Page 73 - Phonebox Magazine April 2010

A Bypass for Olney? (Part One)
Steve Clark looks at the history behind a controversial topic
3.5 metres in depth. From a staggered junction at Yardley Road, the road would cross the railway line and the existing A509 north of the Lavendon road junction. There would be a junction at this point, and the road would extend northwards through a cutting to join the southern end of the Warrington improvement, at a point north of the entrance to Lavendon Grange.
THE A509 RUNS from the Pytchley roundabout on the A14 just south of Kettering down to its junction with the A5 in Milton Keynes. Traffic congestion on the part that runs through Olney during the morning and evening peaks has now become a regular feature of life for the residents of the town and for the motorists passing through. The construction of a £20m 4.3 km bypass for Isham, anticipated to commence in August 2010, will leave Olney as the only sizeable community on the route not to have been bypassed. However, the idea of a bypass for Olney has been talked about for many decades.
Square and High Street areas were well worth preserving, and suggested that a bypass should be provided at the earliest opportunity. The favoured line was on an embankment to the east of the town, and this was incorporated into the Olney Town Plan approved in November 1965. The initial idea was for a dual carriageway road from the northern end of the Emberton bypass and through the former railway goods yard and utilising the line of the railway to the site of the bridge over the A509. The County Council did further traffic surveys in 1972 and produced a document outlining their proposals for a bypass scheme. They envisaged a three lane carriageway being built in the nineteen-eighties, as traffic flow at the time was felt to be relatively light. The County Council did not accept the original line of the 1965 proposal, as the degree of curvature allowed for a dual carriageway was not acceptable for the proposed single carriageway. The required overtaking sight distance for a single carriageway was 450 metres, whereas 300 metres was acceptable for a dual carriageway. It was also felt that a starting point further north would link in to the proposed improvements to the Warrington bends.
The County Council firmly believed that the eastern option was the sensible way to proceed for the following reasons:
The opening of the London-Yorkshire Motorway in the nineteen-sixties was a major factor responsible for increasing traffic flow on the A509. This was followed by the rapid development of Milton Keynes to the south, and sizeable expansion of Wellingborough and Kettering to the north. In the sixties many of the villages and towns on the route had narrow bending roads, certainly not suitable for the traffic pressures of the late twentieth century. Over the past fifty years various improvements have been made to improve the capacity of the route. One of the first communities to benefit from a bypass was Emberton. Motorists following the winding road past the clock tower now would find it difficult to imagine all of the traffic on the route passing through this village as was formerly the case. Bucks County Council, then the authority responsible for highways, suggested a need for a bypass for Olney at a very early date. Their plans also included improvements to the then hazardous bends through the small village of Warrington. The former crossroads in Warrington, where the original A509 crossed the A428, was a notorious accident blackspot before being superseded by the Warrington Tollbar roundabout. Over the border in Northamptonshire, the authorities were also facing problems. Bypasses for Wollaston and Bozeat were conceived and built. Other improvements further north were implemented, including the provision of a ring-road system around Wellingborough itself. However, these developments merely had the effect of attracting even more traffic onto the A509.
G The eastern route was shorter and more direct, the western route being some 880 metres longer.
The major development on the Buckinghamshire side was the building of a bypass for Sherington and Newport Pagnell. By now, traffic flows on this stretch of highway, serving both Milton Keynes and the M1, were increasing dramatically. At this point, a provisional scheme for an Olney bypass was in the County Council fifteen year plan, along with a proposal to dual the Newport Pagnell bypass and also the link road to junction 14 of the motorway. In the meantime, Milton Keynes Development Corporation had been contributing funding to other main road projects in the immediate area, on the basis that such improvements were vital to the continuing growth and prosperity of Milton Keynes. Indeed, the M.K.D.C. had contributed over a third of the cost of the Astwood bypass on the A422. It was felt that Olney would be a prime candidate for assistance of this nature.
Mindful of growing opposition in the town to an eastern route, the County Council also investigated an option to the west of the town. The western route would run directly from the northern end of the Emberton bypass, crossing over Heron Water on a low embankment and aiming to pass clear of the houses fronting Weston Road. The embankment would split off half of Heron Water and also Otter Pool from the rest of Emberton Park. From the river, the road would rise on a high embankment to meet Weston Road, which at this level is 18 metres above the river meadows. A staggered junction was to be provided on Weston Road. To allow the required visibility for overtaking, the road would not be able to follow the steep gradient to the west of Olney, and thus the plan allowed for the road to be run in a cutting averaging
Since the County Council produced their discussion document in 1972, a number of factors conspired to rule out both of the potential routes. The development of housing on the former railway station site meant that an eastern route would have to be further away from the town to avoid the affect of traffic noise. The extensive housing developments on the west side of the town ruled out the western option that the County Council had previously investigated. Additionally, the traffic growth on the A509 was exceeding expectations, suggesting that the provision of a bypass was becoming more urgent. Conversely, financial limits imposed by central government had made funding of such schemes more difficult. With an apparent impasse, it was to be a further two decades before the long-awaited public consultation on a bypass route would take place.
In 1964, the County Council Planning Department and the Newport Pagnell Rural District Council jointly prepared a report on Olney. They felt that the Market
Email: stephen.clark89@yahoo.co.uk Website: http://tinyurl.com/km9hdd Facebook: http://facebook.com/tiliacus
The planners visualised a route starting at the southern end of the proposed Warrington bypass. The road would then cross the river valley on a short embankment, eliminating the dip at the entrance to Lavendon Grange. Junctions were to be provided for the northern access to the town and also the connection with the B565 Lavendon road. An embankment was to take the road across the flood plain, just above maximum flood level and as close to the river on the western side as possible. The top of the embankment was to be about 0.6 metres below the top of the railway embankment. The route would follow across the bottom of the Recreation Ground, with the boundary fence located in the position of the old cricket pavilion. The road would cross the river by means of a bridge just below the Mill Pool. Flood culverts would also be necessary at various points along the embankment. The road would then link up with the straight section of Emberton bypass, with another junction providing access to the south of the town. This proposal became the County Council’s ‘preferred route’, which was eventually incorporated into the first Milton Keynes Local Plan.
G The eastern route would have less environmental impact. An 880 metre cutting, 3.5 metres deep, on the western side would be a considerable scar on the landscape. Housing planned for the western side of the town would be isolated from the town by the new road.
G The eastern route following the flood plain would avoid the gradient change of 27 metres needed to accommodate the western route.
G The eastern route would require less land, not only considering the road itself but also the accompanying earthworks.
G A western route would be very damaging to the amenity area of Emberton Park.
G The eastern route would be cheaper. The County had estimated the respective costs of the two schemes in 1972 as being £815,000 for the eastern route and £1,090,000 for the western route.
The second part of this article will look at the factors leading up to the public exhibition of four possible bypass routes held at The Olney Centre over three days in May 1994, and the consequences of that event.
Contact details: Stephen Clark, 32 Dagnall Road, Olney, Bucks MK46 5BJ
Telephone/Fax/Text: 01234711743
2010 DICKENS OF A
PARISH OF OLNEY
CHRISTMAS
Notice is hereby given that the
Will be on Sunday 12th December
THURSDAY 29TH APRIL 2010
Anyone interested in being part of the organising team, please contact Olney Town Council
on 01234 711679
email info@olneytowncouncil.co.uk
ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
for the above Parish will be held on
at 7.30pm in THE OLNEY CENTRE
Phonebox Magazine 73