Responses to Have Your Say On Proposed Clay Lane Link Road

1. Chris Franklin Reply

   September 27, 2015 at 9:27 pm

   Just a little reminder that huge numbers of local people are massively in support of the proposal and just want the council to get on with it. The article suggests the only response anyone might have is negative and solely focuses on these people. It’s sorely needed and most people will benefit from it.
   • Jim Allen Reply

     September 27, 2015 at 11:04 pm

     Perhaps Chris Franklin can explain why the A320 hasn’t been improved in a sequential approach or the estate made ‘one way’ such that the improvements can be displayed in a rational manner?

     Perhaps he could also explain why the proposal for this route was turned down by GBC and everyone else during the Incinerator application?
     • Sue Doughty Reply

       September 28, 2015 at 2:57 pm

       When the proposal come forward in association with the proposed incinerator, the incinerator was refused and also the road.

       This time the changes are within a much more carefully considered plan for the area. Something needs to be done and this sounds like a much better plan. I hope that local people will take the trouble to go and look at the plans and comment.
     • Chris Franklin Reply

       September 29, 2015 at 7:55 am

       Thanks to Jim Allen for the lovely warm welcome to the Dragon’s comments columns. Luckily I’m not a council employee or an elected representative, so I don’t have to figure out the answers to those questions – although they are surely all solvable – I’m just a local resident like Jim giving his opinion.

       I might suggest the answers could be:

       1. Why not improved in a sequential approach? Because that might not be the best way to meet the diverse needs of businesses and the local community.

       2. Why not made one way? I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. What would that achieve?

       3. Why rejected before? Because it was associated with the hugely unpopular incinerator application – hardly surprising so many people objected. Also, how long ago was that? Perhaps circumstances, needs and people’s opinions have changed.
2. Dave Middleton Reply

   September 28, 2015 at 10:20 am

   I can understand the opposition to this road by some of the residents of Jacobs Well.

   I am also curious as to why the preferred route runs right up to the edge of the village, before sweeping back to the industrial estate, rather than coming off Clay Lane closer to the A3 junction.

   However, the fact is that this road is very much needed to take a good proportion of the traffic to and from the industrial estate away from the Woking Road which, speaking as an ordinary motorist, appears to be almost at full capacity for most of the day.

   The proposed link road would also take the large HGVs that currently (and unlawfully breaching the 7.5 tonne weight limit) go through the heart of the village on Clay Lane. I feel it will also in all probability, reduce the number of cars and vans using Jacobs Well Road and Clay Lane through the village. I can’t help but think that, aside from the few properties at the extreme east end of the village, this road would be a benefit to the village.
   • Frank Phillipson Reply

     October 1, 2015 at 5:59 pm

     The preferred route runs along the edge of the flood plain. Taking it nearer to the A3 would mean crossing the flood plain without making winter flooding worse than it already is. This would have to be in the form of a viaduct, both costly and unsightly.

     As a local resident I do not believe that large HGV’s regularly use Clay Lane. Apart from local car traffic, it is used by cars and vans coming off of the A3 to avoid traffic problems further south and to access Slyfield through the existing junction.
3. Bibhas Neogi Reply

   September 29, 2015 at 5:30 pm

   I think it is premature to go ahead with this link before resolving the housing scheme in Slyfield regeneration area. The access should consider not only the industrial estate but also the housing scheme that the central government has now cited as a possibility.

   The scope of the investigation should be expanded to include a possible direct link to the A3. I believe such a link would relieve pressure on existing junctions as well. It would be a much shorter link but maybe a bit more expensive. However, when benefits are taken into account, I am confident that this would prove to be a better scheme all round.

   The starting point of such a direct link would be roughly the same as for the other schemes but it would have a link to the housing area. The junction on the A3 would be approximately in between the two existing lay-bys on the A3.

   I have suggested that Stoke Road junction be made all directional. The layout could free up the length of the existing northbound merge on which the existing lay-by could be relocated.

   On the southbound, my suggestion for converting the emergency access next to Clay Lane Bridge into a slip road could also free up lane 1 beyond Merrow junction if this lane is dropped by making it into a dedicated off-slip and the vacated lane up to Clay Lane Bridge could be used to relocate the existing lay-by.

   Please see the sketch
   http://s1130.photobucket.com/user/Gyratory1/media/Option%205_zpszvp29xtn.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1
   on my website that shows the idea of such a link. I hope GBC would consider this and expand their Options and liaise with the Highways England now that they are looking to improving the A3 junctions and flow through Guildford.
   • Frank Phillipson Reply

     October 1, 2015 at 6:29 pm

     I think that the housing scheme should be thought of in connection with the Link Road question.

     However, I’m not sure that a direct link road to the A3 through the Riverside Park is likely due to the loss of amenity of the park and the cost.

     The sketch suggestion shows an embankment across the River Wey flood plain and would therefore have serious effects on flooding.
4. Bibhas Neogi Reply

   October 2, 2015 at 10:31 am

   Frank Phillipson has replied to Dave Middleton on the question of why a route closer to the A3 and crossing of the flood plain shown on the sketch (presumably referring to my sketch not Mr Middleton’s) with “an embankment across the River Wey flood plain and would therefore have serious effects on flooding.”

   Mr Phillipson does not say the same about Clay Lane. Clay Lane itself runs right across the flood plain of the river, does it not? The embankments shown in my sketch would have a series of culverts to allow flow during flooding. I assume Mr Phillipson is not an Engineer and so may not know that it is quite common practice to provide such drainage under embankments that cross a flood plain of a water course.

   These culverts would be concrete pipes unlike brick culverts that were common in the past, and would be buried under the embankments. The main river channel and the subsidiary channel to the west would both be crossed by bridges.
   • Frank Phillipson Reply

     October 3, 2015 at 8:02 pm

     In answer to Mr Neogi, I do happen to be a retired highway engineer.

     Clay Lane runs along a historically existing causeway which does hold back floodwater but is situated at the northern end of a wide section of flood plain. I cannot imagine that anything will be done to alter the present situation.

     Culverts under the proposed embankment would not be adequate and would hold back flood water up towards Guildford town centre.

     Only a viaduct with narrow supports would allow the flood water to easily and adequately pass down to the wide flood plain that is then crossed by Clay Lane.

     As a frequent walker along this part of the River Wey and living close by I have observed the flooding in this area at first hand over many years.
5. Bibhas Neogi Reply

   October 4, 2015 at 7:57 pm

   The embankments could have pre-cast concrete pipes or box culverts abutting almost their total lengths if need be. These could be up to 2.5m in diameter or heights – more than sufficient to allow unimpeded flow during flooding if enough numbers are provided.
6. Bibhas Neogi Reply

   December 24, 2015 at 9:31 am

   I have now added a sketch showing how the access to a new Slyfield Link and a new interchange at Gosden Hill could be considered.

   I have sent these ideas to Clay Lane Team in reply to a communication from them about my suggestion for a direct Link from Slyfield to the A3 that Highways England said could not be provided safely due merge/diverge conflicts over short distances.

   I have not shown further details for the A247 junction but an usual northbound on-slip to the A3 from Gosden Hill junction could not be provided (as shown in my sketch) since there would be a merge/diverge conflict.

   So instead, the route could join the off-slip to the A247 and proceed to the roundabout. A new northbound on-slip to the A3 could be provided just west of the A247 bridge but keeping the access two-way up to the junction with the local road and it then becoming one-way on-slip beyond it.

   Please see the sketch at http://s1130.photobucket.com/user/Gyratory1/media/A3%20junctions_zpsdyfks7mi.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1
7. Jim Allen Reply

   December 25, 2015 at 10:01 am

   A lot have people have made comment but we should now look at basic facts, available December 2015.

   1. Need: actually no ‘need’ or direction of travel has been provided or proven. Until the ‘where to’ ‘were from’ question is answered the actual need cannot be established.

   2. Much of the Slyfield congestion (on site) is the fault of the ‘residents’ and users of the industrial estate. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjqrOSKiRgk

   3. When the A320 is blocked, other than by the users of Slyfield Industrial Estate, there is a 75% chance Clay Lane and the A3 is also ‘blocked’, so no new road will make any difference.

   4. In respect of the A3, if Potters Lane is introduced as a ‘new four-way Junction’ and the A320 is made four-way there is no actual need for any other additional ‘slips’ off or onto the A3 north of Guildford.

   Whatever is decided we must not allow highway engineers any say. As Bill Bryson says in his latest book ‘highway engineers will only make it worse’.
8. Jim Allen Reply

   December 25, 2015 at 10:08 am

   Clay Lane embankment, between the Wey Navigation and the A3, is actually slowly collapsing and was expected to collapse by the builders!

   As it was made of Bagshot Sand and is not suitable for continuous use by HGVs (as told to me by a surveyor who actually was involved in the building of the embankment).

   So the whole story of a new link road across a zone 3b flood plain ‘collapses’ on the actual road strength of the embankment in Clay Lane, which was designed as a country lane joining two villages not as a trunk road like the A320.
9. Bibhas Neogi Reply

   December 27, 2015 at 11:19 am

   I admire Jim Allen’s determined effort to stop any form of link road between Slyfield and the A3.

   His arguments often sound technical but they are mainly his views rather than truly technical. For instance, to dismiss the Clay Lane Link scheme not having any proven need I find quite astonishing.

   It is hard to believe that councils would promote a road scheme based on a mere superficial examination of the needs. All improvement schemes have to have a proven business case that show a benefit over cost ratio of more than one.

   In his video, northbound traffic on the A320 is seen as pretty heavy and Jim Allen claims that if traffic could freely move in Moorfield Road, the problems could be solved.

   It is true that blockage of the road by inconsiderate parking causes even further problems but regardless of traffic actually going to Slyfield, is not the capacity of the A320 grossly exceeded between the A3 and Moorfield Road? I have no traffic data to hand but I would guess this is so.

   An alternative route to Slyfield is needed to cater for movements from and to the north separated out from those from the south and the town centre. Also considering that a housing scheme would add even more traffic, this need is only further reinforced.

   To say that if Stoke Road junction and the new Potters Lane junction is made all directional, “there is no actual need for any other additional ‘slips’ off or onto the A3 north of Guildford” is unsubstantiated.

   The existing on-slip to the A3 from Clay Lane is used by traffic both from Burpham, Merrow and Jacobs Well and a new off-slip to Clay Lane would reduce congestion in Ladymead and London Road used by traffic heading for Burpham and Merrow that I am sure Jim Allen would welcome.

   This route would also be necessary to take a lane to Potters Lane junction in order to avoid diverge/merge conflict with the existing off-slip to the A247.

   There would be problems of merge/diverge for the junctions on the A3 when new junctions are introduced, so a design that obviates these conflicts is needed and I have attempted to show how these could be considered by Highways England rather than dismissing them based on conventional approach to design when junctions are reasonably far apart and do not cause merge/diverge problems.
10. Jim Allen Reply

    December 30, 2015 at 1:06 am

    Firstly, while hard to believe, it is a fact (not my opinion) that there has been no proven case of business need.

    Further to this, no one knows where the traffic comes from and goes to.

    No survey of current site users has been made or has been proposed – a vast hole in the knowledge base of this project.

    All claimed ‘new jobs’ are actually transfer jobs from other locations. SCC roads and GBC refuse and transport.

    No company has announced they will leave the area and no company has asked to expand into Slyfield.

    Thames Water have signed nothing after 12 years in respect of moving the water treatment works.

    The principle of four ways at Stoke and Potters Lane would mean closure of Clay Lane, London Road at West Clandon and Send, with two appropriate side roads to meet the new junctions. The link to the A25 would reduce traffic in all the neighbouring villages. And will be required in any respect if Gosden Hill and Merrow Golf Course fall to housing.

    The capacity of the ‘trunk’ A320 is actually reduced by the Moorfield Road junction and Saltbox Road / Clay Lane intersections (delays caused by weight of traffic transferring from Clay Lane to Saltbox) shutting down the A320 north bound.

    The problem of the Moorfield junction cannot be taken or dealt with in isolation.

    While traffic numbers are higher on Clay Lane than the A320, as acknowledge by GBC, the greatest cause of delays on the A320 is light to medium commercial vehicles, not large HGVs; and these appear to come from all over and very few from the A3. Again the traffic figures prove this so. It’s not my opinion but a mathematical proven fact.

    The Bagshot sand ramp is a practical fact and thus will not take the weight of HGVs. A visual inspection can see the cracks and movement.

    As for the video, itt clearly demonstrates the obvious. If you block the entrance to an estate you cause problems down the line as indicated. Proper traffic management and disciplined use of the estate would solve all the day-to-day problems without the need for any new roads.

    The proposed route is directly into the middle of the zone 3b flood plain [current recent max end of 2013 at 65mm (80% of all max) result was close to Clay Lane]. Current rainfall just north of here 165mm – that could be us next time!

    Yes, I am against this proposed road. It is irrational to build in the zone 3b flood plain. Commercially unsound to propose a road when its need and direction is not proven.
    Unbelievable that someone would suggest moving the most important piece of infrastructure from a place which ticks all the boxes, to somewhere it can’t.
    • Bibhas Neogi Reply

      December 30, 2015 at 6:57 pm

      If there is no proven case for the Clay Lane Link proposal, I would think you [Jim Allen] are entitled to raise this with your MP for an answer.

      The Secretary of State would be asked by your MP to look into this for possible waste of transport funding as all such funding comes from the Department for Transport either directly or indirectly as in this case via the M3 Local Enterprise Partnership.

      The location of the sewage treatment plant as you say ticks all the boxes but with the expansion of Guildford, what was on the outskirts of the town has now become a desirable area for housing.

      Provided it is profitable to relocate the treatment plant and use the area for housing that will benefit businesses and people of Guildford, it should be considered carefully. Access to the strategic route of the A3 and good connections to the road network and other appropriate infrastructures should be provided in conjunction with new housing.

      It appears that Clay Lane is a rat-run from the A3 to Worplesdon and Bagshot as the traffic avoids the longer detour via the A3 and congested ‘Dennis’ roundabout and then the A322 Worplesdon Road.

      Maybe a possible solution to improve flow of northbound A320 traffic at Saltbox Road roundabout would be to replace it by part-time traffic lights.

      I couldn’t quite follow your suggestion of closing Clay Lane and building two connecting side roads between Stoke Road junction and Potters Lane junction (if built).

      Embankments do consolidate and settle over time. Design of roads allow for this. The road pavement’s life is enhanced by overlays or by total rebuilding of the pavement depending on its expected life. This embankment is nearly 30 years old, so I guess the pavement needs a major refurbishment.

      Traffic loads disperse through the road pavement on to the substrate and HGVs do not directly cause settlement of embankments but rutting and cracking of the road pavement is normal.

      I do not know whether Bagshot sand was the appropriate material for building the embankment to carry Clay Lane but the scheme was designed by a reputable consultant employed by the Department of Transport’s Road Construction Unit responsible at the time for building the A3 Guildford bypass.

      Building a road through a flood plain requires special consideration regarding the level of the road and provision of flow of water under it during flood conditions. However, the need for such a road obviously has to be established beyond all doubts but to construct it should not normally pose any problems.
11. Jim Allen Reply

    January 1, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Slowly people are learning – a poor idea fished out the annals of time, based on an unsound incomplete economic premise, is not always one laden with solid proof and common sense for the future.

    In my simple world, flood plains are for water, not for Tarmac.

    Sand is for building sand castles with the grand kids not for raised HGV thoroughfares.

    Common sense is available to all. Personally I only attended the ‘University of Life’ attaining a first in ‘hindsight and I told you so’, and a PHD in common sense’.

    I guess when you start out at the foundations of life and work up, you can see the clouds of serious doubt for an idea, more clearly than when looking down from on high.
12. Bibhas Neogi Reply

    January 2, 2016 at 10:27 am

    Would we have bridges crossing rivers if we did not build over flood plains? Most rivers have flood plains as flow may increase appreciably during heavy rains.

    Sand is used in building houses but we know it has to be mixed with cement! Embankments are not constructed with free-flowing sand only. Its stability and consistency have to comply with design rules and they are no kid stuff.

    If Surrey County Council considers this to be genuinely a problem, they should investigate if not already doing so after Jim Allen’s revelation of this nascent problem he gleaned from a surveyor who may or may not have been a trained geotechnical engineer – we do not know.

    Unfortunately common sense is not all that common when reasoning is clouded by other factors. One important lesson for all of us is not to buy houses built close to flood plains.