What We Think Of F5 

— ——————————————————-
The following information is taken from the Parklife public inquiry ‘Proof of Evidence’ submission summary, and updated where possible (in RED) with latest available data.
 
*Please note figures relating specifically to the scheme details, provided by SBC and W.S. Atkins during scheme submission and ongoing development.*
———————————————————
 
To first gain some perspective on this issue, it should be considered that nearly 20,000 signatories completed petitions against the road proposals, by the local authority’s public consultation deadline of 31st January 2002. Of those responding to the official Winter 2001 Civic News survey, only 16 people were in favour of the proposals from a delivery area covering all Southend households.
 
Consideration is now being given to a scheme which will result in the destruction of 111 trees, loss of 3000m2 of green public open space, and which will have serious impacts upon the peace and tranquillity of Priory Park and the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) contained within.
 
Costs for the F5 proposal have risen from £3.5m to £20.5m (upper SBC estimate) even prior to construction, during the LTP implementation period. The significant amount of impact described and investment necessary, will only result in a maximum journey time reduction of 3 minutes ** at peak hours. This using the best-case scenario from published authority figures and only for the 1620m timed stretch of road between Sutton Road and The Bell Road junctions.
 
**Provided by SBC/W.S. Atkins.
 

Scheme Details

· £20.5m (upper SBC estimate) of Government funding necessary for questionable and minimal journey time reductions. Journey time analysis between Sutton Road and The Bell Road junctions takes no account of overall traffic flow/journey times east-west across town, at subsequent junctions particularly to west of scheme.

· No account made in SBC traffic flow analysis for the relocation in 2004 of 600 Royal Bank of Scotland employees, from Priory Crescent north, to out of town site. Vehicle journeys to previous site with 200 parking spaces now ended.

· Signalised right turn access and/or pedestrian crossing facilities at Aldi Supermarket/Carwash, will further negate any proposed journey time reductions gained from 870m section (including 70m to east of bridge) of new dual carriageway.

· Increased aesthetic/noise impacts to Priory Park, particularly from the 6% flow of goods vehicles of unladen weight of 1.5 tonnes or more and the 0.9% flow contributed by buses and coaches, on the proposed 3.2m high embankment/minimum radius turn to new bridge deck. F5 is categorised as a ‘priority freight route’ within the LTP, hence the percentages stated are expected to increase significantly over time.

· 3000m² of parkland and shrubbery area (both public open space) to be hard surfaced for road scheme. Negligible efforts by local authority to compensate for loss of green areas.

· Eastbound road access to the new bridge deck to be built on site of recently discovered burial chamber of the ‘Prince of Prittlewell.’ Recognised as being of internationally significant archaeological importance and most important find in the past 65 years since Sutton Hoo burial.

· 111 trees to be destroyed for scheme. ‘2 for 1’ semi mature replanting will not recover natural barrier between parkland/Scheduled Ancient Monument and traffic. Replanting to occur as far away as Royal Artillery Way and Progress Road, up to 2.6 miles away at the town boundary.

· Cost increases from originally budgeted £3.5m for scheme to £20.5m (upper SBC estimate)prior to construction. Section 9.2 of SBC Statement of Case confirms intention, if additional funding is not approved, to prioritise Priory Crescent within Major Scheme, threatening integrated transport principle of overall LTP and the ‘Travel Centre’ element.

· Local authority still intent on new east-west outer bypass through Rochford, negating need for questionable benefits from additional carriageways in particularly sensitive area of town.

· Precedent set for future environmental impacts to Priory Park on Priory Crescent south, if proposed benefits from improved northern road section not realised after scheme completion.
 
 
Consultation

· Integrated Transportation Partnership group for Priory Crescent scheme given no opportunity for input, from Government acceptance of draft LTP plans in 2000 until date of writing.

· Negligible mention of proposed scheme in original public consultation via local press, prior to draft LTP submission in 2000. ‘Smokescreen’ of outer bypass used when not considered as an LTP option.

· 16% of people responding to official local authority Winter 2001 Civic News survey in favour of the road scheme. Minimal and misleading detail provided for consideration by the local public.

· Alternative survey by local groups in February 2002 showed 97.5% of people polled agree that, ‘Priory Park and its surroundings are preserved in their entirety, and are never subjected to any loss or degradation from road building or development.’

Summary
 
The SBC statement in the 2001/2 to 2005/6 LTP document that the Major Scheme including improvements to Priory Crescent has community backing and support is very clearly contradicted by continued public opposition to and demonstrations against the F5 road proposals.Development of the proposals has been fundamentally flawed due to the lack of inclusion of the Integrated Transportation Partnership working group for the road and absence of clear and meaningful public consultation throughout.
 
Best practices highlighted by the authority, such as real planning exercises utilised on ‘sister’ projects including the A13 passenger corridor and Hamlet Court Road improvements, have not been transferred to the development of the F5 Major Scheme element, as was committed to in previous LTP annual reviews.
 

Recommendations
 
Due to the above reasons, detailed more fully in the Parklife ‘Proof of Evidence’ against the road, we now make the following recommendations: · That the remainder of the currently agreed £3.5m in LTP funding, for the proposed F5 road scheme element of the Major Scheme is terminated forthwith.

· That the £17m budget increase currently sought by SBC, and subject to ongoing negotiations since Public Inquiry is not granted.

· That any future road development on Priory Crescent north or south is undertaken with the full consent, support and consultation of the general public of Southend on Sea, to prevent a reoccurrence of the current situation at a future date.
  

THE FULL SUBMISSION IS AVAILABLE AT THIS LINK FOR DOWNLOAD (MICROSOFT WORD FORMAT)