Appendix 1 - Rosneath Phase 2 Options Feasibility Report
Argyll and Bute Council · 10 December 2024
Back to Helensburgh & Lomond Area Committee — 10 December 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Rosneath, Phase 2 Marina to ‘Y’ Junction at Castle Caravan Park Stage 1&2 Combined, Options Feasibility Report DATE: February 2024 REF: 501047 VERSION: Draft v3
Page 2
MARK RINKUS Managing Director Mark.rinkus@connectedtp.com Click the icons to view our website and LinkedIn +44 7515834101 Contents 1 OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE ................................................................................... 1 2 OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL ....................................................... 17 3 DEVELOPING THE CONCEPTS ........................................................................... 33 4 DESIGN PROCESS QUALITY AND INNOVATION ............................................... 37 5 PROJECT DELIVERABILITY AND DESIGN COLLABORATION ............................ 46 APPENDIX A – NETWORK AND UTILITIES ................................................................. 43 APPENDIX B – SOCIAL AND EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SEQIA) ................... 45 APPENDIX C – STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT AND DESIGNERS’ RESPONSE ............ 46 APPENDIX D – PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL (PEA) ................................ 47 APPENDIX E – DESIGNERS RISK REGISTER .............................................................. 48 APPENDIX F – PRE-APPLICATION PLANNING RESPONSE ......................................... 49
Page 3
1 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1 OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE 1.1 Introduction and Study Overview Rosneath supports a community of around 1,2601 people who live within the settlement of Rosneath / Clynder. The village is located 3.8km away from the village of Kilcreggan (population 1,320) which of located on the western coast of the peninsula. The villages, whilst near to each other form part of the circular route around the peninsula starting and ending at Garelochhead, linked by the B833. The route is a popular visitor destination due to the scenic views of the coast. During 2018, the Rosneath to Marina section of the Active Travel route was constructed by Argyll and Bute Council (ABC). The route provided a 2.5m wide surfaced shared use cycle footway connecting Rosneath village and the associated footway/service infrastructure to the yacht marina and small industrial / employment units located on the southern outskirts of the village. This is Phase 2 of the route which would extend the route from the Marina around Camsail Bay to the ‘Y’ junction formed on the B833. The junction is of strategic importance as it provides road access to the Castle Bay tip of the peninsula and the Rosneath Castle Caravan Park. Due to resourcing and funding issues, the concepts developed for the phase 2 route were not shared with the community. The publication of an updated active travel route design standard in 2021 necessitated 1 National Records of Scotland (15 August 2013). "Appendix 2: Population and households on Scotland's Inhabited Islands" (PDF). Statistical Bulletin: 2011 a revisit of the original route options. Following identification of further funding, this project seeks to reinvestigate the original route concepts and through working with the local community, develop the concepts and identify a preferred concept that can support a bid for future funding and detailed design. Notwithstanding, a future Phase 3 of the route will be required to complete the route by connecting the ‘Y’ junction to Rosneath Castle Caravan Park and therefore enabling access by visitors and residents to travel between both places by travel modes other than private car. This Outline Business Case (OBC) seeks to provide a ‘snapshot’ of the phase 2 project in context to the local area, setting out a baseline from which future monitoring and evaluation can be referenced. This report should be considered in conjunction with the Stage 1 Community Feedback and Monitoring and Evaluation Report; reported separately. Census: First Results on Population and Household Estimates for Scotland Release 1C (Part Two) (PDF) (Report). SG/2013/126. Retrieved 14 August 2020.
Page 4
2 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.2 Study Location Plan The Proposed Study Area Is Shown In The Following Figure 2 A project which enables travel behaviour change. 1.3 Recent Study History Whilst the phase 1 route was supported by a funding bid, no details of the route business case or route design are available. Only PDF copies of the original 3 concept options for phase 2 have been provided by ABC. 1.4 Project Alignment with National and Local Strategy / Policy As an active travel enabler2, this project seeks to support the connection of 20- minute neighbourhoods3, linking people and place whilst enabling the movement of people of all ages and abilities. The project will seek to reduce car dependency, reducing car dominant short journey trips whilst promoting the benefits of healthier walking and cycling in undertaking everyday journeys by these sustainable travel modes. The project will also likely directly contribute to safety and resilience objectives through the creation of a safe walking and cycling route. The project is therefore directly and indirectly aligned with national, regional and local policy and aligned with the strategy objectives of Argyll and Bute Council (ABC). The following strategies and policies are considered relevant to this study: • The Scottish Government’s National Performance Framework • Scottish Government Infrastructure Investment Plan 3 https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/get-active/2020/in-your-community/what-is-a-20-minute- neighbourhood
Page 5
3 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com • Active Scotland Outcomes • Physical Activity Implementation Plan – A More Active Scotland • Scottish Government Creating Places • Preventing Obesity in Scotland • The National Walking Strategy • The Cycling Action Plan for Scotland (CAPS) • The Climate Change Plan • The Road Safety Framework; and • The National Transport Strategy (NTS) A figure summarising the Scottish Governments journey towards reducing car dependency for single occupancy trips is presented below. 4 National Records of Scotland (15 August 2013). "Appendix 2: Population and households on Scotland's Inhabited Islands" (PDF). Statistical Bulletin: 2011 Census: First Results on Population and Household Estimates for Scotland Release 1C (Part Two) (PDF) (Report). SG/2013/126. Retrieved 14 August 2020. 1.5 Population and Demographic Assessment Rosneath currently has a population of 1,2604 residents based on the 2021 census. The population has overall has been falling slowly since 2001, summarised in the following table. Year Rosneath Population 2001 1,400 2011 1,324 2021 1,260 The population is evenly split between males and females and slightly weighted towards ages 40 years old and upwards. The peninsula has more 70-year-old people than under 16-year-olds.5 5 https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//statistics/scap/figures-maps/scap-figure- 18.pdf The National Picture
Page 6
4 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The peninsula is challenged with migration as a number of younger adults will leave the area pre-30’s to pursue employment and careers before returning in later life. SIMD Assessment To understand Rosneath’s social challenges, the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) area statistics for 2022 were examined. The results indicate that Rosneath is ranked low overall at 1,814 out of 6,976 places, with income, Crime, Employment, Health and Housing ranking low ranking at 3 out of 10. Crime surprisingly scored more favourably at 6 out of 10. Geography and Access are also notable challenges. 1.6 Rural Deprivation 6 The Scottish Rural Policy Centre (SRUC) published a report entitled ‘Rural Scotland in Focus’ In recent years there has been a greater understanding of the impacts of transport poverty; where people lack access to services or work and the contributions that a lack of affordable transport options creates. It is important to consider the aspect of rural inequalities, which creates challenges to living that are different from communities within larger urban areas6. In reviewing employment in rural areas, the SRUC report highlights a significantly larger percentage of those in part-time or smaller contract jobs, often with lower hourly rates or salaries than counterparts in urban population centres. Many rural areas have become increasingly reliant on the tourism industry, as a result, many jobs are seasonal and in demand, reducing the overall hours or contracts available over the year. Fuel Poverty Living outside larger urban areas is likely to increase the costs of goods overall – primarily due to the cost of the supply chain network required. This can be seen in the cost of fuel with a predominant market of independent providers, unable to offer the prices of larger national outlets. This issue raises a secondary cost to local residents, with rural communities relying more on private transport, and often having to travel further for services. Ultimately, for residents of communities such as those in Rosneath and Islay, more fuel is required to travel for day-to-day work and leisure. SIMD Extract for Rosneath
Page 7
5 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com A report on the Minimum Income Standard for Remote Rural Scotland and research on the Minimum Income Standard for Scotland highlights that the cost of food and consumable goods are between 10-50% higher in rural areas, whilst clothing and household goods are between 30-50% higher than in urban areas. These estimates do not consider the impact of living in the most remote locations where the costs associated with the movement of goods and services can be even more disproportionate. The cycling organisation Sustrans through their own research have identified three key areas which can assist in addressing transport poverty. These are: • People-centred transport planning; • Provision of quality accessible, frequent and affordable public transport service; and • Development of a transport network that supports the movement of people to places irrespective of user’s social status. Whilst these options may not address the inequalities of rural transport challenges; improving accessibility and access for goods and services, through sustainable travel modes will provide the community with improved travel choices better aligned with the National Transport Policy. In time, these measures have the potential to reduce car dependency for short journey trips whilst contributing to people’s health and wellbeing through increasing daily physical activity. The reprioritisation of our streets, away from the private car, combined with the reallocation of road space to support sustainable travel, landscaping, ecological and placemaking will improve the social and environmental experience of the area. Transport and access within Rosneath can be concluded to be a core consideration in helping to manage the challenges of rural social deprivation. 1.7 Understanding Place Rosneath Village Rosneath forms is the main service centre for the peninsula. The coastal village is located along the B833 road which passes through the village and extends around the peninsula. Few properties actually front the road with the Phase 2 project located on the southeastern outskirts of the village within an area with no frontage properties. Rosneath supports access to several everyday community services: • The Rosneath Co-op, supplying most everyday essentials; • Local butchers and bakers; • Rosneath Primary School; • Community Library; and • Churches, supporting all aspects of community activity. Kilcreggan and Clynder Kilcreggan is a small coastal village located to the south west of Rosneath on the coast on the peninsulas opposite coast. The settlement is located around 3.8km away via the B833. Kilcreggan has a history dating back to the 19th century and
Page 8
6 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com was originally a popular destination for holidaymakers from Glasgow. The settlement includes access to Gourock via a ferry across the Clyde and a number of everyday services including a Cost Cutter supermarket. The village has strong links with Rosneath and Clynder with residents of the villages’ active between settlements. The village is known for its scenic beauty, with views across the Clyde to the picturesque town of Gourock. Kilcreggan is also notable for its Victorian pier, which was once a crucial transportation link for steamships connecting the area with other parts of the Clyde and beyond. Infrastructure The B833 is formed as a bi-directional traffic route c.7m wide linking Garelochhead around the peninsula. The road's is adopted and maintained by ABC with a total length of c.26km. In general, the carriageway is formed with unbound edges incorporating hard strips in some location. The carriageway surface blends into the adjacent verge. The route wynds through coastal topography with surface water drained via ditches provided adjacent to the carriageway. From the in-land side of the road, the drainage ditches are culverted under the road and discharged directly into the sea. There is no provision for the storage or treatment of road water runoff. In most locations, the embankment of the road is steep and unsuitable to pass oncoming vehicles. In most instances, such as on and near bends, opposing vehicles are required to slow down to pass. The road pavement, in most locations, is in generally good condition with many locations showing evidence of recent resurfacing. Within the extent of the rural villages dotted along the B833 footways and street lighting is provided, typically to an outdated standard with the pavement less than 1.5m wide. The road is subject to a de-restricted speed limit along length with 30mph speed limits provided within the village extents. Vehicle speeds do however vary by location. Pedestrian and cyclist activity occurs on the carriageway with pedestrians and cyclists giving way to oncoming vehicles. In some locations, this requires cyclists to dismount noting the adjacent verge can be steep, narrow and unstable underfoot. With no street lights, for most of the route, the movement of pedestrians and cyclists is restricted to occur within the hours of daylight or more likely during the summer period. Parking and Access As relevant to this study, a single public car parking lay-by is provided at Camsail Bay supporting visitors who wish to stop, park and inspect the views of the bay.
Page 9
7 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com There are no parking restrictions within the peninsula. Within the villages, for a number of residents, parking on-street along their property frontage is required. There is no provision for publicly accessible electric vehicle charging points in Rosneath. Tourism, Visitors and Local Economy The peninsula is understood to be a popular visitor destination attracting visitors from a wide geographical area. Peak visitor season is understood to be between May and September with visitors arriving by either the Gourock ferry to Kilcreggan or via the B833 from Garelochhead. Visitors drive or cycling the route. Few visitors are understood to be associate with visiting Rosneath directly but will pass through the village either touring the area or to access services. The community travel between Rosneath and the adjacent Kilcreggan, with the Rosneath Castle Caravan Park located between both. 1) Faslane Naval Base The Faslane Naval Base is located to the northeast on the other side of Gareloch and is of significant economic importance to the local community and the wider region. The base provides employment opportunities for many people, including both military personnel and civilian staff. The influx of personnel and their families contributes to the local economy through housing, education, and various other services. The base's operations also stimulate economic activity in the surrounding areas, as local businesses provide goods and services to support the needs of the naval personnel. Additionally, infrastructure development and maintenance at the base generate contracts for local companies, further contributing to the regional economy. The strategic importance of Faslane as a naval base plays a role in sustaining economic activity in the local community through employment, business transactions, and associated services. 2) Rosneath Castle Caravan Park Rosneath Castle Caravan Park offers a range of caravan and camping facilities for tourists and visitors. The park provides static caravans for rent or sale, as well as spaces for individuals bringing their own caravans or tents. Camsail Bay parking lay-by
Page 10
8 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Given its name, Rosneath Castle Caravan Park overlooks Castle Bay , and visitors have the opportunity to enjoy the scenery and take part in the recreational activities offered along the coast. The park provides a family-friendly environment with recreational facilities, playgrounds, and some limited on-site facilities. The park also has the only licensed bar in Rosneath, its proximity supports a strong relationship with visitors to the park travelling to access facilities within Rosneath. Given the scenic beauty of Camsail Bay, the walking and cycling demand between these places is understood to be strong. The park is subject to continual expansion with 40 new bays recently formed (2023) to support visitors travelling by motorhomes. In addition to generating additional pedestrian and cyclist traffic along the B833 between the Rosneath and the park, the ongoing expansion will also likely increase the traffic flow along the B833 route and encourage a greater number of larger vehicles to visit. This will likely be to the detriment of pedestrians and cyclists using the route in the absence of a Phase 2 path being provided. 3) Rosneath Marina The Rosneath Marina is subject to a ‘live’ planning application to redevelop the site to provide c.175 luxury new houses (09/01089/DET). Whilst the application has been approved by ABC in 2019, the detail relating to the proposed infrastructure and operation is yet to be determined. The development is proposed to be accessed through a number of changes to the existing road geometry. These include: • Minor widening of the carriageway along the Marina frontage to include provision for a vehicular right-turn stacking lane; • Extension of the 2.5m wide constructed phase 1 active travel path along the Marina frontage to a point around mid-way along Camsail Bay. The proposed path will however only be 2m wide with a 0.5m wide verge; • Reduction of the B833 speed limit from 60mph to 40mph limit from the midpoint along Camsail bay extended into Rosneath. This includes vehicle speed management measures consisting of signage and rumble strips. Utilities and Known Constraints To understand the utilities within the area, a search of utility apparatus within the study area was undertaken. These are summarised as follows: Water supply Scottish water GIS plan has indicated a 90mmm HPPE pipe below / verge of the B833 road along the extent of the route. Consideration should be taken for any works undertaken within the vicinity of the pipe work in line with Scottish water guidance. The apparatus plan is shown in Appendix A. Electricity Line search before you dig has indicated multiple HV mains cables in the vicinity of the project route. These are slung alongside the breakwater. Consideration
Page 11
9 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com should be taken for any works undertaken within the vicinity of the cables In line with SSE guidance. The apparatus plan is shown in Appendix A. Foul/Surface Water Scottish water GIS plan has indicated a water main is present along the B833. The apparatus plan is shown in Appendix A. Communications No apparatus found. The apparatus plan is shown in Appendix A. Gas No apparatus found. Flood Risk An extract of the SEPA flood risk for the project area is included in Appendix A. The extract confirms that the project route is at risk to tidal flooding from a 1:200-year event. Landownership and Rights of Access Landownership within study area consists of 10 private land owners whose land interests flank the B833 road corridor. All private owned land is undeveloped and consists of vegetation and a former quarry. The land is overall estimated to be of low commercial value. The road and 2m of grass verge between the high-water line and opposing tree line are owned and maintained by ABC. There are 10 landowners fronting the Study Area
Page 12
10 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.8 Understanding Travel Behaviour The majority of pedestrian activity is located along the B833 within the settlements of Rosneath but it understood that the trips by the community along Camsail Bay towards the Castle Caravan Park are currently undertaken. Walking between the park and Rosneath village centre takes around 30 minutes or 2.2km. As a coastal route, travel mode decision are impacted by weather including storms and, in some places, tidal surges (Camsail Bay). The current lack of coherent walking and cycling infrastructure combined with the narrow road, perception of high vehicle speeds and the width of large vehicle are noted by the community to be barriers to travel along the route. School Travel Rosneath Primary School is located on the eastern edge of Rosneath (furthest from the project area). In support of this project a Hands-up Survey (HuS) was undertaken during November 2023 to understand how the community’s younger member’s travel. The results of the survey show the that pupil’s dependency on travel by walking (50%) and car (40%). Around 10% of the surveyed children cycle to school. The school engagement has confirmed that a number of the villages younger members do own bikes and do regularly walk or cycle along the route. The school’s remote location relative to the study area is however unlikely to be a key indicator of suppressed active travel demand. Public Transport Bus services around the peninsula are operated by Garelochhead Coaches who provide public transportation services in various regions of Scotland. They offer a schedule of bus services connecting the various villages around the peninsula. It is understood that the service is currently subsidised through HITRANS. 1.9 Baseline Data To support this project, a number of data sources were commissioned to provide a snapshot of people and traffic volumes speeds and movements during 2023. The surveys consisted of 3 Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCS) installed for a 7- day period along the route. The counters recorded all vehicle movements including speeds by direction continuously. Following consultation with the project steering group, the counters were located at the following strategic locations: • ‘Y’ junction near Castle Caravan Park; Travel Mode Morning Trip Afternoon Trip Walk 19 20 Cycle 1 1 Bus 0 0 Scooter 0 0 Car 14 14
Page 13
11 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com • Adjacent to the yacht marina; and • In the middle of Camsail Bay. In addition to the ATC’s a number of Non-Motorised Users (NMU) surveys were also undertaken during the same period. The NMU survey was located at the busiest locations along the route corridor. ATC Results The results of the surveys indicate that the typical traffic volumes along the corridor are around 1,592 vehicles per day, roughly split at 800 vehicles per day in both the northbound and southbound travel directions. The corresponding 85% vehicle speed is 44mph and is likely to be a result of the narrow road route, built-up features of the village and the presence of people. Traffic composition at this location is 90% cars or light vans with 10% classed as medium weight and no Heavier Goods Vehicles (HGVs). The traffic volumes are again around 1740 vehicles per day, roughly split at 900 vehicles per day in both the northbound and southbound direction indicating that vehicular trips observed within the ‘Y’ junction near Castle Caravan Park continue along this route. The corresponding 85% vehicle speeds are slightly increased relative to the ‘Y’ junction near Castle Caravan Park at 41mph with southbound speeds similar to northbound. Traffic composition at this location is 88% cars or light vans with 12% classed as medium weight and no Heavier Goods Vehicles (HGVs). Traffic data sets have been supplied separately. NMU’s The NMU surveys were located near the ‘Y’ junction supporting access to Castle Caravan Park. The survey captured all pedestrian and cyclist numbers by travel direction within a 24hr day 00:00 to 00:00 over 5 weekdays and 2 weekend days. Traffic Analysis, Speed, Volume and NMU Analysis
Page 14
12 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com The results of the surveys indicated that over the 7 surveyed days the typical daily pedestrian flow was 8 people (4 per direction). Most days no cyclists were recorded although one day saw a total of 9 cyclists. Road Safety A review of the road safety records using the Crashmap website7 indicates that over the last 5 years between 2018 and 2022, there have been no recorded road safety incidents within the study area that have involved personal injury. This doesn’t mean that no accidents have occurred as it is possible that more recent incidents have not yet been published. 7 https://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search Current Travel Patterns The 2011 census data for Rosneath was examined to understand current travel behaviours and travel patterns within the peninsula. However, no data was available. Rosneath Accident History 2018 - 2022
Page 15
13 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com It is noted that more rural locations are more likely be more dependent on private car use when compared with the Scottish average. Travel mode preference in Rosneath is anticipated to reflect this trend. Understanding Roseneath’s Demographics The Rosneath population profile is aligned with the Scottish average (2011 census data) for the age group 0–16-year-olds. There is then a significant drop in 16-29- year-olds as young people migrate away from the community, however, it levels back out with the Scottish average for 30-44 as many people return to the area in their adult years. The figures remain level for 45-59 year olds but are significantly higher for 60-74 year olds. Where do People Currently Cycle? Cyclist demand around the peninsula is understood to be ‘healthy’ with cyclists’ day tripping from Glasgow to cycle the peninsula circuit. A number of circular walk and cycle routes have been published. These routes are in the majority off-road although cycling around the B833 is noted to be popular. Cycling in Rosneath is popular, although the number of people cycling within the project route is understood to be comparably low. The route between the ‘Y’ junction near Castle Caravan Park and Rosneath is c.1.2km in length and is comfortable to walk or cycle during pleasant weather. Anecdotal evidence provided by the community indicates that the project route is popular with tourists and is used to cycle/walk whilst exploring the area. Tourists will visit the peninsula by car and tour. This results in a number of tourist vehicles also driving along the project route. To assist in understanding existing cycle and walking use on the island the Strava fitness app was examined. The app records users cycling and walking activities by location and can be a useful indicator of walking and cycling activity. An extract as appropriate for Rosneath is provided as follows with Blue colours showing locations of greater walking and cycling intensity, Rosneath Cycling Activity from Strava Project Extent
Page 16
14 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Forecasting User Group Demand It is not possible to forecast with certainty the likely future walking, cycling and wheeling demand for the project. With reference to the views reported within the Community Feedback Report, the community consists of 1,260 people. Of these, 56% regularly visit Castle Caravan Park (more than twice a week) and 11% visit every day. Only 6% of the surveyed indicated they currently regularly travel the project route every day. with 82% indicating the provision of the route would encourage them to walk or cycle. Using these percentages, it is estimated that the project route will support around 34 journeys regularly per week or an average of 4 journeys per day. Allowing for a similar level of tourist trips during the peak seasons of the year, the project may support a weekly total usage of around 74 trips per week or 8 trips per day. This estimate is noted to be around double the current surveyed daily cyclists’ numbers recorded. 1.10 Connecting Rosneath The project aims to provide a high-quality walking and cycling facility which will improve travel link options with the ‘Y’ junction near Castle Caravan Park. The inclusion of public realm works will improve the local amenity reducing dependency on car use, creating of spaces to stop and dwell and enjoy the scenery, wildlife and views. The project has the potential to address the safety-related challenges associated with travelling along the single track B833, better supporting the movement of people to place through supporting travel mode choice. The project will align with the National Roads Development Guidance (NRDG) Hierarchy of Users, creating an inclusive and accessible space prioritising the movement of people. National Road Users Hierarchy
Page 17
15 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 1.11 Health and Wellbeing Being more physically active can benefit everyone and can reduce the chances of developing preventable conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. Active travel as promoted by this project route will encourage individuals to be more physically active as part of their daily routine by incorporating physical activity into everyday tasks. This reduces the need to find extra time, money or motivation for exercise. The route could also offer savings to travel by saving on fuel, and vehicle running costs. Making short journeys using active travel helps to reduce the number of vehicles on the road and improves local air quality and environmental amenities. Investment in active travel can also deliver economic benefits. Active travel is affordable and delivers value for money in achieving health, transport and wider policy objectives. Studies on the economic benefits of walking and cycling interventions revealed an average return of £13 for every £1 invested and in the UK, returns as high as £19 for every £1 invested.
Page 18
16 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com
Page 19
17 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2 OPTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL 2.1 Investigating the Network Following a community engagement process during November 2023, the design team worked with the steering group and community to revamp the 3 original concept routes developed by ABC. A fourth option was subsequently added to ensure that all route corridor options had been considered. The appraisal was developed in stages including the following key milestones: • A constraints plan was developed to capture all known geographic, ecological and physical considerations within the identified route corridors. Following engagement with the Registry of Scotland (ROS) a land ownership register was produced to accompany a land ownership plan. Additional research identified protected environmental areas and other ecological constraints including protected woodland. A suite of data collection surveys was commissioned, including traffic and ecological surveys and the results were consolidated and considered. • The 3 original ABC concept options were added to the constraints plan along with the fourth design team generated option. • A site visit was undertaken by the design team in October to review the most obvious technical challenges of developing a route through the project area. • Details of known committed developments relevant to the area were identified through consultation with ABC planning portal. Post investigation, these potential developments / changes were transcribed onto the constraints and options plans. A key development relevant to the design is the planning approved housing development to be located adjacent to Camsail Bay within the former yacht marina. The extent of the road changes will have a significant impact on the project active travel route as the intervention includes around 50% of the active travel route corridor into Camsail Bay. The extent of the development related change is shown as follows noting the proposed footway (blue) will extend through the Camsail Bay parking lay-by. Marina Related Roads Improvement
Page 20
18 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com • Utilising the design team experience in conjunction with the guidance provided within Cycle by Design 2021, the route corridor options were investigated. The four route options considered are summarised as follows and graphically overleaf. Option Route Description 1 Shared use path on coastal side with new sea defences. 2 Realign road to include path on coastal side. 3 Shared use path on inland side of existing road. 4 Remote path through quarry / Forrest.
Page 21
19 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4 Route Options were Initially Considered
Page 22
20 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.2 Route Summary Descriptions Each of the route options are described in greater detail as follows. Option 1: Shared use path Coastal with new Sea Wall Defence Route Length 481m Route Description The route continues along the seaside verge. The route utilises and upgrades the existing path. It will require the retaining wall to be realigned and will extend beyond the high-water springs line. The path is proposed to be a 2.5m shared use path, a 1m buffer and a 0.25m offset from the proposed parapet. Key Challenges • The existing sea defence is a heritage item and whilst not listed is an example of Victorian construction. • Interaction with the coastal entity beyond the mean high water spring line. • Additional land take. • Culverts to be extended. • Structure required. • Import additional fill materials. • Interact and change the flooding extents. • Passes through sections of verge which may have protected plant species. • Likely also have the highest cost to construct due to impact on sea defences. • Does little to address concerns of higher vehicle speeds or narrow road width. • No natural surveillance / no community interaction. • Would require minimalist design standard due to land requirements into bay. Key Opport’ies • Opportunity to form new sea defence to address coastal flooding risk. • Coherent and consistent standard. • Can be segregated from the road. Safer for non- motorised users. • Route is flat and level. • Would not require more extensive sub-base formation to allow access by 7.5 tonne maintenance vehicles. • The route alignment would not prevent ABC from adopting the asset to support future maintenance. • Separation of tourist traffic and reduction on demand for limited road space. • Limited impact on parking. • The route alignment would not prevent ABC from adopting the asset to support future maintenance. • Avoids impact on protected woodlands. • Most coherent route option which avoids the needs for users to cross the B833. Option 2: Road Re-Alignment with Path on Coast Side Route Length 501m Route Description This route option would seek to realign the existing B833 on the inland side of the road (western) edge of the B833. Key • Users would need to cross the B833 multiple times.
Page 23
21 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Challenges • Impact on protected woodlands. • Largest impact on land required. • Requires changes to the road drainage system (possibly provision of). • No mitigation of future flood risk. • Impact on verge protected plants. Key Opport’ies • Can be segregated from the road. Safer for non- motorised users. • Would not require more extensive sub-base formation to allow access by 7.5 tonne maintenance vehicles. • The route alignment would not prevent ABC from adopting the asset to support future maintenance. • Separation of tourist traffic and reduction on demand for limited road space. • Limited impact on parking. • Route is flat and level. • Avoids the need to alter sea defences Option 3: Landside Verge with Path on inland side Route Length 497m Route Description Similar to Option 2, the facility would be formed on the inland side of the existing B833 with no change to the road alignment. Key Challenges • Users would need to cross the B833 multiple times. • Less coherent or consistent standard. • Avoids impact on protected woodlands. • Small impact on land required. • Requires changes to the road drainage system (possibly provision of). • No mitigation of future flood risk. • Impact on verge plants. Key Opport’ies • Can be segregated from the road. Safer for non- motorised users. • Would not require more extensive sub-base formation to allow access by 7.5 tonne maintenance vehicles. • The route alignment would not prevent ABC from adopting the asset to support future maintenance. • Separation of tourist traffic and reduction on demand for limited road space. • Limited impact on parking. • Route is flat and level. • Avoids the need to alter sea defences Option 4: Remote Track Path through Quarry Route Length 572m Route Description This route represents an alternative option to direct users away from the B833. The route would pass through the quarry site and woodland before rejoining the B833 near the Y junction. Key Challenges • Users would need to cross the B833 multiple times. • Coherent and consistent standard.
Page 24
22 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com • Impact on protected woodlands. Noting the presence of two listed trees of significance. • Largest impact on future value of land due to severance of land parcels. • No mitigation of future flood risk. • Impact on verge plants. • Would require more extensive sub-base formation to allow access by 7.5 tonne maintenance vehicles. • The route alignment would prevent ABC from adopting the asset to support future maintenance. • Would need a community maintenance model to be established. • More limited natural surveillance so perception of safety impacts on some users. • Some challenging gradients. • Least direct. • Users will misses out on sea / bay views. Key Opport’ies • Can be segregated from the road. Safer for non- motorised users. • Separation of tourist traffic. • No impact on parking. • Avoids the need to alter sea defences. 2.3 Considering an Appropriate Route Design Standard The route design standard was subjected to a review using Transport Scotland’s Cycling by Design 2021 guidance. Noting the results of the vehicle traffic / speeds, number of potential NMU that the route standard must be for a shared use facility. A minimum width of 3m segregated from the B833 via a 1m wide verge has been identified by the design team to reflect a minimum standard of appropriate provision. Consideration of a 2m wide unsegregated route was considered and discounted on the ground of road user safety risk. The substandard option could be accommodated whilst avoiding need for major support works. The route must also consider appropriate coastal protection requiring a minimum of 0.5m segregation from the coast edge and or provision of a protective barrier to a height of 1m where the route is formed adjacent to the coastal edge. A key influence on the route standard is vehicle speed. The proposed Marina Development will have a direct impact on the B833 speed limit through introduction of a 40mph speed limit, mid-way along the project route. Whilst the change to speed limit is subject to a separate public / statutory process and is therefore not guaranteed. It is generally accepted that for the road design to be given design approval (RCC) the speed limit reduction would be pre-concluded requirement. It is therefore appropriate to assume that the Marina access design will introduce a 40mph speed limit at a mid-point along Camsail Bay.
Page 25
23 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.4 Considering Technical Design Constraints To assist in understanding the extend of land required to accommodate the 4 options considered. The proposed minimum design standard of a route formed on both the inland and seaward side of the B833 was sketched alongside the existing road at a point where the existing route corridor is most constrained. An allowance has been made for the extent of public adopted road (assumes 2m or up to the nearest boundary). A review of the cross sections indicates that if the route was formed on the seaward side, the maximum width of additional land required would be 2m. Should the route be formed on the inland side, the land required would increase to 4m. This is land in addition to the extent of public adopted verge. Obviously, the cross sections do not consider the off-road route option 4 which would be formed independently of the road. The cross sections were plotted onto a OS tile plan of the route corridor and the plan examined to determine the extent of the route to which each cross section would apply. The plan was overmarked to shade the extents of the route where land would be requried to accomidate each respective options. Using the plan the following land requirements have been calcualted: • Coastal: 192sqm • Inland: 1,168sqm Route Cross Sections Comparison
Page 26
24 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Extent of Land Required
Page 27
25 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment The site has been reviewed for potential sources of flooding in accordance with The Argyll & Bute Council Supplementary Guidance on Flood Risk. These are outlined below along with a qualitive assessment of the risk they post to the route. • Fluvial Flooding: The SEPA Indicative Flood Map shows that the location of the site is not within the area of fluvial flood risk. • Pluvial flooding: The SEPA Indicative Flood Map shows that the location of the site is within the area of high pluvial flood risk. • Costal Flooding: The SEPA Indicative Flood Map shows that the location of the site is within the area of high coastal flood risk. To summarise, the site is considered at risk of flooding and further investigation is deemed necessary into the flood risk of any proposed routes. Landownership Meetings Initial meetings were attempted both Face to Face and by MS Teams with the key landowners that would with certainty be impacted by the 4 route corridor options. Each landowner was contacted first by phone, then by email and finally by letter with the extract from the Registry of Scotland (ROS) included. Where landowners responded, the conversations were conducted at a ‘high level’ and aimed primarily to understand landowner support for each of the 4 options. A summary of the key points to each meeting is noted as follows: • Plot 1 & 2. No Impact • Plot 3, Marina Owner / Developer. The developer / owner of the site is in principle supportive of the concept design and will reserve a 1.5m wide land strip within their site to the rear of their frontage footway. • Plot 4, 5 and 6, No Response • Plot 7, ABC above the High Water Line and Marine Licence below. • Plot 8, No Impact • Plot 9, ABC above the High Water Line and Marine Licence below. • Plot 10, No Impact Community Feedback Reference is drawn to the results of the extensive community and stakeholder feedback reported within the Community Feedback Report. A summary of the community’s feedback as route concerns and aspirations are summarised as follows. Concerns relating to the use of the existing road route • A perception of high road traffic speeds along Camsail Bay. • Walking or cycling along the bay is unsafe as no continuous footway is provided. • A lack of street lighting discourages use of the path in the evening or winter.
Page 28
26 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com • Perception that buses (and larger vehicles) are too wide to fit within the narrow road space. • Visibility of cyclist and pedestrians along the route is poor. • Utility and services such as a new water main are located within the road. These will influence the options. • Development of Rosneath Caravan Park will increase the number of and type of larger vehicles such as caravans and campervans accessing the area. • General lack of route connection to Kilcreggan and the Rosneath to Kilcreggan circular walking and cycling trail. Aspirations for the future design • Preferred route widening on coastal side. • Reduce the severity of the road bend. • Reduce the roads speed limit. • Include lighting. Stakeholder Feedback Reference is drawn to the results of the extensive community and stakeholder feedback reported within the Community Feedback Report. A summary of the stakeholder feedback received is summarised as follows.
Page 29
27 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com ABC Roads • Off-road options will not likely be adopted by the council. • Off-road route options will require more substantive construction and therefore introduce greater capital expenditure. • Any coastal works will require the formation of a new coastal sea defence constructed to an appropriate height. The space behind the sea defence being backfilled. • Preference to maintain capital investment from developer of plot 3 and support their path construction with our design seeking to modify accordingly. ABC Marine Operations Contacted as part of Pre-application process ABC Fleet Public Transport No Issue ABC Outdoor Access No Issue ABC Planning Noting the routes proximity to the coast, any intervention impacting above the High-Water line would be the responsibility of ABC planning to determine. Consultees to the process would include ABC Roads, Marine Operations, the DIO and SEPA. Any interventions impacting below the High-Water Line would trigger a separate statutory process requiring application for a Marine License. As an ABC project, it is understood that no pre-application fee would be required. ABC Youth Services No Issue ABC Community Development Team No Issue ABC Economic Development No Issue SEPA Contacted as part of Pre-application process Scottish Water No Issue SSE No Issue DIO (Faslane) Not contacted. Recommended via a pre application process
Page 30
28 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 2.5 Route Appraisal Against Cycling by Desing (CbD) 2021 The route corridors were subjected to a review using the Sustrans route assessment criteria in combination with Cycling by Design 2021. The routes were scored ranging between 1 – 3 with 1 reflecting a ‘high level’ of service and 3 a ‘low level’ of service. The assessment was undertaken by the design team as a workshop discussion to allow each route option and assessment criterion to be discussed and scored. The criteria considered in the assessment included: • Indicative Cost; • Deliverability; • Accessibility; • Local Need; • Coherence; • Directness; • Comfort; • Attractiveness; and • Adaptability. The resulting assessment identified that a number of the routes, unsurprisingly would need further investigation to determine an appropriate standard of design provision. This assessment would require to be undertaken in conjunction with a detailed review of how each section of the route is currently utilised by the community. No consideration of the relative weighting of the evaluation criteria has been undertaken.
Page 31
29 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Route / Option Length (m) Proposed Intervention Structures Required 1 High level of Service 2 Medium level of Service 3 Low level of Service Costs Deliverability Accessibility Local Need Safety Cohesiveness Directness Com fort Attractiveness Adaptability Total Option 1 481 Coastal Widening Sea Defences + Culvert Extended 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 15 Option 2 501 Road Realignment and widening Culvert Extended 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 17 Option 3 497 Inland route provision on existing road Culvert Extended 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 17 Option 4 572 Remote path through Quarry None required 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 1 23
Page 32
30 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com With reference to the above table, option 1 (coastal widening) is marginally better aligned with the CbD criterion with options 2 and, inland road realignments a close second. 2.6 Initial Route Appraisal Considering Landownership Each of the options has been appraised against the corresponding landownership requirements and considering the initial land ownership feedback received. The results of the appraisal are summarised in the following table. With reference to the above table, any of the inland route options (options 2,3 and 4) will require the support of plots 4, 5 and 6. Only option 1 requires the approvals of plot 7 and 9, both of which would be subject to pre-planning application inquiry. 2.7 Route Appraisal Against Stage 1 Community Feeback Each of the options has been appraised against the feedback received from the community. The same scoring system was used ranging between 1 – 3 with 1 reflecting alignment with community expectations and 3 indicating a potential design conflict The results of the comparison are shown in the following table. All criterion has again been given an equal weighting. Route Option Plot 3 (Marina) Plot 4,5 and 6 (inland side) Plot 7 (seaward) Plot 9 (seaward) 1 Supportive No Response Unknown Unknown 2 Supportive No Response Unknown Unknown 3 Supportive No Response Unknown Unknown 4 Supportive No Response Unknown Unknown Route Option Appraisal Against Stage 1 Community Feedback Coastal widening of the route is the most preferred option. A route managing the speeds on the road Options to reduce the severity of the road bend preferred. Off-road route through the quarry is popular Minimise road crossings required Promote scenery Physical separation of the route from the road is preferred Improve Visibility of Users Lighting is preferred. A road-based route is preferred Total 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 16 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 16 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 22 4 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 26
Page 33
31 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com With reference to the above table, options 1 and 2 (coastal and road realignment) are best aligned with the aspirations of the community. 2.8 Considering Those with Protected Characteristics An appraisal of the project has been undertaken using ABC Social and Equality Impact Appraisal template (SEQiA). The results of the assessment are included in Appendix B. Taking cognisance of the appraisals summarised previously it is noted that all options would be provided to achieve a Cycle by Design ‘High standard’ of provision. Once a preferred route alignment has been determined the design should consider best practice to maximise the routes accessibility for all user groups and abilities. 2.9 Route Appraisal Summary Evaluating the four route options, it is clear that there are two main themes: path on either the ‘seaward’ or the ‘in-land’ side. Further exploring these options, it is clear that both options will require either land take or statutory approval to go beyond the council-adopted extent. The ‘seaward’ option highlights that the path will extend into the coastal boundary, beyond the spring high water line, by at least 2m which excludes the space required for a sea defence wall which could either be a retaining wall or a rock armour solution. The sea defence wall will have to be structurally designed and the existing wall will have to be demolished. The total length of new wall required is 192m. This route will require statutory approvals from SEPA and the Maritime Agency. The route has the potential to impact the flooding extent as it is in the area of coastal flooding and therefore additional flood risk assessment is recommended. The ‘in-land’ options will extend beyond the council adopted area by at least 4m which means that additional land take is required. Landowners will have to agree to land take which is one of the main risks for this route. This route will also require two road crossings which will require a transport assessment and decrease the directness of the route. The existing boundary wall will have to be demolished and rebuilt. Taking cognisance of the appraisals it is noted that both options 1 and 2, which would be most likely to achieve a Cycle by Design ‘High Level of design provision’ are the most supported options. Both align well with the feedback from the community and the initial feedback from the stakeholders consulted through the process. However, both options are dependent upon separate and unrelated approvals relating to planning and landowner agreements. Until these requirements are understood, it is not possible to identify a preferred route option. At this stage, it is recommended that the coastal route (option 1) is subject to a pre-planning application to determine the likely planning deliverability. For option 2 (and all other options, further investigation to identify the landowners involved should also be progressed.
Page 34
32 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com DEVELOPING THE CONCEPTS
Page 35
33 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3 DEVELOPING THE CONCEPTS 3.1 Developing the Options Following approval to progress by ABC, Option 1 (sea defence and coastal widening) and Option 2 (inland widening and road realignment) route options were further developed by the design team with greater focus being applied to the standard and appropriateness of intervention. A key ambition of the developed design process is to identify a preferred single alignment option for consideration at the next design stage. Both options are considered to be in principle deliverable but both are note to be reliant upon differing constraints with option 1 dependent upon third party land and option 2 on the ability to navigate statutory process. It was agreed within the design team that both options should be developed further and reevaluated as part of the stage 2 project programme. Option 1 – New Sea defence with Path Formed on Coastal Side. This option was subject to a more detailed desktop structural investigation and noted that 192m of the route would need to be widened into the coast by 2m. The package includes: • A replacement stone faced concrete or dyke stone sea defence around 200m long and 3m high which will partially connect with the existing verge and gabions. The protection barrier to pedestrian cyclists will be formed as an extension of the wall. The wall would be formed on a concrete ring beam and backfilled with inert material to form a new carriageway level. The wall will include weep vents at carriageway level to allow any water from coastal flooding to return to the sea. The wall will include sufficient height above carriageway to provide pedestrian and cyclist protection. • Inert backfill material likely to be well compacted granular fill (type 2 or type 1 x or type 3). Road surface provided as a bound bitumen surface and tar stitched to existing wearing course. • Introduction of a formalised road drainage system for all areas where the road is being augmented. This should include improvements to the western extent where surface water ponding in known to freeze in the winter and result in cars skidding. • Improvement to existing public transport infrastructure including the upgrading and provision of new shelters on both eastbound and westbound sides of the road. The shelters will be formed on hard standing and connected via dropped kerb crossing. The eastbound stop will be located away from its current location adjacent to a field access to reduce conflict and improve crossing visibility. • Integration with the proposed Marina infrastructure. This will include widening of the newly formed path from the tie in point with the existing path west through the new marina access and along the coastal side of the route. From the end of the marina works the path will be continued
Page 36
34 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com toward the ‘Y’ junction utilising the space provided through the provision of the new sea defence. • The Marina development will also promote a 40mph speed limit extending between Rosneath to a point just beyond the Marina access. The promotion of the speed limit change will remain the responsibility of the Marina development. • No street lighting is proposed. Option 2 – Inland Road Realignment with Path formed on Coastal Side • This option includes the majority of option 1 with the main difference relating to the formation of the new path. This option will utilise the existing verge located within the inland side of the road and realign the road inland to provide sufficient space to accommodate a new path on the coastal side. • The route will require the purchase of some third-party land on the inland side of the route. The existing sea defence will be heightened to provide pedestrian and cyclist protection through the addition of a parapet fence although an option to heighten the sea defence through a dyke wall construction could be considered subject to the necessary checks of the existing walls structural stability. Constructing and Maintaining the Concepts A key challenge of remote rural scheme design is ensuring the robustness and low maintenance obligations. To support this, aim a series of workshops were held with Argyll and Bute Network Management Representative. In advance of each workshop a concept option plan was shared. The key points of each workshop are summarised as follows. Argyll and Bute Network Management (Workshop 2) • ABC would adopt and maintain either of option 1 and 2 as both can be accessed from the existing carriageway. • The design is dependent upon the successful conclusion of a Traffic Road Regulation Order (TTRO) which will be promoted by ABC in support of a speed limit change from 60mph to 40mph in support of the Marina Development access. • Road drainage should be formalised as part of the design. • As the surface area of the carriageway is increasing, the untreated surface wate run off discharging into the sea will likely increase. Options to mitigate should be considered at the next design stage. • The design and form of the sea defence will be subject to further consideration. • The coastal route would need a cofferdam construction method to manage the impact of tide. The construction costs are therefore likely to be between 7 to 10 times greater than option, inland road widening. Based on the feedback received, the concept design plans were revised to address the above noted points.
Page 37
35 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3.2 Maintaining Parking and Access to Public Transport Neither design option is forecast to have an impact on local parking. Both designs include enhanced provision and access to the bus stops located within the scheme. The proposed scheme includes the provision of bus shelters, seating, pole and flag with an area of hardstanding provides on the eastbound side. The design also include provision of dropped kerbs to better support the crossing options for those with mobility challenges. Both designs will result in the loss of the visitor parking bay located near the midpoint of the route. 3.3 Route Safety Audit and Designers Response The emerging concept design were submitted to Drummond Black Ltd who undertook a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit during February 2024. The results of the audit are summarised as follows along with the designer’s response. All points have been fully actioned. Details of the audit are reported separately in Appendix C. 3.4 Landowner Agreement Further attempts by letter have been made to contact the primary landowner associated with Option 2 – inland widening. No response has been received. It is therefore recommended that should this option be progressed further that ABC consider the use of Compulsory Purchase powers (CPO). There is no private land purchase associated with Option 1 – New Sea defence. It is noted that the adjacent Marina developer has agreed to support either concept design with both designs reliant upon delivery of the road scheme currently awaiting Roads Construction Consent (RCC). An agreement indicates their design will make reservation of a 2m strip of land within their ownership to the rear of their proposed new path. This agreement should be formalised as soon as possible. 3.5 Results of Pre-Application Development Screening Further to conclusion of the pre-development application screening process with ABC (Incident: 240103-000174). The results do not indicate any notable challenges to the development of Option 1 – sea defence and coastal widening in relation to statutory process. A fully summary of the Pre-App feedback is included in Appendix F. 3.6 Developing the Route Cross Sections Narro Associates have developed a number of route cross sections for each of the options. These are shown as follows.
Page 38
36 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3.7 Considering Construction Phasing Due to the overall route length and complexity the identified route options will be constructed as a single delivery project. 3.8 Weighted Route Appraisal Against Cycling by Desing (CbD) 2021 Both options were again subjected to a review using the Sustrans route assessment criteria in combination with Cycling by Design 2021 (CBD) using the same assessment criterion. Recognising that not all evaluation criterion will have the same level of significance, both options were subjected to a further assessment against CBD, this time including the use of criterion weighting. The key changes resulting from the design team workshop include: • Additional criterion added to the matrix separate land purchase challenges from deliverability noting that many scheme can be excellent concepts but do not progress to construction due to land purchase challenges. • Clarification that ‘Safety’ is subjective viewpoint of end user and not an evaluation against a design standard as all options must be safe in relation to design standards to be suitable for consideration. • Resilience and Environmental criterion were added to capture the environmental sensitivity of both options noting that one options will have a greater environmental impact than the other.
Page 39
37 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com • Noting that both options provide broadly similar scores across most of the criterion, the main differentiation is in each options capital cost and deliverability. The criterion weighting used was adjusted to keep the comparative weighting between performance related criterion whilst an adjustment was made to place greater emphasis on deliverability and capital cost of both options. • The options descriptions were corrected to avoid risk of misleading reviewer noting that confusion could result with the options being similar. Each criterion was given a weighted index ranging from 1 to 10 with 1 reflecting lower priority and 10 a maximum. The weighting of each value was debated by the design team during a progress meeting workshop and the relative comparison of criterion weighting was debated and finally agreed. The results including criterion weighting are shown in the following table.
Page 40
32 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Route / Option Length (m) Proposed Intervention Structures Required (Y/N) 1 High level of Service 2 Medium level of Service 3 Low level of Service Capital Costs Deliverability Construction Deliverability Land and Stakeholders Maintainability Route Directness End User Safety Perception Route Cohesiveness Vehicular Impact Route Comfort Route Attractiveness Resiliance and Environment Adaptability Total W eighted Total Option 1 – Sea defence and Coastal Widening 481 Coastal widening Sea Defences + Culvert Extended 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 33 136 Option 2 – Inland Widening and Road Realignment 501 Inland realignment and widening Culvert Extended 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 29 95
Page 41
33 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3.9 Route Appraisal Against Stage 2 Community Feeback Both options have been appraised against the feedback received from the community as part of the stage 2 assessment. The same scoring system was used ranging between 1 – 3 with 1 reflecting alignment with community expectations and 3 indicating a potential design conflict The results of the comparison are shown in the following table. With reference to the above table, option 2 – Inland Widening and Road Realignment is best aligned with the aspirations of the community. 3.10 Considering Those with Protected Characteristics An appraisal of the project has again been undertaken using ABC Social and Equality Impact Appraisal template (SEQiA). The results of the assessment are included in Appendix C. Route Option Appraisal Against Stage 2 Community Feedback Inland realignment of the route is the most preferred option. Improved Speed Limits Improvement to Bend at Junction Reduce Flooding More Street Signs Safe W alking Route Improved Street Lighting Cycle Lanes Total 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 13 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 10
Page 42
34 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Taking cognisance of the appraisals summarised previously it is noted that all options would be provided to achieve a Cycle by Design ‘High standard’ of provision. Once a preferred route alignment has been determined the design should consider best practice to maximise the routes accessibility for all user groups and abilities. 3.11 Forecast Construction Costs Estimates An initial assessment of the capital cost of constructing each of option 2 is set out in the following table. Due to a lack of landowner response, the land costs associated with option 2 - inland widening have been initially sought via a District Valuer (DV) assessment. However, the land in question is noted to be undeveloped verge and of low value. As an alternative, the design team have determined a land value capped at £25,000 exc VAT. Additional costs are also included within the following estimates to support a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) by Argyll and Bute Council. A summary of budgeted scheme costs is set out in the following table.
Page 43
35 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 3.12 Recommendations and Next Steps Following consideration of the material provided within this assessment, it is recommended that option 2 – widening inland with a new shared use walking cycle path formed on the coastal side is promoted. It is noted that both options will provide a similar level of end users service with the primary difference between options relating to the construction cost and deliverability of the options. Option 2 should be progressed to detailed design with a primary focus on investigating the necessary land purchase agreement of Compulsory Purchase process. It is recommended that all necessary land requirements are progressed via a legal agreement ASAP.
Page 44
36 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com DESIGN PROCESS QUALITY AND INNOVATION
Page 45
37 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4 DESIGN PROCESS QUALITY AND INNOVATION 4.1 Outline Design Process The project will be developed to align with the Placed for Everyone (PfE) design development programme. 4.2 Design Guidance and Quality A wide range of design guidance and standards have been used to develop the project proposals. The core documents include: • Designing Streets; • Cycling by Design (2021); • The National Roads Development Guide (NRDG); and • Inclusive Mobility (2021). The detailed design process will use these standards and include: • Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB); • Traffic Signs and Regulations and General Directions (TSRDG); • Local Transport Notes (LTN); and • Traffic Advisory Leaflets (TAL). These references represent the core design guidance however other documents such as Sustrans Design Guidance Documents and other examples of best practice have also been considered.
Page 46
38 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4.3 Considering Wider Area Improvements The concept design process will include a number of key considerations in support of the emerging network. These include: • Improvement to accessibility, walking and cycling links between people and place; • Developing a signage and wayfinding strategy; • Promoting cycle-friendly intervention; • Introducing a Travel behaviour change programme; and • Providing cycle parking and storage measures. 4.4 Considering Streetscape and Landscape Improvements The Rosneath route on its own will not create an environment which will support the movement of people, create place and encourage community ownership. Rosneath is a remote peninsular community which relies heavily on the use of motorised travel to support the movement of the community. To support lasting change to travel behaviours the design process must include placemaking potential giving priority to maximising the communities’ assets and access to public transport as well as the opportunity to walk and cycle. 4.5 Planting, Drainage and Local Environment Within the proximity of any areas where there would be works such as seating, way finders, and shared surfaces, planting of native species will enhance the environmental improvements. Not only will planting create an attractive setting but it will also be encouraging and increasing biodiversity. Salt-tolerant species can be used for foraging and can be educational. The changing seasons are marked with the advent of spring with blossom flowers followed by autumn leaf colour changes. For example, groupings of trees of the same species at either end of the village would act as a visual landmark, or scented shrubs around seating areas would improve the visitor experience. The sea view from the village and beach must be retained, but the clever positioning of planting can be used to frame and enhance the visitor’s experience.
Page 47
39 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 4.6 Developing Streetscape Sensitively designed rural street furniture and public art, can be incorporated as part of the concept design process and is aimed at enriching the experience of everyday journeys and visits to the area. Whilst keeping in mind the Coastal environment; seating, opportunities for incidental play, way-finders would be appropriate. As a rural area with limited street lighting, the lighting design must be done very sensitively. Lighting can become a design feature in its own right, by marking at ground level or by enhancing seating areas by incorporating lighting into the structures. Paving materials will avoid any garish colours and patterns which would be more associated with an urban area and kerbs are to be avoided; again, as they are not in keeping with the style of the road. The linear nature of the site naturally establishes a physical connection through the site which can be punctuated with environmental improvements such as seating areas and viewpoints. Examples of Bike Stands Combined with Seating Examples of Bike Stands
Page 48
40 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Examples of Rural Signage Examples of Micro Asphalt Bound Path Examples of Resin Bound Path
Page 49
41 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Examples of Rural Seating Solutions
Page 50
42 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Bins and Adding Colour
Page 51
43 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Examples of Rural Route Lighting Solutions
Page 52
44 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com Designing for Equality and Accessibility The proposed Active Travel network must support access by all user’ groups that includes accessibility by all ages and abilities. As the route corridor design progresses, consideration must be given to ensuring that the network remains safe and inviting to everyone. This includes how those more vulnerable in our society will be supported by the design. The design is supported by a Social and Equalities Impact Assessment (SEQiA) which is included in Appendix B. 4.7 Flood Prevention With a changing climate, the importance of designing with flood risk in mind is paramount. The SEPA flood risk maps indicate that much of the road route will be at high risk of coastal flooding in the near future. A summary of the flood risk map is presented in Appendix A alongside the ABC Flood Teams pre consultation response. The response does not highlight any design considerations other than the future design should consider. “The small, unnamed watercourse flows underneath Rosneath Road marginally below the foot of the site. No information has been supplied regarding culvert modification within the site, however, if any modifications are to be made, the capacity of the existing must remain the same, or ideally be resized to facilitate the equivalent of a 0.5% AP plus climate change (200 year plus climate change) flood event.” 4.8 Traffic Modelling No traffic modelling is considered necessary at this stage of the concept development. 4.9 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been undertaken for the existing route corridor. The PEA is included in Appendix D.
Page 53
45 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com PROJECT DELIVERABILITY AND DESIGN COLLABORATION
Page 54
46 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com 5 PROJECT DELIVERABILITY AND DESIGN COLLABORATION 5.1 Landownership The project route is predominately located within council-owned or adopted lands. There are however sections of the route where third-party land ownership may be required. In these instances, attempts to contact the landowner have been made and initial feedback has been sought. Frontage landowners will need to be consulted at the next stage of the design development or pursual of a Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO). 5.2 Designer Risk Register Similar to the Project Risk Register, the Designer Risk Register provides a summary of the risks and risk management associated with the technical delivery of the design. The Designer Risk Register is provided in Appendix E. 5.3 Project Budget Forecast It is recommended that the following project cost allowances are considered to support development of the design to the next stages. • Detailed Design - £40,000 • Technical Design - £40,000
Page 55
47 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDICES
Page 56
43 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX A – NETWORK AND UTILITIES
Page 57
44 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com
Page 58
45 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX B – SOCIAL AND EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SEQIA) See separate Excel File
Page 59
46 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX C – STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT AND DESIGNERS’ RESPONSE See separate File
Page 60
47 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX D – PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL (PEA) See separate File
Page 61
48 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX E – DESIGNERS RISK REGISTER See separate File
Page 62
49 | P a g e www.connectedtp.com APPENDIX F – PRE-APPLICATION PLANNING RESPONSE