Alton Town Partnership
The Alton Town Partnership oversees the delivery of the Alton Town Plan recommendations and also helps to develop Alton.
Please contact us by telephone at +44 (0) 1420 549684, by email:
or write to:-
The Alton Town Partnership, 66 High Street, Alton, Hampshire. GU34 1ET. UK.
Mill Lane Regeneration Proposal
Stimulating the local economy is a key element of the Alton 2020 Town Plan and eighteen months ago we
were successful in bidding for £100,000 for a series of local initiatives to support businesses
in our town. The biggest initiative within this relates to the Mill Lane Industrial Estate, which in its
current state presents a pretty uninspiring picture of Alton as a place to come and do business.
The long term aim is to find funding to transform Mill Lane and the first step is to develop a
vision of a new, improved area that will appeal to successful businesses seeking to remain in or
relocate to an area which reflects their aspirations. This link will take you to the report commissioned
from Format Milton, local architects (responsible among other projects for the very successful transformation
of the Alton Maltings,) which forms the starting point for the regeneration of Mill Lane.
The Mill Lane Proposal is 34Mb in size. If you would like a copy please send us an email and we will get it to
you somehow, either on a CD or as a download from a website so long as you have broadband.
(It contains plenty of graphics.) The proposals are a starting point. The scheme will develop over time and will be the better for
benefiting from the comments and ideas of all of you who have an interest in the future of our town.
We welcome and indeed need your input. Have a look and tell us what you think.
Please email us to request a copy or to comment
ALTON MILL LANE REGENERATION STUDY - NOTES ON A MEETING 13.06.07
The Role of Mill Lane
- It should be noted that Mill Lane is a County Classified "B" road
o Proceeding from the A31 roundabout the roads beyond Mill Lane to and through the town centre are now "C" classified,
o this has been done, along with relevant signage [B3004] at the junction of Mill Lane and Monteccio way,
- · to discourage through lorry traffic from the town centre
- · and to avoid problems with the height of the railway bridge at Paper Mill Lane on the route out to Kingsley / Whitehill / Bordon.
- · Mill Lane is therefore not a ‘service’ road through a trading estate but a key transport route
- · No mention of this key transport function is made in the study; Mill Lane has been treated as though it was there essentially to provide access to the industrial estate.
- · It is unlikely that in the foreseeable future this key transport function will be removed.
The Highway
- Clearly as the report indicates, the surface of the carriageway needs to be put in proper order [consistent with its classification and transportation role]. The roadway is likely to be blacktop over a 1950s/1960s concrete carriageway. The authors are correct in indicating that realignment could be expensive, and that patching / resurfacing of the existing road is more likely to be achievable. Adequate future maintenance should prevent the reappearance of cracking and potholes.
- Much is made of the cost of putting overhead services underground. Superficial examination of the photographs suggest that the services concerned are telephone, not power, cables, which should be capable of rerouting at relatively modest expense.
- The study indicates that Mill Lane is 7.6 metres wide. This may not be the case. The road was designed and laid before the adoption of metric standard widths when the standard dimensions were 20’ or 22’ or 24’. If the road is 24’ wide and therefore 7.3m and not 7.6m wide. This could have important implications. We must get this measured soonest.
- The cycle paths either side of Mill lane in the proposed scheme are 800mm wide
o There are (as far as is known) no statutory standards for on-road advisory cycle lanes in England and Wales [although it should be noted
that the devolved Scotland does have a standard set at 1.25m]. However Hampshire has generally adopted a non-mandatory width of 1m.
The Mill Lane study proposes a width of 800mm.
o At 800mm and assuming the overall width to be 7.6m, the traffic lanes in either direction would be reduced to 3m – the same width to which
lanes narrow approaching traffic lights.
o If the road is actually narrower [say 7.3m] than assumed in the report, then the actual width of the traffic lanes would be further reduced
to 2.85m in either direction – NB a Transit Van is approximately 2.1m wide + the wing Mirrors!
o It’s all very well to say that in reality the road width has not been reduced because the cycle lanes are there, but if lorry traffic
needs to use the cycle lanes to use the road what’s the real point of the cycle lanes other than to ‘tick an environmental box’. Indeed there are
many other issues related to these lanes detailed below.
o The ‘traffic-calming / traffic-slowing’ effect of the cycle lanes is doubtful.
o Equally effective if not more so, could be pedestrian / cycle crossing points at key points along Mill Lane [see later] and these could be
simply and economically delineated by changed tarmac cover, dropped kerbs and possibly bollards; such crossings could be more expensively ‘upgraded’
by modest road narrowing as now at Church Street outside the Vicarage.
Footways and Cycle Paths
- · Clearly footways need to be put in proper order and effectively maintained.
- · There is no requirement for pedestrians and cyclists to be segregated when provision is being made off-carriageway.
Neither is there a requirement for there to be a footway on both sides of the road. Therefore for example:
o One side could be a footway and the other a cycle track
o One side could be a non-segregated footway / cycleway [2m /2.5m wide?] and the other a simple footway.
A more imaginative solution than the basic approach proposed in the study should be sought.
- · Little if any account appears to have been taken of the relationship between the pathways proposed in the report and existing provision at
and into the Mill Lane area.
- · As the report notes and its photographs indicate there is no footpath on the northern side of Mill Lane as it approaches Monteccio
Way and the footpath on the southern side stops abruptly at the junction – neither is there any pedestrian provision on the verge opposite
the junction.
- · Travelling eastwards along the southern side of Mill Lane, pedestrians take the footpath which bears to the right and,
crossing open space, passes under the carriageway and on towards Holybourne and Neatham Mill.
- · Those travelling by foot along the northern side of Mill Lane and wishing to travel in the direction of Holybourne etc could
be provided with a Crossing [see above for the potential ‘calming’ effect] at the point where the southern footpath forks.
- · The existing cycles lanes along Anstey Road from the Town Centre terminate at the entrance to Anstey Park, where cyclists are signposted to
follow the relatively traffic-free Anstey Mill Lane to reach the Industrial Estate. Pedestrian access to Mill Lane from London Road and
Anstey Road [with its bus stops] is also via Anstey Mill Lane. This route crosses Newman Lane and joins the northern side of Mill Lane
opposite the Waterbrook junction [adjacent to the current site of Beacon Packaging]. Another natural site for a Crossing Point [see above]
- · There is a further public footpath leading from Upper Neatham Mill along the south side of the River Wey / Caker Mill Stream. This emerges
on to Mill Lane at the Waterbrook Junction, thus reinforcing the desirability of a crossing point at that location.
- · As the report suggests the potential for a riverside pathway to the rear of the premises on the northern side of Mill Lane could be
fraught with problems. Whilst maybe not quite so idyllic, there is another route which could be used by pedestrians and cyclists. This route
would follow the existing relatively well-maintained footway along the southern side of Newman Lane to its end where it would pick up the now
improved footpath, which joins Paper Mill Lane at Waterside Court.
- · Further pedestrian access / egress to and from Mill Lane by designating the currently one-way Dickers Lane as a foot / Cycle path, closing it
to cars and lorries.
Parking and Verges
- · Checking with the Maintenance Records will provide the information needed to determine the extent of Public Highway, hence HCC
responsibility for footpaths, verges, kerbs and carriageway.
- · However certain improvements are funded, the maintenance costs will affect the materials etc used.
- · The need for bays to defined parking areas / bays will indeed assist greatly in controlling parking by designating more clearly
where parking is allowed / encouraged.
- · These could be equally be tarmac or block paving topped; the suspicion is that if they were to be maintained by HCC then tarmac
would be the preferred option.
- · There is no practical reason why parking on Mill Lane outside of the proposed parking bays needs to make use of or abuse the verges.
- · There is adequate width on the existing carriageway to allow for roadside parking, with vehicles travelling in either direction simply
having to give way (as is normal practice) in instances where a parked or waiting vehicle results in insufficient space being available for
them to pass simultaneously.
- · Enforcement of parking within the curtilage of premises fronting on to Mill Lane in line with the original Planning Consents might prove
difficult and impractical. Since the original consents were given, the government guidance on the number of parking will have changed from ‘more
than a minimum of’ to ‘no more than’ as the line is now to discourage the use of cars where ever possible. This makes the promotion of good
pedestrian and cycle access as discussed above, even more important.
- · There should be specific and adequate provision of front of house parking bays for the residential properties fronting Mill Lane on its
southern side approaching the junction with Paper Mill Lane.
- · The simplest way elsewhere along the whole length of Mill Lane, to further discourage inappropriate parking using the grass verges would
be to re-lay the kerbs and raise their height above the level of the carriageway. This could be achieved with the use of ‘Trief’ kerbs [very
high with a concave face] which would deter trucks, but it should probably be possible to achieve the same end result by using standard kerbs
simply set higher, thus deterring cars, which appear to be the main "culprits".
- · Further discouragement might be effected by adding single [or even in some places, double] yellow lines, but this would require Traffic
Regulation Orders and associated costs of implementation and enforcement.
- · There is no reason why such inappropriate parking could not further be discouraged by adopting aesthetically pleasing solutions equivalent
to the Cornish practice of planting large lumps of granite along the edge.
- · The positioning of deterring [say sponsored] planters at intervals along the verge would also be possible although these would be unlikely
to be maintained by the Highway Authority, leaving ATC or the sponsor with this task.
- · The maintenance of the proposed low-level groundcover would probably not be accepted by HCC, and the verges would thus become the
responsibility of (probably) ATC. The litter problem mentioned at the presentation would be a factor and a solution would have to be found to
remove a potential eyesore. In essence if parking were adequately discouraged by an effective mix of the other means indicated, there should be
no requirement for ground cover and the verges could be properly re-seeded with grass and properly maintained in to the future by HCC.
Lighting & Signage
- · The lighting column locations seem to be adequate, but the columns themselves are a mixture of styles from over a 20+ year period.
Replacement with a consistent style (such as the new ones in the vicinity of Focus), without necessarily seeking to introduce "stylish" columns,
would be hugely beneficial.
- · An area that needs attention is the proliferation of roadside signing for commercial premises, much of it ad-hoc and of poor
visual quality, particularly opposite the electricity sub-station, but also outside the newer units of
Grove Industrial Estate (Zone 3).
Budget
- · There should be an estimate made in the breakdown of costs not only for the capital costs of the scheme and any options but of the
on-going related maintenance costs.
These notes are also downloadable in the menu above as a Word document.
Last Change - August 2008
Legal stuff - Details are subject to change but believed to be correct at time of writing (allowing for typing errors).
If you see a mistake, please send an email to comment67 
(Change the " at " to @)
If you would like to use any of the material on this site, please email us.
Feel free to link to us at any time.
Copyright of external sites remains and shall be that of the respective owners.
© Alton Town Partnership 2007, 2008