As part of our second consultation on the preferred route for the replacement pipeline, we included a number of sub-options along the route. The project team was presented with an independent report on the findings of our consultation which included comments relating to the selection of sub-options and this was assessed alongside environmental and engineering information.
We selected which sub-options to progress following a detailed and thorough review by the project’s senior management team. The team included expert support from our environmental, engineering and planning teams.
Please note, the interactive map does not indicate which sub-options have been selected, but this table summarises each set of sub-options, and the selection made.
|A1a and A1b: Boorley Green||A1b||
We have selected A1b to take into consideration residential development proposals around Maddoxford Lane. We have also removed the order limits extending further to the south of Maddoxford Lane as they are no longer required by the project.
A1b would provide more space for trenchless installation than A1a.
|A2a and A2b: Hinton Ampner||A2a and A2b – both sub-options||
Updated 27 August 2019: As part of our application for development consent, submitted on 14 May 2019, we included two sub-options in the Hinton Ampner area – A2a and A2b. This enabled us to undertake further detailed engagement with local landowners along the two sub-options to help establish the most appropriate pipeline route.
We have now selected sub-option A2a, which passes through National Trust land. Sub-option A2b has been deselected and is no longer part of our final route.
|D1a and D1b: Oak Park Golf Course||D1b||
We have selected D1b to reduce disruption to Oak Park Golf Course.
|D2a and D2b: Fleet Business Park||D2b||
We have selected D2b as it would have less potential traffic disruption during installation than D2a. D2b also has fewer crossings of the existing pipeline than D2a, which is preferable. It would also reduce impacts on Fleet Business Park and Naishes Lane. This sub-option may require some environmental mitigation.
|D3a and D3b: Beacon Hill Road||D3a – with further refinements||
We have decided to progress D3a, but with some refinements. We will move the order limits to the west to include Beacon Hill Road to reduce the impact on development plans. D3a better accounts for these plans than D3b as it avoids cutting through the middle of the development site, but requires further refinements.
|D4a and D4b: Norris Hill||D4a, with D4b as an access route||
D4a has been selected as the preferred pipeline route because it closely follows the existing pipeline. D4b follows an established track and would only be used for temporary access during installation.
|E1a and E1b: Cove Brook Park||E1a||
We have selected sub-option E1a to progress. E1b was not selected due to a number of planning, environmental and engineering concerns.
|E2a and E2b: Cove Road||Both sub-options deselected and a new option proposed||
From consultation feedback and further technical work, we have decided not to progress either sub-option.
E2a was deselected due to further technical work indicating that the length and location of the trenchless crossing from Cove Brook Park to the north of the railway would not be technically possible to install. This would have meant significant delays to the installation of the pipeline and continued disruption to communities.
E2b was deselected due to narrow roads and would have involved the removal of garages. Cranes would have been required to move equipment to the working area between homes and the railway. The local footpath alongside the railway embankment and under the railway at Highfield Path would also have been closed for a long period of time.
We are proposing an amended route in this area to provide an alternative to these two sub-options.
|E3a, E3b and E3c: Cabrol Road||E3a||
We have selected E3a as it follows the existing pipeline more closely than options E3b or E3c. It would reduce the potential impacts on access to residential properties and street works during installation. It would also reduce the impact on Stake Lane and the allotments near Prospect Road, as trenchless techniques would be used to navigate installation through the narrow area.
|E4a and E4b: Farnborough North||E4a – with further refinements||
We have selected E4a, progressing the southern of the two further options within it.
This was the option preferred by many local landowners and reduces the direct impacts on Henry Tyndale School (for children with complex learning difficulties) and Farnborough North Station. The southern option within E4a has been selected as the angle at which it crosses the Reading to Redhill and Ascot to Guildford railway lines is preferable from an engineering perspective. There were other concerns around the environmental features in the area. We have, however, considered an alternative installation technique in this area due to unknown ground conditions.
|E5a and E5b: Pine Ridge Golf Course||E5a||
We have selected E5a, which most closely follows the existing pipeline. While we understand the potential impacts on the Golf Course, we have taken into consideration strong feedback from the consultation and ongoing engagement regarding potential disruption to traffic along Deepcut Bridge Road. A small section of E5b will be retained just off Deepcut Bridge Road to be used as a temporary logistics hub. However, there would be no street works along this road.
|F1a, F1b and F1c: Red Road||F1a and F1b combined||
Following further technical work, we have merged the first section of F1b along Red Road with F1a, which follows an existing track to Guildford Road. This is because consultation feedback we received made us aware of the impacts of a loss of trees along a very narrow footpath at the start of F1a. There is also a new small section of route to join these two sub-options together. This would enable us to reduce the time we are installing along Red Road relative to F1b, a key concern expressed within the consultation responses, and reduce the potential impact on environmental features along F1b and F1c. The remaining route proposed within F1b was deselected due to a number of environmental and habitat concerns for protected birds and reptiles in the area, identified through further survey work. F1c was also deselected due to environmental and engineering constraints.
|F2a and F2b: Chobham Common||F2a||
We have selected F2a, which travels across Chobham Common. This option would reduce any potential impacts on residential areas to the south of the common, and most closely follows the existing pipeline alignment. Feedback from the consultation strongly favoured this sub-option. F2b, on the other hand, was not favoured in consultation feedback due to the need for street works and potential traffic disruption. We have conducted further technical work to understand how we can reduce the environmental impacts on Chobham Common and the final route will include areas for tree planting and other environmental mitigation activities that will be set out in the Environmental Statement.
|F3a and F3b: Silverlands||F3a||
We have selected F3a to progress, as this was favoured within consultation responses and from site visits with local landowners. We would use a trenchless crossing in this area to reduce the need for tree removal. F3b was deselected because of the potentially significant impacts it could have on a local business.
|F4a and F4b: Guildford Road (A320) and M25||F4b – with further refinements||
We have progressed F4b, although further refinements will be made to this section of the route. Sub-option F4a was deselected due to the engineering constraints of crossing the M25, identified from further technical work.
|G1a and G1b: Chertsey railway||G1b||
G1b has been selected as further survey work in the area identified an area of Ancient Woodland that we would seek to avoid along sub-option G1a. However, feedback from the consultation highlighted concerns about the impact of installation on traffic along Canford Drive. We will therefore be implementing traffic management plans to effectively control the traffic flow in this area during installation and ensure that access is maintained for residents. We will also look to reduce the width of the order limits through Abbey Moor Golf Course and create an installation timetable that reduces the impact on the golf course.
|G2a and G2b||G2a – with further refinements||
We have selected G2a as it has been found to have more suitable ground conditions than G2b for installation. The M3 crossing was also planned at an angle along G2b which would pose significant engineering challenges. We have carried out further technical work to identify the space that we would need to install the pipeline and cross the river.
|H1a and H1b: Queen Mary Reservoir||Both options deselected and a new one proposed||
Following ongoing engagement with landowners, consultation feedback, and early involvement with contractors to review our proposals, we have deselected both sub-options. We have identified an alternative option for the area to reduce the impact on the narrow residential roads along H1b and avoid major engineering challenges from H1a (such as installing close to the edge of the reservoir, alongside a major gas main and overhead power lines).
H1a was favoured by local residents and met our preference to install on private land and away from public roads, but there were concerns about the reservoir from an engineering and logistics perspective, as there is a bund (small embankment) that would cause issues for the installation of the pipeline.
|H2a, H2b and H2c: Ashford Station||H2c – with further refinements||
H2c was selected because it is the most feasible option from an engineering perspective and consultation feedback confirmed concerns about the other two options in this area.
H2a was deselected due to engineering constraints identified through further technical work. This included an assessment of the angle of the railway crossing that would have made installation very difficult, and the proximity to a road bridge over the railway that would not have provided a large enough space for installation. Consultation responses included concerns from local residents around the space needed for safe installation. H2b was deselected based on strong opposition from consultation feedback, raising concerns about the impact on local businesses and the car park at Ashford Station.
Following the selection of H2c, we have identified an area of the route along Station Approach that could be used to improve traffic flow around Ashford Station and reduce the impact on the roundabout along Woodthorpe Road near to the station.
|H3a and H3b: Thomas Knyvett College||H3b||
H3b has been selected because it is a more direct and shorter option. The selection of H3b was closely linked to the selection of H2c.