs 2015First Appraisal Year 2021Last Appraisal Year 2080Modelled years 2021 2036 Time period Total hoursAM peak 678PM peak 705Total 1383



Consumer - Other user benefits All Modes Road Travel Time 9418 9418 Vehicle operating costs 468 468 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0NET CONSUMER - OTHER BENEFITS 9886 9886 Business All Modes Road Personal Road Freight Bus Personal Bus Freight Travel Time 15667 10580 5086 Vehicle operating costs 928 448 480 User charges 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 Subtotal 16595 11029 5566 Private Sector Provider Impacts Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 0 0

Page 1

TUBA_OUT.OUT Grant/subsidy 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 Other business Impacts Developer contributions -38422 -38422 NET BUSINESS IMPACT -21827 TOTALPresent Value of Transport EconomicEfficiency Benefits (TEE) -4009


Note: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and developer contributions appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Greenhouse Gases 279 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 7932Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 9886Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers -21827Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -668Present Value of Benefits (PVB) -4398 Broad Transport Budget 5706Present Value of Costs (PVC) 5706 OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) -10104Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) -0.771

Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionallypresented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should

Page 2

TUBA_OUT.OUTnot be used as the sole basis for decisions.


File Summary - Scheme File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\15B\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt- Economic File : C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt- Output File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\15B\TUBA_OUT.OUT

Elapsed time :

Page 3


TUBA ECONOMICS FILE DIFFERENCES STANDARD ECONOMICS FILE USED INPUT_SUMMARYRun name Princes Risborough Option 17 DM scheme Do Min DS scheme Do Som Economic parameter file C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt Scheme parameter file M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\17\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt First year of scheme costs 2015First Appraisal Year 2021Last Appraisal Year 2080Modelled years 2021 2036 Time period Total hoursAM peak 678PM peak 705Total 1383



Consumer - Other user benefits All Modes Road Travel Time 32454 32454 Vehicle operating costs 3035 3035 User charges 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0NET CONSUMER - OTHER BENEFITS 35490 35490 Business All Modes Road Personal Road Freight Bus Personal Bus Freight Travel Time 57562 36819 20742 Vehicle operating costs 7581 2201 5380 User charges 0 0 0 During Construction & Maintenance 0 0 0 Subtotal 65143 39021 26122 Private Sector Provider Impacts Revenue 0 0 Operating costs 0 0 Investment costs 0 0 Grant/subsidy 0 0

Page 1

TUBA_OUT.OUT Subtotal 0 0 Other business Impacts Developer contributions -38422 -38422 NET BUSINESS IMPACT 26721 TOTALPresent Value of Transport EconomicEfficiency Benefits (TEE) 91225


Note: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and developer contributions appear as negative numbers. Note: All entries are present values discounted to 2010, in 2010 prices Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Greenhouse Gases 1801 Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) 29014Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) 35490Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers 26721Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -4375Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 88651 Broad Transport Budget 26650Present Value of Costs (PVC) 26650 OVERALL IMPACTSNet Present Value (NPV) 62001Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.326

Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionallypresented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions.

Page 2

TUBA_OUT.OUT


File Summary - Scheme File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\17\TUBA_Scheme_File.txt- Economic File : C:\Program Files\DfT\TUBA v1.9.4 64bit\economics\economics_1_9_4.txt- Output File : M:\Transport Modelling\B12798D8 Princes Risborough\Technical Work\Transport Planning\VISUM\Forecast\TUBA\17\TUBA_OUT.OUT

Elapsed time :

Page 3


B12798D8/001

Appendix H. Preliminary Scheme Costs

Total Carriageway Area (m^2) 45,319

Total Main Carriageway

Length (m) N/A Width (m) N/A Total Area (m^2) 38034.10

Total Interchange

Diameter (m) per Junc N/A Area (m^2) per Junc N/A Total Area (m^2) 7284.47

REF. Description. Work Qty. Unit. Unit Rate. Total

A Preliminaries 45,319 m2 101.11 £4,582,204.09

B Road Works £8,940,735.59

B1 Site Clearance 45,319 m2 1.19 £53,929.61

B2 Fencing 45,319 m2 4.28 £193,965.32

B3 Road Restraint Systems 45,319 m2 4.54 £205,748.26

B4 Earthworks 45,319 m2 46.67 £2,115,037.73

Main Carriageway

B5 Drainage and Service Ducts 38,034 m2 30.04 £1,142,544.36

B6 Pavements 38,034 m2 79.21 £3,012,681.06

B7 Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas 38,034 m2 17.60 £669,400.16

Interchange

B8 Drainage and service Ducts 7,284 m2 30.04 £218,825.62

B9 Pavements 7,284 m2 66.65 £485,510.24


Signs, Motorway Communications and

Lighting

B11 Traffic Signs and Road Markings 45,319 m2 4.04 £183,088.76

B12

Road Lighting Columns, Brackets and CCTV

Masts 45,319m

2

1.48 £67,072.12

B13

Electrical Work for Road Lighting and Traffic

Signs 45,319m

2

3.04 £137,769.76

B14 Motorway Communications 45,319 m2 0.25 £11,329.75

Landscape and Ecology

B15 Landscape and Ecology 51,238 m2 6.16 £315,626.08

C Structures £11,177,116.04

C1 North Bridge 642 m2 9704.58 £6,234,416.28

C2 South Bridge 355 m2 9704.58 £3,442,699.76

C3 Culverts / bridges over existing watercourses 3 Nr 500000.00 £1,500,000.00

D Accomodation Works 45,319 m2 5.10 £231,126.90

E Facilitating Works £1,801,430.25

E1 Temporary and permanent Diversion Works 45,319 m2 35.83 £1,623,779.77

E2 Extraordinary Site Investigation Works 45,319 m2 3.92 £177,650.48

F Project / Design Team Fees £1,955,968.04

F1 Consultant's Fees 45,319 m2 16.72 £757,733.68

F2 Main Contractor's Pre-Construction Fees 45,319 m2 7.11 £322,218.09

F3 Main Contractor's Design Fees 45,319 m2 19.33 £876,016.27

£28,688,580.90

G Risks (Design, Construction, Employer Risk

G1 Allowance for Risk Contingency @ 20% 0.20 % 28688580.90 £5,737,716.18

G2 Allowance for optimism bias @ 44% 0.44 % 17511464.87 £7,705,044.54

G3 Allowance for optimism bias @ 66% Bridges 0.66 % 11177116.04 £7,376,896.59

£49,508,238.21

Preparatory £1,955,968.04

Highway Works (including preliminaries) £26,732,612.86

Land Not Included

Risk Allowance £5,737,716.18

Optimism Bias £15,081,941.13

Total £49,508,238.21

Alignment One (rounded)



Land Not Included



Total £49,510,000.00

11B and 15B

Total

Grand Total

11B and 15B




Total Interchange




B Road Works £7,447,681.89


B2 Fencing 37,725 m2 4.28 £161,463.00


B4 Earthworks 37,725 m2 46.67 £1,760,625.75

Main Carriageway


B6 Pavements 34,489 m2 79.21 £2,731,849.93


Interchange


B11 Pavements 3,236 m2 66.65 £215,651.18


Signs, Motorway Communications and Lighting


B14 Road Lighting Columns, Brackets and CCTV Masts 37,725 m2 1.48 £55,833.00

B15 Electrical Work for Road Lighting and Traffic Signs 37,725 m2 3.04 £114,684.00





C1 North Bridge 642 m2 9704.58 £6,234,416.28

C2 B2 1 Nr 6000000.00 £6,000,000.00

C3 B3 1 Nr 4000000.00 £4,000,000.00

C4 B4 1 Nr 6000000.00 £6,000,000.00










£38,316,650.18





£68,060,877.87



Land n/a



Total £68,060,877.87




Land n/a



Total £68,060,000.00

12

Total

Grand Total

12




Total Interchange




B Road Works £9,298,325.62


B2 Fencing 47,277 m2 4.28 £202,345.56


B4 Earthworks 47,277 m2 46.67 £2,206,417.59

Main Carriageway


B6 Pavements 40,420 m2 79.21 £3,201,652.36


Interchange


B9 Pavements 6,857 m2 66.65 £457,013.46


Signs, Motorway Communications and Lighting


B12 Road Lighting Columns, Brackets and CCTV Masts 47,277 m2 1.48 £69,969.96

B13 Electrical Work for Road Lighting and Traffic Signs 47,277 m2 3.04 £143,722.08





C1 North Bridge 642 m2 9704.58 £6,234,416.28

C2 B2 1 Nr 6000000.00 £6,000,000.00

C3 B3 1 Nr 4000000.00 £4,000,000.00

C4 B4 1 Nr 6000000.00 £6,000,000.00










£42,473,768.14





£74,988,551.33



Land n/a



Total £74,988,551.33




Land n/a



Total £74,990,000.00

17

Total

Grand Total

17

princes risborough transport study - wycombe · 2017-08-15 · princes risborough transport study...

Documents