Package of measures drawn up to ease noise by Worcester's Ketch island

Package of measures drawn up to ease noise by Worcester's Ketch island

Package of measures drawn up to ease noise by Worcester's Ketch island

First published in News Evesham Journal: Tom Edwards by , Political Reporter

A PACKAGE of new measures to appease disgruntled householders living by Worcester's Ketch roundabout have been revealed by council chiefs.

Under an £8 million revamp of the A4440 route, which includes doubling the size of the island, Worcestershire County Council has agreed a plan after people living near it complained it would bring traffic closer to homes.

It includes:

- A new eight-foot tall specially designed timber "acoustic fence" aimed at protecting homes in and around Begonia Close from noise

- £14,000 towards brand new landscaping around the popular Power Park so it can look more attractive

- Two oak trees, two walnut trees and a silver birch tree near the large grassed bund running opposite Begonia Close, acting as an additional screen before the A4440 kicks in

- Two overlapping bunds with horizontal plant growth, designed to flower all year round, so car headlights from Broomhall Way do not shine into properties

Your Worcester News first revealed how the fencing idea was on the cards back in January, but it has now been confirmed with the parish council and Worcester City Council.

The Ketch island is currently being dug up in a year-long project, due to finish in April 2015, which will see it double in size.

But the work involves slicing into the grassed bank next to Begonia Close to concrete it over, which will lead to the most of the Southern Link Road being dualled by 2019.

That, in turn, will bring traffic 25 yards closer to homes, which has led to lengthy negotiations.

Councillor Roger Knight, who represents the area on the city council, said: "It was never going to be great but I think the county has done the best of a bad job - bringing traffic 25 yards closer to the homes was never going to be popular but they've done their best to mitigate the impact.

"I'm pleased it will help protect residents from some of the extra noise, pollution and disturbance."

Resident Paul Scott, 41, who lives in nearby Orchid Close, said: "It sounds better than what was being talked about last year.

"Some more funding for the park would be nice."

The county council says the fencing will be timber and is a special custom-made acoustic one designed to soak up noise, as opposed to standard fencing which does not.

It is expected to be erected within weeks in time for more work on the Ketch over the autumn.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:54pm Mon 11 Aug 14

mrwrighty says...

Sounds like another traffic department afterthought following complaints. Are they that stupid not to realise that this development will crate extra noise and discomfort for those living nearby. I still cannot understand why this went through in the first place all for 1 mile of road.
Sounds like another traffic department afterthought following complaints. Are they that stupid not to realise that this development will crate extra noise and discomfort for those living nearby. I still cannot understand why this went through in the first place all for 1 mile of road. mrwrighty
  • Score: 9

1:58pm Mon 11 Aug 14

mrwrighty says...

mrwrighty wrote:
Sounds like another traffic department afterthought following complaints. Are they that stupid not to realise that this development will crate extra noise and discomfort for those living nearby. I still cannot understand why this went through in the first place all for 1 mile of road.
Sounds like another traffic department afterthought following complaints. Are they that stupid not to realise that this development will crate extra noise and discomfort for those living nearby. I still cannot understand why this went through in the first place all for 1 mile of road.

Should say that I know the fence was on the agenda, but it doesn't sound as if it was fit for purpose, especially with the headlights issue.
[quote][p][bold]mrwrighty[/bold] wrote: Sounds like another traffic department afterthought following complaints. Are they that stupid not to realise that this development will crate extra noise and discomfort for those living nearby. I still cannot understand why this went through in the first place all for 1 mile of road.[/p][/quote]Sounds like another traffic department afterthought following complaints. Are they that stupid not to realise that this development will crate extra noise and discomfort for those living nearby. I still cannot understand why this went through in the first place all for 1 mile of road. Should say that I know the fence was on the agenda, but it doesn't sound as if it was fit for purpose, especially with the headlights issue. mrwrighty
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Mon 11 Aug 14

mrloverman says...

If your brother still wants them old sleeping bags , tell him to give us a bell . Mum wants to chuck them out . Did you text him my number ?
If your brother still wants them old sleeping bags , tell him to give us a bell . Mum wants to chuck them out . Did you text him my number ? mrloverman
  • Score: -5

2:34pm Mon 11 Aug 14

3thinker says...

With air pollution and particularly the particulates that catalytic converters don't remove from diesels a growing health concern I'd be concerned whether the acoustic fence will address this problem.

There's evidence elsewhere that tree plinth and screening is effective at reducing air pollution for those most affected by the new road.
With air pollution and particularly the particulates that catalytic converters don't remove from diesels a growing health concern I'd be concerned whether the acoustic fence will address this problem. There's evidence elsewhere that tree plinth and screening is effective at reducing air pollution for those most affected by the new road. 3thinker
  • Score: 3

8:17pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Small Town says...

mrwrighty wrote:
Sounds like another traffic department afterthought following complaints. Are they that stupid not to realise that this development will crate extra noise and discomfort for those living nearby. I still cannot understand why this went through in the first place all for 1 mile of road.
Yep I agree, it does indeed sound like the powers-that-be have listened to the concerns raised, investigated at length the most appropriate rather than the lowest cost potential solutions, selected a path forwarded, and planned delivery with weeks.

Of of this is without any legal obligation to do so. Thumbs-up, great to hear of such a pro-active organisation working in a joined up approach.
[quote][p][bold]mrwrighty[/bold] wrote: Sounds like another traffic department afterthought following complaints. Are they that stupid not to realise that this development will crate extra noise and discomfort for those living nearby. I still cannot understand why this went through in the first place all for 1 mile of road.[/p][/quote]Yep I agree, it does indeed sound like the powers-that-be have listened to the concerns raised, investigated at length the most appropriate rather than the lowest cost potential solutions, selected a path forwarded, and planned delivery with weeks. Of of this is without any legal obligation to do so. Thumbs-up, great to hear of such a pro-active organisation working in a joined up approach. Small Town
  • Score: 2

9:01pm Mon 11 Aug 14

3thinker says...

mrwrighty wrote:
Sounds like another traffic department afterthought following complaints. Are they that stupid not to realise that this development will crate extra noise and discomfort for those living nearby. I still cannot understand why this went through in the first place all for 1 mile of road.
Its partly because the City and County Councils have failed to develop and implement a truly integrated transport strategy for the City and wider area which means you need to drive to get everywhere. Indirectly it will also result in the City becoming grid locked with yet more cars for most of the working week, but also increasingly at weekends because to pay for this 1 mile of dual carriageway they've had to allow massive new developments along the route to get the developers to pay for it. All this development will bring yet more cars, the majority of which will be used to drive to facilities in and around the City.

As another report in the WN suggests. This is what has and continues to pass as 'Blue Sky Thinking' at the County (but also City Council). It the leading councillors that are letting all the City's residents down and not just those immediately affected in St Peter's.
[quote][p][bold]mrwrighty[/bold] wrote: Sounds like another traffic department afterthought following complaints. Are they that stupid not to realise that this development will crate extra noise and discomfort for those living nearby. I still cannot understand why this went through in the first place all for 1 mile of road.[/p][/quote]Its partly because the City and County Councils have failed to develop and implement a truly integrated transport strategy for the City and wider area which means you need to drive to get everywhere. Indirectly it will also result in the City becoming grid locked with yet more cars for most of the working week, but also increasingly at weekends because to pay for this 1 mile of dual carriageway they've had to allow massive new developments along the route to get the developers to pay for it. All this development will bring yet more cars, the majority of which will be used to drive to facilities in and around the City. As another report in the WN suggests. This is what has and continues to pass as 'Blue Sky Thinking' at the County (but also City Council). It the leading councillors that are letting all the City's residents down and not just those immediately affected in St Peter's. 3thinker
  • Score: 1

11:50pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Jabbadad says...

Well It's Geraghty's Folly isn't it? More £millions of taxpayers money spent just to appease the little man.
Well It's Geraghty's Folly isn't it? More £millions of taxpayers money spent just to appease the little man. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

10:39pm Tue 12 Aug 14

carfume says...

Agree with 3thinker - those workmen are spending more time laying utility pipes for the new housing scheme, the new road layout/roundabout will get done as part of the course. The noise we have sustained and the red muck in our houses has become intolerable whilst they are constructing. We get a tiny bit of new road and whole load of new homes with cars - what are we gaining?
Agree with 3thinker - those workmen are spending more time laying utility pipes for the new housing scheme, the new road layout/roundabout will get done as part of the course. The noise we have sustained and the red muck in our houses has become intolerable whilst they are constructing. We get a tiny bit of new road and whole load of new homes with cars - what are we gaining? carfume
  • Score: 1

11:13pm Tue 12 Aug 14

3thinker says...

carfume wrote:
Agree with 3thinker - those workmen are spending more time laying utility pipes for the new housing scheme, the new road layout/roundabout will get done as part of the course. The noise we have sustained and the red muck in our houses has become intolerable whilst they are constructing. We get a tiny bit of new road and whole load of new homes with cars - what are we gaining?
Here's what you are 'gaining' - A reduction in your property prices. More air pollution and increased traffic on the wider City Road network.

Those houses affected become less attractive. The St Peter's estate generally is getting older and less desirable. The new houses will be built to more modern standards and easier to get mortgages and buyers for. The increase in supply will also deflate local house prices.

Its what the Government and I assume, as they're also Conservative controlled, what the County and City Council call "Localism''.

Basically existing local residents and home owners are 'paying' for the County Council to fund a new dual carriageway that won't work and will bring increased traffic on all of the City's already congested roads.

There was an alternative. Its called integrated transport planning where more are encouraged to use their cars less (car share, on-line shopping, better planning of journeys etc) and to walk, cycle or use public transport for more of the 65% of journeys that are less than 5 miles.

Part of the problem is that most of us as motorists complain about all the traffic and the need for building bigger and 'better' roads without realising we are part of the problem. Use your car less and we'd need less highway investment and the County and City Council wouldn't need to encourage developers to build more houses and business premises to pay for the dualling of the southern link.

Perhaps something to raise with your local councillors next time you see them?
[quote][p][bold]carfume[/bold] wrote: Agree with 3thinker - those workmen are spending more time laying utility pipes for the new housing scheme, the new road layout/roundabout will get done as part of the course. The noise we have sustained and the red muck in our houses has become intolerable whilst they are constructing. We get a tiny bit of new road and whole load of new homes with cars - what are we gaining?[/p][/quote]Here's what you are 'gaining' - A reduction in your property prices. More air pollution and increased traffic on the wider City Road network. Those houses affected become less attractive. The St Peter's estate generally is getting older and less desirable. The new houses will be built to more modern standards and easier to get mortgages and buyers for. The increase in supply will also deflate local house prices. Its what the Government and I assume, as they're also Conservative controlled, what the County and City Council call "Localism''. Basically existing local residents and home owners are 'paying' for the County Council to fund a new dual carriageway that won't work and will bring increased traffic on all of the City's already congested roads. There was an alternative. Its called integrated transport planning where more are encouraged to use their cars less (car share, on-line shopping, better planning of journeys etc) and to walk, cycle or use public transport for more of the 65% of journeys that are less than 5 miles. Part of the problem is that most of us as motorists complain about all the traffic and the need for building bigger and 'better' roads without realising we are part of the problem. Use your car less and we'd need less highway investment and the County and City Council wouldn't need to encourage developers to build more houses and business premises to pay for the dualling of the southern link. Perhaps something to raise with your local councillors next time you see them? 3thinker
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree