WRITTEN STATEMENT ON HIGHWAYS / TRANSPORT ISSUES PREPARED BY M BAKER BSc CEng MICE FCIT FILT Eur Ing ON BEHALF OF LOVE BRAUNTON

Transcription

1 PLANNING APPEAL BY CHICESTER HOMES DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED IN RESPECT OF THE NON DETERMINATION OF A PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF 55 DWELLINGS ON LAND TO THE EAST OF SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON WRITTEN STATEMENT ON HIGHWAYS / TRANSPORT ISSUES PREPARED BY M BAKER BSc CEng MICE FCIT FILT Eur Ing ON BEHALF OF LOVE BRAUNTON PINS Reference: APP/X1118/W/16/ North Devon Council s Planning Application Reference: 61139

2 CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction Preamble Background Structure of this Written Statement The Proposal Policy Context Introduction NPPF Local Plan Emerging Joint North Devon and Torridge Local Plan The Issues Introduction Guidance on Transport Assessment Preamble The Application Process The Transport Assessment The Appellants Statement of Case Summary Summary and Conclusions 37 Appendices DR/MB/A Photographs

3 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Preamble Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited This Written Statement on Highways and Transport Issues has been prepared by Mark Baker of Mark Baker Consulting Limited of 32 Montpelier Court, Station Road, Montpelier, Bristol BS6 5EA. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree with Honours in Civil Engineering from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. I am a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, a Chartered Engineer, and a European Engineer. I am a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Transport, and of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport I am a Director of Mark Baker Consulting Limited. I have been involved in the fields of transportation and traffic engineering since My experience covers the range from urban highway design to major transportation studies both in the UK and Overseas I have advised a wide range of clients including those in both the public and private sectors in the UK, and Overseas Government Agencies. I have recently advised with regard to the highways and traffic implications of a variety of residential, retail, commercial, leisure and office developments I have been appointed by Love Braunton to prepare this Written Statement on Highways and Transport Issues on their behalf. I am familiar with the site subject of the Appeal, the surrounding highway network, and conditions on the adjacent and surrounding highway network The evidence which I have prepared and provide for the Appeal in this Written Statement is true and has been prepared and is given in accordance with appropriate guidance of my professional institutions. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional opinions This Written Statement should be read in conjunction with the various Statements submitted by Love Braunton. This Written Statement is intended to supplement their overall objection. This Written Statement refers to various documents submitted during the course of the progression of the planning application, which are included within the Appeal documentation, and which are not unnecessarily reproduced I should add at this point that I have used the term Love Braunton as an independent objector group formed of a large number of local objectors. Individual objections have also been submitted by individual members of Love Braunton with regard to the planning application, and in respect of this appeal. Page 1

4 1.2 Background Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited The Appeal is in respect of the non-determination of a planning application, North Devon Council s (the Council s) planning application reference 61139, which is for the erection of 55 dwellings on greenfield land to the east of South Park, Braunton. The planning application being submitted by Chichester Homes Developments Limited The planning application was submitted on the 29 th April 2016, and the applicants appealed on the 21 st October 2016 following the deferring of consideration of the planning application at the 12 th October 2016 Planning Committee. The site had been subject of a site visit by the Council s Planning Committee on the 1 st September The appeal proposals were reported to the Council s Planning Committee on the 14 th December 2016 in order to determine the Council s stance had the appeal not been submitted. The Council resolved on the 14 th December 2016 that had it been able to determine the planning application that the planning application would have been refused with two reasons for refusal. 1.3 Structure of this Written Statement The detailed objections by others on highways and transport issues have variously highlighted a number of areas of concern on highways / transport grounds namely, i) The site has already been rejected in the emerging Local Plan process as site ii) iii) iv) reference BRA108, The roads providing access to the site are considered to be narrow roads in part impacted upon by the presence of parked cars, and some with substandard footway widths, The traffic generation is underestimated with the traffic survey within the submitted TA being out of peak holiday season, The inadequate nature of Lower Park Road (as shown on plate 1), Heanton Street (as shown on plate 2), Hill View (as shown on plate 3), and Wrafton Road (as shown on plate 4) being single width in places due to the levels of parking along their length in part, and various roads being used as rat runs at times to avoid congestion on the A361 through Braunton (as shown on plates 5 and 6), and v) Inadequate public transport This Written Statement only considers the areas within my expertise i.e.: those that are highways / transport related. This Written Statement should be read in conjunction Page 2

5 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited with all other objections to give a complete overview of the extent of the objection covering all relevant disciplines This Written Statement is structured as following: i) Section 2 considers the proposal in detail to set the context for this Written ii) iii) iv) Statement, Section 3 considers the relevant national and local policy context from a highways / transport perspective, Section 4 considers the main issues and in particular the highway safety, and access issues, and Section 5 presents the summary and conclusions of this Written Statement Appendix DR/MB/A contains photographs illustrating various points referred to within this Written Statement for the ease of reference of the Inspector. Page 3

6 2.0 THE PROPOSAL Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited 2.1 The appeal is in respect of the non-determination of a planning application for 55 homes on greenfield land to the east of South Park, Braunton. The site adjoins residential development on South Park to the west, and Lower Park Road to the north. Two sections of South Park run to the boundary of the site on its western side. 2.2 The sole vehicular access is from South Park which can be used by both vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Plate 7 shows the section of South Park proposed for the site access. The site also abuts a separate section of South Park to the north, but neither vehicular or pedestrian access is proposed at this location. This is illustrated on plate 8. The Design and Access Statement (DAS) indicated that this access option had been discounted as the more southerly access allowed traffic to be dispersed within South Park more evenly. 2.3 The site has an existing single track access onto Lower Park Road that will be closed off as part of the proposal as shown on plate 9. It would be wholly unsuitable for any access to the site due to its inadequate width at barely 4.2m wide at the gate posts which would not allow for an adequate road width to serve such a level of development of 55 units plus adjacent footway widths. In addition, third party land on either side of this corridor does not allow for the achievement of adequate levels of visibility splays onto Lower Park Road of 2.4m by 43m in either direction. There is no other frontage available by which to provide an alternative vehicular access. 2.4 The planning application is in outline with all matters being reserved for future determination save for the means of access by all modes. The proposal indicates that there would be 35% affordable units although there is a dispute as to whether this represents 19 or 20 units. The numbers are not pertinent to my considerations. The proposal comprises a mix of three, four and five bedroomed units for the open market element, and one, two and three bedroomed for the affordable units. Full details of the proposal were detailed in the DAS, which is submitted in respect of the appeal. 2.5 A Transport Assessment (TA) and a Travel Plan Statement both dated April 2016 were prepared by Peter Evans Partnership, and have been submitted in support of the planning application. Self-evidently we were not party to any Scoping Discussions that may have occurred with the County Council prior to the preparation of the TA. In our opinion, any agreement with the County Council regarding the TA does not alter the validity that any third parties may have relating to the extent or assumptions embodied within the TA itself. Page 4

7 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited 2.6 There are some significant reservations regarding the submitted TA and these are considered in further detail in section 4.5 of this Written Statement. Page 5

8 3.0 POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 Introduction Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited The relevant planning policy context against which the Appeal should be considered is 3.2 NPPF set out at national level in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and at the local level being the saved policies of the Local Plan, and the policies of the emerging North Devon and Torridge Joint Local Plan (ejlp) Paragraph 28 recognises that there is a need to provide a vibrant rural economy, and indicates: To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should: support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings; promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses With paragraph 28 in mind, NPPF introduces a degree of realism at paragraph 29 regarding the potential use of sustainable transport modes in such rural areas by indicating: the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas Paragraph 32 of the NPPF indicates that: All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether: the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; safe and suitable access to be site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the Page 6

9 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe This Written Statement considers whether there are opportunities for the use of sustainable modes of transport, whether a safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all modes of travel, and whether the residual cumulative impact of the development can be classed as severe. These issues being considered further in section 4 of this Written Statement It is our conclusion as detailed subsequently that by reference to NPPF paragraph 32 the general location is one where the settlement provides the opportunity for access to services and facilities but that the desirable and acceptable walking distances from this site to such services and facilities are exceeded Furthermore, that a safe and suitable access is not achieved for all modes due to deficiencies in the adjacent highway network in particular the deficiencies in road widths at various locations, and the considerable levels of parked vehicles leading to an inevitable increase in conflicts These issues leading to safety concerns, and in addition with the third bullet point in mind it is contended for the various reasons outlined in the remainder of this Written Statement that there is a severe impact of the proposal, and in particular that the second issue constitutes one degree of severity with the impact at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals the other degree of severity. I should add at this point that there is no definition of severe within either the NPPF, or the PPG, and it is for the decision maker to define, which in this case is the Inspector In my opinion, the severe impact is notwithstanding the quantum of impact. This is due to the inevitable increase in conflicts particularly locally where there are restrictions in road width that do not allow for the free passage of vehicles, and where there are restrictions in width. Vehicles are not able to wait to avoid such conflicts due to the restricted widths where vehicles are parked leading to the inevitable increases in reversing to adjacent informal passing spaces primarily at private accesses. There are no formal areas along Wrafton Road where passing places to avoid parked cars are provided. The only passing places being either gaps in the parked vehicles, or gaps at private driveways as illustrated by plate 4. Plates 10 and 11 show typical scenes along Wrafton Road illustrating for this section shown on plate 10 parking on both sides of the road which measures of the order of 7m, and vehicles having to manoeuvre Page 7

10 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited between the stream of parked cars. Plate 11 shows the section which is generally 6.5m so that parking can only occur on one side Paragraph 34 of the NPPF indicates: 3.3 Local Plan Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. However this needs to take account of policies set out elsewhere in this Framework, particularly in rural areas The relevant saved policies from the North Devon Local Plan 1995 to 2011 adopted July 2006 are TRA1A and TRA6 though the accompanying text to the Local Plan forms an important part of the Local Plan Policy TRA1A Promoting Sustainable Transport Choices is also relevant, and indicates: 1. A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAT WILL GENERATE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TRAVEL OR HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE LOCAL HIGHWAY NETWORK WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED IF IT WILL HAVE GOOD ACCESSIBILITY TO A CHOICE OF TRANSPORT MODES INCLUDING WALKING, CYCLING AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT OR STATEMENT. 2. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, A NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPOSAL MUST INCORPORATE A TRAVEL PLAN THAT DELIVERS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT MEASURES. 3. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE ROUTES, AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, WILL BE SAFEGUARDED FROM DEVELOPMENT. 4. IN THE CASE OF FLATS AND NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SECURE CYCLE PARKING AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, ASSOCIATED FACILITIES MUST BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE In my opinion, policy TRA1A is not conformed to for the principle reason that it does not have in the context of distances to facilities good accessibility Policy TRA6 is entitled General Highway Considerations, and indicates: Page 8

11 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited A DEVELOPMENT WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED WHERE:- A) PROVISION IS MADE FOR SAFE ACCESS ONTO AND EGRESS FROM THE HIGHWAY FOR ALL FORMS OF TRAVEL SERVING THE SITE; B) THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ROAD NETWORK OR THE SAFETY OF HIGHWAY USERS IS NOT HARMED; AND C) THE CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE LOCALITY IS NOT HARMED BY ANY HIGHWAY WORKS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT In my opinion, policy TRA6 is not conformed to for the reason that the functioning / operation of the highway network will be adversely impacted upon without off-setting highway improvements The references in the saved Local Plan to desirable walking distances contained at table 3, and in the text at paragraph 6.10 are considered in detail in section 4.5 of this Written Statement. 3.4 Emerging Joint North Devon and Torridge Local Plan The emerging North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (ejlp) is at an advanced stage in its process towards adoption. The hearing into the ejlp began in late November DM05 Highways indicates: All development must ensure safe and well designed vehicular access and egress, adequate parking and layouts which consider the needs and accessibility of all highway users including cyclists and pedestrians. All developments shall protect and enhance existing footways, cycleways and bridleways and facilitate improvements to existing or provide new connections to these routes where practical to do so The explanatory text at paragraph indicates: The transport impact of any development will need to be assessed, with any impacts minimised through sustainable development principles, such as creating genuinely safe and attractive routes for walking, cycling and reaching local facilities with ease. Any residual impacts should be minimised through practical measures, such as, but not limited to, modification of the transport infrastructure to provide additional capacity, Page 9

12 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited or offsetting any impact through other measures including bus infrastructure improvements The text at paragraph indicates: Development proposals that would give rise to significant levels of vehicular movement must be accompanied by a Transport Statement for smaller developments or a Transport Assessment for more significant developments; these should be accompanied by a Travel Plan appropriate to the scale and impact of the proposed development. Guidance on the indicative thresholds for transport assessments is provided in the national guidance, currently the national Planning Practice Guidance Policy ST10 sets out the overarching transport strategy for North Devon. It inter alia promotes providing infrastructure that facilitates the delivery of strategic housing, protects strategic routes including the A361, and recognises the transport impacts from seasonal traffic. In addition, the Policy aims to reduce environmental impacts by reducing the need to travel by car and ensuring that access to new developments are safe and appropriate The relevant parts of ejlp policy ST10 being: The Transport Strategy for northern Devon will: (1) Provide good strategic connectivity by: (a) (b) ensuring the operational effectiveness of the strategic road network (A361 and A30) and other strategic routes including the A39, linking the area to the national road network (M5 and A30) and to Exeter, Plymouth and Cornwall; maintaining the function of the wider strategic road network within northern Devon This part of ST10 justifies packages of infrastructure works in order to maintain the operational effectiveness of the highway network. There are none along the section of the A361 from Braunton to Barnstaple proposed In addition ST10 indicates: (2) Meet the needs of local communities and visitors to the area by: (a) providing transport infrastructure that facilitates the delivery of proposed strategic extensions for housing and employment development and facilitates economic regeneration; Page 10

13 (e) (f) Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited protecting and enhancing the function and safety of the road network; and recognising transport impacts from the seasonal nature of traffic in northern Devon This part of ST10 supports the package of infrastructure improvements in order to maintain the appropriate operation of the highway network, and supporting the concept of infrastructure facilitating effectively housing and employment allocations. However, no such measures are proposed locally to accommodate all other allocated sites either within Braunton, or further afield to Ilfracombe that need to use the A361 to access a wider range of services and facilities Furthermore: (3) Reduce the environmental and social impacts of transport by: (a) (c) (f) (g) reducing the need to travel by car and enabling alternative sustainable travel options as supported by the Local Transport Plan; requiring a Transport Assessment for major developments that generate significant traffic movements and Travel Plans for major developments; maximising safety on transport networks through improvements to physical infrastructure design; and ensuring that access to new development is safe and appropriate This part of ST10 is consistent with the preceding sections confirming the approach of defining a package of highways improvements, but there are none locally Policy ST23 relates to the delivery of infrastructure, and indicates: (1) Developments will be expected to provide, or contribute towards the timely provision of physical, social and green infrastructure made necessary by the specific and / or cumulative impact of those developments having regard to the viability of development. (2) Where on-site infrastructure provision is either not feasible or not desirable, then off-site provision or developer contributions will be sought to secure delivery of the necessary infrastructure, Page 11

14 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited through methods such as planning obligations or the Community Infrastructure Levy. (3) Developments that increase the demand for off-site services and infrastructure will only be allowed where sufficient capacity exists or where the extra capacity can be provided, if necessary through developer-funded contributions This emerging policy confirms the approach followed by the County Council elsewhere in their consideration of other applications by providing for off-setting highway improvements that in this case need not be disproportionate for this development alone to provide in total. No level of contribution to offset the impact on the A361 either at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals or elsewhere has been sought by the County Council. Page 12

15 4.0 THE ISSUES 4.1 Introduction Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited This section considers the traffic safety and access issues with particular reference to the policy context both national and local considered in section The main issues at dispute for this appeal in my opinion are those within the context of NPPF paragraph 32, and are summarised as: i) The impact of the additional movements generated by the appeal proposal, ii) iii) iv) iv) The impact of those additional movements on the local highway network, Whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users, Whether there is a severe impact, and Whether the proposal amounts to sustainable development. 4.2 Guidance on Transport Assessment Guidance on the content of TSs, and TAs was contained within the Department for Transport (DfT), and the Department for Communities and Local Government s (DCLG) publication Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA) albeit this has recently been revoked, and it is now for each highway authority to determine the content, and the need for either a TS or TA based on their own thresholds. The County Council however still follows the GTA The introduction at paragraph 1.4 of the GTA indicates that the GTA: is intended to assist stakeholders in determining whether an assessment may be required and, if so, what the level and scope of that assessment should be. preparation of TAs and TSs. It provides guidance on the content and The guidance is clear at paragraph 4.50 of the GTA that: The assessment years should consider person trips from all committed developments that would impact significantly on the transport network, particularly where they substantially overlap, such as at the same junctions and / or on roads as the proposed development. The committed developments will typically include development sites that have extant planning permission as well as development plan allocations in an adopted or approved plan. Developments that have been completed but not fully occupied should be included in these assessments. The inclusion or exclusion of committed developments Page 13

16 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited in the assessments should be agreed with the relevant authorities at the pre-application stage In March 2014, the DCLG issued a suite of planning practice guidance notes (PPG) to supplement the NPPF. Of relevance is that the PPG provides specific guidance on Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision Making. This reiterates the approach of the revoked GTA Of particular note is the section of PPG that defines the periods of surveys for subsequent assessment which is considered subsequently. PPG dated 6 th March 2014 indicates: Local planning authorities must make a judgment as to whether a development proposal would generate significant amounts of movement on a case by case basis (i.e. significance may be a lower threshold where road capacity is already stretched or a higher threshold for a development in an area of high public transport accessibility). In determining whether a Transport Assessment or Statement will be needed for a proposed development local planning authorities should take into account the following considerations: the Transport Assessment and Statement policies (if any) of the Local Plan; the scale of the proposed development and its potential for additional trip generation (smaller applications with limited impacts may not need a Transport Assessment or Statement); existing intensity of transport use and the availability of public transport; proximity to nearby environmental designations or sensitive areas; impact on other priorities/strategies (such as promoting walking and cycling); the cumulative impacts of multiple developments within a particular area; and whether there are particular types of impacts around which to focus the Transport Assessment or Statement (e.g. assessing traffic generated at peak times). Page 14

17 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited PPG also dated 6 th March 2014 includes the information that should be included in TAs, and TSs. The indication is: In general, assessments should be based on normal traffic flow and usage conditions (e.g. non-school holiday periods, typical weather conditions) but it may be necessary to consider the implications for any regular peak traffic and usage periods (such as rush hours). Projections should use local traffic forecasts such as TEMPRO drawing where necessary on National Road Traffic Forecasts for traffic data This section of the PPG is clear that non-school holiday periods should be assessed when traffic conditions are more likely to be typical. The PPG also indicates that other peak periods may be appropriate in addition, and not instead of typical conditions. PPG dated 10 th October 2014 identifying data collection indicating: Transport data should be included that reflects the typical (neutral) flow conditions on the network (for example, non-school holiday periods, typical weather conditions etc.) in the area of the Plan, and should be valid for intended purposes. It should also take account of holiday periods in tourist areas, where peaks could occur in periods that might normally be considered non-neutral. The recommended periods for data collection are spring and autumn, which include the neutral months of April, May, June, September and October This section of PPG indicates that as well as typical or neutral conditions that a TA should also (i.e. in addition) consider holiday periods. The consideration of holiday periods being in addition to typical conditions rather than instead of it. The TA prepared by Peter Evans Partnership as considered in section 4.5 has only considered the holiday flows, and has therefore failed to fully assess the impact of the development proposals. 4.3 Preamble As detailed previously, the reference in the NPPF paragraph 32 is to planning applications and it follows Appeals and the reference is to essentially refuse them only where the residual cumulative impact of developments are severe There is however in guidance no clear definition of severe but there is often considered to be a linkage to the second bullet point of paragraph 32 that requires safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. Page 15

18 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited Access is holistically defined as being both the site access junction, and also all roads that provide access from the wider highway network including in my opinion in this case logically the A361 / B3231 traffic signals in the heart of Braunton. Plate 5 shows a scene taken during the mid morning of conditions at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals. Plate 6 shows the juxtaposition of the traffic signals to Heanton Street, and to the A361 pelican crossing. The two junctions represent a complex arrangement which is the scene of frequents queues and delays in school term time, and congestion sometimes severe in the school holiday periods There is nothing in NPPF, or the companion PPG that can be taken as implying that severe represents as seemingly accepted by the County Council, and by the appellants a particular quantum of impact either in absolute or percentage terms. Previous guidance and the GTA advocated a 5% impact as being material, and 10% in less congested areas, but those percentages that defined material impact have now been revoked For reasons that will be outlined in this Written Statement it is my opinion notwithstanding the quantum of impact that there is a severe impact in the following regards: i) The cumulative impact at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals and adjacent A361 / ii) iii) Heanton Street junction, The cumulative impact along Wrafton Road due to the additional vehicles generated by the proposal conflicting with other vehicles on the section of Wrafton Road that is effectively single lane working due to the presence of parked cars, and The impact on the section of Lower Park Road between Barn Field Close, and South Park that is also a shared surface. 4.4 The Application Process The planning application was submitted on the 29 th April 2016, and the applicants appealed on the 21 st October 2016 following the deferring of consideration of the planning application at the 12 th October 2016 Committee. The site had been subject of a site visit by Planning Committee on the 1 st September The application was reported to the Council s planning committee on the 14 th December 2016 in order to determine the Council s stance had the appeal not been submitted. The Council resolved on the 14 th December 2016 that had it been able to Page 16

19 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited determine the planning application that the planning application would have been refused with two reasons for refusal. The Parish Council s Consultation Response Braunton Parish Council s consultation response dated 9 th June 2016 recommended that the planning application be refused on fourteen strands, and the objection of the Parish Council as relevant from a highways / transport perspective is summarised as being: i) Accessibility ii) iii) The Parish Council indicated: It is considered to be an unsustainable location for residential development due to its lack of safe accessibility for pedestrian connections to sustainable transport modes and local services, Highway Infrastructure The Parish indicated: The existing road network infrastructure leading to the development via Moor Lea and Barn Field Close is inadequate resulting in unsafe conditions, and ejlp Considerations The Parish Council indicated: In June 2014 the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, Sustainability Appraisal Technical D: Assessment of Housing Site Options for North Devon and Torridge, rejected this site (BRA/108) for future housing development on the grounds that it was unsustainable in terms of:- - Increase in traffic through the village centre with consequent impact on air quality; and - Limited capacity along Lower Park Road and its junction to accommodate the development Following the submission of amended plans, the Parish Council submitted a further consultation response on the 26 th August 2016 which indicated: Braunton Parish Council wish to recommend refusal, the amended plans received do not change the Council s earlier views and therefore its previous reasons for refusal still stand. In addition to this, as it is a Greenfield site, taking into account further sustainable information Page 17

20 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited provided the Council strongly feels that the development should be aiming for a much higher level of sustainability. Braunton Access Group Consultation Response The Braunton Access Group were also consulted, and indicated on the 24 th May 2016 that they had concerns on the following grounds: There are no Public Transport links covering the area at the present time resulting in a dependence on motor vehicles. As Mill Lane public footpaths runs along the eastern boundary could consideration be given to up-grading this to an all year round surface foot path to allow easy access for pedestrians & wheelchair users. Any road without a pavement is on concave road means pushing at an angle or going down the middle of the road, this is a safety issue for wheelchair users and their carers. The access along lower park road (sic) is of grave concern, buggies and wheelchairs often go along there is no pavement for quite some distance, when there is, the dropped kerbs are not in the right place so most of users (sic) just stick to the road. Would it be possible to allocated some 106 money to upgrading the pavements in Lower Park Road and Mill Lane? County Council s Consultation Response The County Council s consultation response dated 28 th June 2016 did not raise an highways objection subject to: 1) The sum of 55,000 for improvements and maintenance of the existing Public Right of Way No. 18 (Mill Lane) to the east of the application site, in order to improve the sustainability of pedestrian users of the application site; 2) The sum of 250 per dwelling to be utilised for Public Transport vouchers, and 3) The sum of 50 per dwelling to be utilised towards bicycle provision There were a total of eight conditions recommended by the County Council to be incorporated onto any planning approval to cover: i) Infrastructure to be completed in accordance with details to be submitted, and approved, Page 18

21 ii) iii) iv) Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited Infrastructure to be constructed in accordance with a detailed programme to be submitted, and approved, No part of the development to be occupied until the first 20m of the access has been constructed up to base course, The development to be occupied in an agreed phasing with a schedule of infrastructure to be provided, v) The maintenance of the access and turning heads etc to be kept free of vi) vii) viii) obstruction, Within twelve months of the first occupation the completion of all infrastructure, Disposal of surface water within each dwelling curtilage, and Parking. September Committee Report In the Council s Committee Report of the 1 st September 2016 the issue of the SHLAA process was considered in some detail, and I repeat various points to highlight the transport / highways issues. The report indicated the Planning Policy s consultation response which identified: The site has been included within the SHLAA (SHA/BRA/108) for 42 dwellings on a net developable area of approximately 1.4 hectares at 30 dph. For information, when the SHLAA Panel first considered this site in 2010 they were satisfied with the overall assessment and agreed with the recommendation that development of this site would be a logical extension to the east side of Braunton. Whilst the SHLAA recommendation has guided the overall level of housing development across this site there is no policy objection to a higher number of housing units being delivered if the principle of development was considered acceptable on this site and any increase in numbers would not have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties and landscape character as well as helping to deliver the spatial vision and strategy for Braunton and Wrafton as set out within Policy BRA of the emerging Plan. Although the site was considered developable in principle, it was not taken forward as an allocation within the emerging Local Plan. Technical Document D of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) assessed a number of alternative housing options, where a number of these were Page 19

22 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited rejected as less sustainable options for future housing development. The document including those sites that did not deliver key infrastructure and strategic objectives and the main reasons for which they were rejected. It identified issues relating to broad areas rather than precise sites and it recognised that defining the extent of a site in greater detail could help to mitigate some of the identified impacts but not the fundamental concerns in terms of sustainability and deliverability. One of these rejected sites was land at South Park where it was concluded: Land to the east of South Park was rejected because of sustainability issues in terms of: Increase in traffic through the village centre with consequent impact on air quality; Limited capacity along Lower Park Road and its junctions to accommodate development where the highway is narrow with limited opportunities to increase capacity; No existing transport links with the village or pedestrian footpaths along Lower Park Road; and Key Network Feature along Mill Lane forming site eastern boundary. In regard to the above conclusions within the SA, of particular concern in policy terms is the limited highway capacity of the approach roads / junctions to South Park and air quality management concerns within the village centre (Policies TRA1A, TRA6, ST10, DM02, DM05). I would consider that the application should be accompanied by an air quality assessment in order to assess what the impacts may be from this development on the air quality management area and how any impacts will be mitigated. The contents of this report should be assessed in consultation with Andy Cole from Environmental Health. However, the Highway Authority should advise as to whether the local highway network can accommodate the additional traffic movements without having an adverse detrimental impact on the highway issues concerned. Page 20

23 SHLAA Proforma Assessment Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited In terms of the history, the SHLAA site assessment form was based on a site visit on the 25 th January The SHLAA assessment indicated the planning history with relevant applications being C in 2013, and C in The assessment indicated that: Site is currently outside of the defined development boundary but well related to Braunton. The assessment also indicated that with regards to public transport that: Braunton is well served, but the site is approximately a kilometre from the nearest route through the village centre. With regard to access to services and facilities the assessment indicated: A kilometre from the village centre. accessibility to higher order centres However in terms of highway access, the response was: Yes from South Park, although junctions on Lower Park Road need to be assessed. DCC Highways: 1) The increased use of the junction, resulting from the proposed development would, by reason of the limited visibility from and of vehicles using the junction, be likely to result in additional danger to all users of the road and interference with the free flow of traffic. 2) Lower ParkRoad from which access to South Park is gained is, by reason of its inadequate width, junctions and lack of footway provision, unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic likely to be generated. Good The overall consideration at that stage was: Development of this site is a logical extension to the east side of Braunton. However, this is only the consideration of the SHLAA proforma, and a further detailed assessment followed as detailed in the Committee Report confirmed that despite the proforma assessment that the site has been rejected from the ejlp for amongst other reasons three sustainability issues: i) The increase in traffic through the village centre with the consequent impact on ii) iii) air quality, Limited capacity along Lower Park Road and its junctions to accommodate the development where the highway is narrow with limited opportunities to increase highway or network capacity, and No existing transport links with the village or pedestrian footways along Lower Park Road. Page 21

24 October Committee Report Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited The 12 th October 2016 Committee report indicated under the summary of the issues within respect to highways issues: Much comment has been made on traffic related issues including: the narrow access road; both accesses from South Park should be opened; traffic generation has been underestimated (8 peak movements); additional air pollution; pedestrian conflict with vehicles related to school children and the junction outside; lack of pavement for a stretch of Higher Park Road; noise; the impact of construction traffic; the physical constraints of Lower Park Road / Heanton St/Wrafton Rd being single width in places, having on road parking, congestion and use as rat-run; Lack of public transport; and, the condition/impact of drainage on Mill Lane. The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. The TA concludes that: The location of the site is accessible for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and integrates with the surrounding residential area. Therefore the site is in line with national and local. Walking distances to schools and local amenities are well within the boundaries of the acceptable walk distance to education facilities set out by the CIHT Guidelines Providing for Journeys on Foot. The small increase in vehicular flows on the local road network as a result of the proposed development is minimal and would not give rise to a material impact on existing traffic and safety conditions. The cumulative impact of the development would not be severe and thus should not be refused on transport grounds in line with NPPF. The Local Highway Authority accepts these conclusions and recommends conditions and a contribution towards improvements towards Mill Lane The recommendation at that stage being: The planning balance is a fine one and arguable given the need to take into account a range of benefits and dis-benefits. The NPPF advises that planning applications should be approved unless any adverse Page 22

25 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against this Framework or taken as a whole. On applying that balance your officers consider that the benefits in particular of contributing to housing land supply would be substantial in addition to the other economic and social benefits noted. In the absence of demonstrably adverse impacts that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh these benefits it is concluded that the present proposal represents sustainable development that in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development suggests that the application should be supported and planning permission granted The conclusions also indicated: The location of this site is accessible for pedestrians (albeit a section of Higher Park Road has no pavement), cyclists and public transport users and accords with recommended walking distances to local amenities whilst the additional traffic generation is not considered such as to give rise to result in a severe cumulative impact. A contribution is to be made towards the adjoining PROW The recommendation being of: In summary, the site has been identified as developable in the longer term in the SHLAA exercise that underpins the emerging Local Plan. It is not however considered necessary to bring the land forward at this stage given its omission from either the adopted or the emerging development plan and given outstanding objections raised in particular by the Council s Countryside and Landscape Officer on landscape and ecology grounds. These concerns suggest that a redesigned layout is required in order to overcome the objections which may in turn result in a reduction in housing numbers. However, the present application has progressed to appeal against non-determination and the opportunity to review the layout and associated ecological mitigation and landscaping on a without prejudice basis has not been progressed. December Committee Report The later 14 th December 2016 Committee Report indicated an alternative summary of the highways issue compared to the 12 th October 2016 Committee Report indicating: Page 23

26 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited Policy TRA6 deals with general highway considerations and requires that a development will only be permitted where: a) provision is made for safe access onto and egress from the highway for all forms of travel serving the site; b) the functioning of the road network or the safety of highway users is not harmed; and c) the character and setting of the locality is not harmed by any highway works necessary to accommodate the level of traffic generated by the development. Much comment has been made on traffic related issues including: the narrow access road; both accesses from South Park should be opened; traffic generation (8 peak time movements) has been underestimated; additional air pollution; pedestrian conflict with vehicles related to school children and the junction outside; lack of pavement for a stretch of Higher Park Road; noise; the impact of construction traffic; the physical constraints of Lower Park Road / Heanton St/Wrafton Rd being single width in places, having on road parking, congestion and use as rat-run; Lack of public transport; and, the condition/impact of drainage on Mill Lane. Objectors have submitted their own traffic surveys. The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. The TA concludes that: The location of the site is accessible for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users and integrates with the surrounding residential area. Therefore the site is in line with national and local (sic). Walking distances to schools and local amenities are well within the boundaries of the acceptable walk distance to education facilities set out by the CIHT Guidelines Providing for Journeys on Foot. The small increase in vehicular flows on the local road network as a result of the proposed development is minimal and would not give rise to a material impact on existing traffic and safety conditions. The cumulative impact of the development would not be severe and thus should not be refused on transport grounds in line with NPPF. Page 24

27 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited The Local Highway Authority accepts these conclusions and recommends conditions and a contribution towards improvements to Mill Lane. In response to questions raised by an objector about the LHA view, the Highways Officer has commented When considering the impact of development upon the local highway network this Authority has to consider any material impacts and the degree to which capacity and/or safety is likely to be a consideration. I appreciate there are variations in respect of traffic generation on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. I believe the Transport Assessment has considered the impact of the development and identified additional flows that are likely to be taking place within Wrafton Road amongst other roads. Both the figures put forward by the developers consulting engineers, and yourselves, are unlikely to lead to capacity issues and, therefore, DCC will not be requesting detailed capacity analysis to be undertaken at the various junction (sic). This is partly given on the basis of knowledge of the local area and traffic conditions. It is also reasonable to assume that a number of traffic movements will leave South Park and head eastwards if travelling to Barnstaple avoiding Wrafton Road altogether. Without repeating the conclusions contained within the Transport Assessment I have indicated previously I agree with such findings based on the evidence put forward. It is, of course, available to third parties to put forward an alternative view, with or without professional representation, into the process. The DCC Highways Officer (who is unable to attend the meeting), has been asked to comment further on questions raised about the conclusions reached by the applicant s highways consultant, but at the time of compiling this report no response had been received from DCC. On the basis that the LHA continue to raise no concern on traffic related matters, it is concluded that the Policy will be satisfied The Council resolved on the 14 th December 2016 that they were minded to refuse the planning application if they had jurisdiction, and there were two non-highways reasons Page 25

28 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited for refusal namely the non allocation of the site in the Local Plan, and in the ejlp, and the percentage of affordable housing. 4.5 The Transport Assessment Preamble A TA dated April 2016 was prepared by Peter Evans Partnership, and submitted in support of the planning application. In our opinion, any agreement with the County Council regarding the TA does not alter the validity that any third parties may have relating to the extent or assumptions embodied within the TA itself. Concerns raised by third parties who have to live with the consequences of development are valid to be considered, and should be afforded appropriate weight. Inspector does not need to be reminded of this. I am confident that the There are some significant reservations regarding the submitted TA and these are now considered. Traffic Surveys The TA included the results of manual classified counts undertaken on Friday 28 th and Saturday 29 th August 2015 at the South Park / Lower Park Road junction, and at the A361 Exeter Road / B3231 Caen Street / East Street / South Street / Heanton Street signal and priority junctions The applicant referred to all links but in fact there are two very closely related junctions of the A361 / B3231 The Square comprising a four armed junction of the A361 Exeter Road from the south, the B3231 Caen Street from the west, the A361 Chaloner s Road from the north, and East Street to the north east with approximately 30m to the south of The Square is the staggered junction of the A361 Exeter Road to the south, South Street to the west, the A361 Exeter Road to the north, and Heanton Street to the east The TA also included traffic data for the Lower Park Road / South Park junction though being located to the east of Barn Field Close, these surveys do not reflect general flow levels on Lower Park Road between Hill View, and Barn Field Close. Data being collected for these junctions between to 11.00, and to The indication within the TA was that these periods and days were chosen as this represented a peak event but this is no substantiation of this assertion within the TA, and this is a significant failing of the submitted TA. Seemingly additional data was collected in school term time but not presented in the TA as detailed below. The data period is not representative using the advice in the companion guide to the National Page 26

29 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). No data for typical conditions have been provided The TA indicated a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour total junction flows of 1391, and 1648 vehicles per hour for the Friday for the A361 / B3231 junction. No surveys were undertaken of queue lengths, or of average delays to vehicles using the junction. No detailed impact assessment of the impact of the development at this location were undertaken subsequently in the TA The TA included scant details of an automatic traffic counter for a week commencing 15 th September 2015 but there is no data included in the appendices, and as such it has not been possible to consider the data for in school term time compared to school holidays. The TA asserts that speeds are low but there is simply no factual data to verify this. Speeds also are only given for one direction of 27 mph. Third parties as detailed subsequently in this Written Statement have assessed the differences, and their survey results are significantly greater. Walking Distances to Services and Facilities The TA defined the desirable target walking distances from the saved Local Plan at table 3 to facilities at paragraph 3.2.6, and indicated: Facility Food shop Primary school Other non-residential facilities Bus stop Walking distance 300m 300m 600m 200m The commentary to the saved Local Plan paragraph 6.20 indicated: The target desirable cycling distance between a development and key facilities is 30 minutes which equates to approximately 8 kilometres depending on the topography and conditions. Based on the interim standards contained in the Regional Transport Strategy, desirable walking distances are set out in Table 3 in order to assess the accessibility of a development. For residential developments, these set out the target distances within which facilities are considered to be within reasonable walking distance. For non-residential developments, the distances define the pedestrian catchment area of the development. Page 27

30 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited The TA at paragraph in an attempt to argue that the values above were inappropriate also detailed the CIHT Guidelines for Providing Journeys on Foot which indicate: Suggested Acceptable Walking Distances Town Centres Community / School Elsewhere Desirable 200m 500m 400m Acceptable 400m 1000m 800m Proposed Maximum 800m 2000m 1200m In this regard, although the statutory maximum distance for walking to school for children below 8 years is 3.2km before the education authority must provide transport, that is not a desirable or even generally acceptable distance for a pedestrian to walk. Table 3 of desirable walking distances on page 48 of the North Devon Local Plan 1995 to 2011 adopted in July 2006 (the Local Plan) as detailed at paragraph are unrealistically optimistic Table 3.2 of the CIHT s Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot regards walking distance for commuting, to school and for sightseeing as a desirable 500m, an acceptable 1,000m and a maximum 2,000m and for other purposes as a desirable 400m, acceptable 800m and a maximum of 1,200m. The Manual for Streets also advises that walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes (up to about 800m) walking distance of residential areas which residents may access comfortably on foot and refers to now withdrawn Government advice to the effect that walking has the greatest potential to replace short car trips particularly those under 2km. The TA accepts at paragraph that the distances to the schools are further than target distances. The TA also accepts that the walk to bus services are well beyond target, and that there are no late evening or Sunday bus services. Trip Rates Assessment The trip rates derivations were shown in appendix 8 of the TA, and are summarised as: Arrivals A.M. Peak 7 21 P.M. Peak Departures The assessment has been undertaken using TRICS in a standard methodology. Page 28

31 Trip Distribution Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited The vehicular distribution of the traffic generated by the development by route being: A361 South towards Barnstaple via Wrafton Road 72% B3231 towards Saunton Sands and Croyde 10% A361 North towards Ilfracombe via Hill View (towards Ilfracombe only) or the A361 traffic signals 17% Lower Park Road East 1% The distribution has been based on 2011 journey to work census data, and again there is no great dispute with this which is industry standard. However, it is very curious to say the least that the TA has not assessed the impact of 72% of all vehicles routing via Wrafton Road, and despite third party concerns this issue was not assessed in the appellants two Statements. We have undertaken that sole assessment, and our conclusions are very clear. Construction Traffic The applicants accept that a Construction Management Plan is needed, and seemingly anticipate that vehicles will use Wrafton Road where the road width remaining from parked cars is limited, and where there would be an impact on the Southmead Primary School, and Braunton Academy. Construction traffic cannot route via Heanton Street as at 4.1m to 4.2m wide cars could not pass any construction vehicle on this link. Construction vehicles cannot route along Lower Park Road from the east. On this basis, the appeal should be dismissed as there is no scope for the safe routing of construction vehicles of the quantum to construct such a sized development. Additional Responses Two additional reports were prepared by Peter Evans Partnership in response to the Planning Officer s queries dated 5 th October 2016, and to the matters raised by Sue Prosper dated 25 th November Commentary on these documents is variously contained in this Written Statement. 4.6 The Appellants Statement of Case I have considered the appellant s Written Statement dated October 2016 prepared for this Appeal which has a total of eight sections, and a subsequent Addendum which was dated February No separate highways / transport case was submitted in respect of the appeal. Paragraph 1.12 detailed the case for the appellant which included no reference whatsoever to the highways / transport issues, and this is rather curious given that at that stage that the Council has not issued their putative reasons Page 29

32 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited for refusal, and as such the appellants should have provided evidence on all relevant issues. That said highways issues are included as paragraphs to of the original Statement. Accessibility The appellant s proposition 6 at paragraph of their Statement of Case is that this proposal will be for a sustainable development. The text at paragraph indicates: The sustainability credentials of the appeal proposals are not in dispute. The appeal site is well located in relation to existing shops, services and facilities, including schools and open space and is therefore a suitable and sustainable location for housing. This is confirmed by the Council s SHLAA assessment of the appeal sites (sic) which concludes that development of this site is a logical extension to the east side of Braunton and the officer report attached as Appendix It is generally accepted that Braunton has a range of services and facilities appropriate to its status. There is some dispute, by others, regarding the capacity of the local schools to accommodate the levels of school children generated by the development. However, as detailed elsewhere in this Written Statement there are reservations about the quality of the footway linkages, and the overall distances to some of the services and facilities. For example, the nearest bus stops are over two and a half times the distances usually considered as desirable. Once reached there are no late evening or Sunday services that will also affect their propensity for use. The first service on the 21A route through Braunton is at with the last at There is no contribution to improve the services, and these times would be unattractive to those that may have employment in Barnstaple other than in the town centre itself The access and movement issues are considered in further detail in paragraphs to 7.7.8, and it is prudent to consider each paragraph with our summary retort following. Traffic Surveys Paragraph indicates: An assessment of the traffic movements and roads in and around the site has been undertaken, along with pedestrian routes between the site and village s facilities. This is set out within the Transport Statement The TA set out details of a traffic survey undertaken on a Bank Holiday weekday but despite the passage of time between the surveys, and the date of submission of the Page 30

33 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited TA there was no check survey undertaken by the appellants / applicants of traffic conditions for a typical weekday in school term time. There is reference to automatic traffic counts being undertaken but there are no details of the results. The surveys summarily are not in accord with the advice in the PPG which advocates both seasonal peaks, and typical conditions being assessed for such locations Despite repeated requests by the objectors for the supply of the data, it has not been forthcoming, and this has led to the objectors undertaking their own surveys which are at the some variance to those contained within the TA. In some case, there are I should add significant variations to the data collected on behalf of the applicants now the appellants. The Love Braunton objectors are the only group that have undertaken any form of check traffic survey data, and the appellants have not sought to dispute any of the data collected by third parties Notwithstanding this the applicants data for Heanton Street appears erroneous with an indication of 6 vehicles per hour in the morning peak, and 4 vehicles per hour in the evening peak. These values have to be seen in the context of the limited photographs of this Written Statement which cast considerable doubt on these values. If these values are correct this development using the applicants distribution will lead to a doubling of traffic flows on this link As detailed in the letter from D Relph to the Council on the 3 rd October 2016, traffic flows on Wrafton Road in school term time of 206 vehicles per hour southbound, and 101 vehicles per hour northbound between and on the 13 th June 2016 within school term time. The Studies of Delays to Traffic on Single Lane Carriageways with Passing Places undertaken by TRRL indicates: Results from TRRL studies indicate that simply in terms of their capacity for carrying moving traffic single lane carriageways, correctly designed, are unlikely to incur significant increases in delay compared with traffic in free-flow conditions, at flow levels of up to 300 vph (total two way). Wrafton Road operates as single track but has no formal passing places, and flows are above this threshold currently. The addition of the development traffic will increase delays, and conflict potential Paragraph indicates: The site is within a 15 minutes walking distance of the village centre and the bus stops on the A361. It is also within a 10 minute walk to and Page 31

34 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited from the nearest primary and secondary schools located on Wrafton Road Using the guidance referred to within the MfS the village centre, school, and local bus services are all outside the MfS walkable neighbourhood definition. All of the facilities are also well outside of the target distances of the adopted Local Plan. The majority of the services and facilities are above the desirable and acceptable distances, and some are above the maximum walk distances contained within the CIHT Guidelines for Providing Journeys on Foot Paragraph indicates: Vehicular access to the site will be provided from a continuation of South Park eastwards. Pedestrians will also be able to use a footpath link to Mill Lane to the south Plates 12 and 13 show the general condition of Mill Lane showing its unsuitability for use other than in a recreational role. Whilst Plate 14 shows Chicken Lane that provides a link between Curve Acre and Wrafton Road providing a shorter walk to Southmead Primary School, and to Braunton Academy though Chicken Lane itself suffers from no overlooking, and as such poor levels of natural surveillance, and it has no street lighting where not overlooked that will affect its propensity for use, and potentially impact upon the safety of users South Park provides access to the site via Barn Field Close, and Moor Lea to the west, or via South Park to the east. Plate 7 shows the proposed access point, and indicates the context of the remainder of the estate that the proposal would be seen as an extension to. Plate 15 shows a view along Moor Lea showing the existing traffic calming to constrain vehicle speeds through the development. Even without the additional traffic burden of the proposed development, there appears to be a historic concern about vehicles through the estate that has led to the introduction of traffic calming The use of Barn Field Close, and Moor Lea resulting in an increase in vehicle movements through a residential development. The use of Barn Field Close results in an intensification in the use of the Lower Park Road / Barn Field Close junction where traffic associated with the care home frequently parks on the north side of Lower Park Road forcing Lower Park Road into single lane working as shown on plate 16. The use of South Park to the east would increase traffic along Lower Park Road between South Park and Barn Field Close where the road is shared surface generally of the Page 32

35 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited order of 4.6m to 5.0m wide with no footway provision as shown on plate 17. A road width using MfS figure 7.1 of 4.6m allows two cars to pass with 5.0m allowing a commercial vehicle to pass a car. Assuming the width for the various pedestrian types from figure 6.8 any pedestrians on this section of Lower Park Road would result in vehicles being unable to pass one another. There are no safe places for pedestrians to step aside apart from at private driveways Paragraph of MfS indicates: Subject to making suitable provision for disabled people, shared surface streets are likely to work well: In short lengths, or where they form cul-de-sacs; Where the volume of motor traffic is below 100 vehicles per hour (vph) (peak); and Where parking is controlled or it takes place in designated areas Lower Park Road is not a cul-de-sac, and carries some levels of through traffic. Additionally, there is over this section no control of parking. The research into shared surfaces on page 83 of MfS indicates: A study of public transport in London Borough Pedestrian Priority Areas (PPAs) undertaken by TRL for the Bus Priority Team at Transport for London concluded that there is a self-limiting factor on pedestrians sharing space with motorists, of around 100 vph. Above this, pedestrians treat the general path taken by motor vehicles as a road to be crossed rather than a space to occupy. The speed of vehicles also had a strong influence on how pedestrians used the shared area. Although this research project concentrated on PPAs, it is reasonable to assume that these factors are relevant to other shared space schemes The general width is shown on plate 1 near South Park looking to the west, and plate 19 looking eastwards. Plate 19 is on the approach to Barn Field Close showing that there is no verge for pedestrians to step onto. The relatively straight nature of Lower Park Road does not constrain vehicular speeds. Parked cars are a hazard along Lower Park Road as shown on plate 20 affecting Barn Field Close, and on plate 21 on first entry from Wrafton Road Reference is drawn to Mill Lane, which is not on any great logical pedestrian desire line. Notwithstanding its present surfacing, and lack of lighting coupled with very Page 33

36 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited limited overlooking, the use of the lane would not be logical to use to reach the nearest primary or secondary school, or to access the services and facilities in the centre of the village, or to access bus services Paragraph indicates: The development will generate around 28 additional vehicles on South Park in the morning and evening peak hours. On a Saturday lunchtime peak an additional 20 vehicles would travel along South Park. An additional vehicles every 2-3 minutes at peak times would not be noticeable It is noted that the applicants now the appellants have used industry standard software in terms of the TRICS database, and I have no great reason to dispute their selection criteria in that assessment. In addition they have used journey to work census data to define likely distribution of trips, and modal share. There is nothing unusual about this. The additional vehicles have however to be seen in the context of background traffic flows. Given the character of the roads, and the shared surface nature this is disputed Paragraph indicates: Based on the likely routes taken an additional 8 cars are likely to travel through the centre of Braunton in the morning and evening peak hours. This is compared to the 1600 vehicles recorded travelling through the town centre in peak hours during the busy summer holidays. The increase is less than 1% and is within typical daily variations, so no difference in traffic would be observed The distribution in the TA indicates that 72% of all residents would route towards and from Barnstaple via Wrafton Road. 1% is predicted within the TA to use Lower Park Road to the east routing along country lanes to reach destinations whilst 27% of all residents use other routes including Croyde and Ilfracombe. For travel towards Croyde and Saunton Sands, the only logical route is via the A361 / B3231 traffic signals which is predicted by the appellants to be 10% of all residents. The remaining 17% is bound to or from Ilfracombe to the north. Hill View avoids the use of the A361 / B3231 traffic signals to travel towards Ilfracombe but it is narrow in width with parked vehicles along most of its length reducing it to single lane working as shown on plate 3. There is also a 6ft 6in width restriction at its northern end where it is also one way northbound and as such traffic from Ilfracombe towards the site has no option but to route through the traffic signals. From Lower Park Road, the traffic signals are reached via Heanton Page 34

37 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited Street that is 4.1m wide with a footway for its most part of 1.1m wide as shown on plate 22. As indicated on figure 7.1 of MfS this road width is only adequate for two cars to pass, and plate 22 clearly indicates that cars cannot pass commercial vehicles. Heanton Street is not a part or does not constitute an arm of the signal controlled junction but forms a priority junction approximately 30m to its south at a complex arrangement. Traffic leaving Heanton Street at peak hours has to rely on either the adjacent pelican crossing being used, and no vehicles blocking the junction, or vehicles on the A361 being courteous. Either operation causes an issue. Firstly if vehicles pull out when the pelican is used, it consequentially increases the queue length on the A361 northbound arm, and secondly if a vehicle is let out by a courteous driver this can result in less vehicles being able to turn right from Croyde or travel along the A361 from the north Paragraph indicates: The County Highways Authority has no objections to the appeal proposals subject to conditions and contributions being secured towards improvements to the adjoining public right of way and travel plan measures There is in section 8 Concluding Remarks no specific reference to highways and transport issues save for that many be construed by the fifth bullet point viz: the very limited harm that would arise from the appeal proposals does not significantly and demonstrably, nor in any way, outweigh the very clear and substantial benefits it would deliver The appellants Statement of Case omits any detailed reference to Wrafton Road. The indication is one additional vehicle every three minutes but this does not acknowledge that Wrafton Road operates for most of the day as single track. The quantum of increase will lead to inevitable additional conflicts Wrafton Road is not an A road nor a B road, it is a residential road with frontage access, and two schools along its length. In addition, it has a public house, a social club, and a retail unit It is generally 6.5m to 7.0m wide though where the lesser width it has on one side parking restricting it to single lane working as shown on plate 23, and where the greater width has parking on both sides resulting in it also being single track too. The section of most concern being from south of Heanton Street through to Barton Lane. Page 35

38 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited Beyond Barton Lane the existence of Southmead Primary School to the east, and Braunton Academy to the west results in significant demand to cross. The Braunton Academy car park also being located on the eastern side Traffic calming reduces the width of Wrafton Road in three locations to 3.6m, 3.7m and 4.1m from north to south respectively as shown on plates 24, 25 and 26. Plate 27 shows a view along Wrafton Road. However, the issue of the width of Wrafton Road is not just related to that section between Heanton Street, and Braunton Academy as plate 28 shows a view along Wrafton Road near the Knowl Water bridge with parked vehicles, and plate 29 a view further south in the vicinity of The Williams Arms showing residential properties abutting the road. 4.7 Summary The main issues at dispute for this appeal in my opinion are those within the context of NPPF paragraph 32, and are summarised as: i) The impact of the additional movements generated by the appeal proposal ii) iii) iv) iv) which are not disputed in quantum though are disputed in terms of impact, The impact of those additional movements on the local highway network and in particular on Wrafton Road, and through the A361 / B3231 traffic signals where along Wrafton Road the additional 72% of all vehicles generated by this site will be bound to increase conflict potential on the sections constrained by parked cars on one side, or on both sides, and where the development will impact at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals due to the juxtaposition of junctions, and traffic intensity meaning that traffic only exits Heanton Street when other vehicles are courteous, Whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users, Whether there is a severe impact, and in this context, it is contended that there is at both the A361 / B3231 traffic signals, and along Wrafton Road, and Whether the proposal amounts to sustainable development. Page 36

39 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF indicates that: Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether: the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; safe and suitable access to be site can be achieved for all people; and Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe. 5.2 The Written Statement has considered whether there are opportunities for the use of sustainable modes of transport, whether a safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all modes of travel, and whether the residual cumulative impact of the development cannot be classed as severe. 5.3 It is our conclusion that: i) The location is one where the opportunity for sustainable modes of access are ii) iii) limited, That a safe and suitable access is not achieved for all modes due to deficiencies in road widths that are not proposed to be improved as part of this planning application, Safe and suitable access using the adjacent network cannot be achieved due to the deficiencies in road width leading to an inevitable increase in conflicts leading to safety concerns, iv) In addition with the third bullet point in mind it is contended for the various reasons outlined in this Written Statement that there is a severe impact of the proposal, and v) That there is a severe impact in the following regards: a) The cumulative impact at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals and adjacent A361 / Heanton Street junction, Page 37

40 Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited b) The cumulative impact along Wrafton Road due to the additional vehicles generated by the proposal conflicting with other vehicles on the section of Wrafton Road that is effectively single lane working due to the presence of parked cars, and c) The impact on the section of Lower Park Road between Barn Field Close, and South Park that is also a shared surface. 5.4 The severe impact is notwithstanding the quantum of impact. This is due to the inevitable increase in conflict particularly locally where there are restrictions in road width that do not allow for the free passage of vehicles, and where the restrictions mean vehicles approaching the constrained sections of highway locally may not be aware of the potential oncoming conflicts. Vehicles are not able to wait to avoid such conflicts due to the restricted widths leading to inevitable increasing in reversing to adjacent passing spaces primarily at private accesses. 5.5 It is respectfully requested that the Inspector dismisses the Appeal. Page 38

41 Appendix DR/MB/A PHOTOGRAPHS

42 Plate 1 Lower Park Road

43 Plate 2 Heanton Street

44 Plate 3 Hill View

45 Plate 4 Passing places along Wrafton Lane at private accesses

46 Plate 5 Mid morning conditions at the A361 traffic signals

47 Plate 6 A361 at the A361 / B3231 showing the junction, Heanton Street and the pelican crossing

48 Plate 7 South Park Proposed Access

49 Plate 8 South Park Abutting the Site to the north

50 Plate 9 Existing Access onto Lower Park Road

51 Plate 10 Typical scene along Wrafton Lane

52 Plate 11 Wrafton Road

53 Plate 12 Mill Lane from the north at Lower Park Road

54 Plate 13 Mill Lane from the south

55 Plate 14 Chicken Lane

56 Plate 15 Traffic calming along Moor Lea

57 Plate 16 Parked vehicles on Lower Park Road west of Barn Field Close

58 Plate 17 Lower Park Road shared surface

59 Plate 18 Lower Park Road west of South Park looking east

60 Plate 19 Lower Park Road west of South Park looking west

61 Plate 20 Lower Park Road west of Barn Field Close looking east

62 Plate 21 Lower Park Road

63 Plate 22 Heanton Street

64 Plate 23 Wrafton Road

65 Plate 24 Wrafton Road near Braunton Academy looking north

66 Plate 25 Wrafton Road near Braunton Academy looking south

67 Plate 26 Wrafton Road outside Southmead Primary School

68 Plate 27 Wrafton Road south of Barton Lane looking north

69 Plate 28 Wrafton Road

70 Plate 29 Wrafton Road by The Williams Arms