Land at Garsdale, Frome

Callidus Transport and Engineering

Land at Garsdale, Frome

Transport Note – TA Supplementary Information

on behalf of Frontier Estates Ltd

Callidus Transport & Engineering Ltd Regency House 2 Wood Street Queen Square Bath BA1 2JQ T 01225 303 523 E [email protected] W www.callidusgroup.co.uk REGISTERED IN ENGLAND & WALES NO. 6719513

Land at Garsdale, Frome Transport Note – TA Supplementary Information

DOCUMENT VERIFICATION

Job No: TE/1122

Job Title: Land at Garsdale, Frome

File Ref: /302

Document Title: Transport Note – TA Supplementary Information

Revision

Status

Date

Prepared by Name

0

07/05/14

Issue Final

Checked by Initial

R Spriggs

Name R Buckley

Approved by Initial

Name

Initial

R Buckley

Limitations Callidus Transport & Engineering Limited (Callidus) has prepared this report for the use of our instructing client (“Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by Callidus. Where the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon information provided by others, it is upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested, and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by Callidus has not been independently verified by Callidus, unless otherwise stated in the Report. Copyright © This Report is the copyright of Callidus Transport & Engineering Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

i

May 2014


Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

ii

May 2014


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1

2

ABOUT THIS REPORT.............................................................................................................................. 1

TRIP GENERATION .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1

CURRENT LAND USE .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.2

PROPOSED LAND USE ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.3

PASS-BY TRIPS ...................................................................................................................................... 5

2.4

CONSENTED AND PERMITTED USE ............................................................................................................ 8

3

TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................................................................................................................... 12

4

TRAFFIC IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................. 13 4.1

TRAFFIC GROWTH / COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 13

4.2

GARSDALE / PORTWAY / CHRISTCHURCH STREET EAST / VICARAGE STREET MINI-ROUNDABOUT ........................ 13

4.3

CHRISTCHURCH STREET WEST, BATH STREET, CHRISTCHURCH STREET EAST, GOREHEDGE AND BUTTS HILL THREE-

PART JUNCTION................................................................................................................................................ 14

5

6

7

ACCESSIBILITY ................................................................................................................................... 15 5.1

WALKING .......................................................................................................................................... 15

5.2

PARKING ........................................................................................................................................... 17

5.3

OVERALL ACCESSIBILITY ........................................................................................................................ 20

TRAVEL PLAN .................................................................................................................................... 22 6.1

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 22

6.2

PREPARATION, REGISTRATION AND TRAVEL PLAN FEE ................................................................................ 22

6.3

SITE AUDIT ........................................................................................................................................ 24

6.4

ACTION PLAN ..................................................................................................................................... 25

6.5

SETTING TARGETS AND MONITORING TRAVEL PLAN .................................................................................. 26

ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 28 7.1

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 28

7.2

GARSDALE / PORTWAY / CHRISTCHURCH ST E / VICARAGE ST MINI-ROUNDABOUT ......................................... 28

7.3

THREE PART JUNCTION ......................................................................................................................... 30

7.4

SENSITIVITY TESTING............................................................................................................................ 39

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

iii

May 2014


8

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................. 42 8.1

SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 42

8.2

CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................... 44

APPENDICES APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................................. 46 TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................................................ 46 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................................. 50 TRAFFIC FLOWS ............................................................................................................................................... 50 APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................................................. 51 FIGURES AND DRAWINGS................................................................................................................................... 51 APPENDIX D .............................................................................................................................................. 52 TRAFFIC MODELLING OUTPUTS (ON CD) .............................................................................................................. 52

FIGURES FIGURE 2-1: LOCATION AND BRIDGWATER AND SAXONVALE DEVELOPMENTS COMPARED .................................................... 5 FIGURE 2-2: TRAFFIC FLOWS ON PORTWAY (SEPTEMBER 2013) ..................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 4-1: DAILY TRAFFIC FLOWS ON PORTWAY ....................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 5-1: KING STREET A) LOOKING EAST FROM MARKET PLACE AND B) LOOKING WEST FROM KINGSWAY ......................... 15 FIGURE 5-2: GREEN STREET, BATH SHARED SPACE ...................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 5-3: PARKING SUPPLY AGAINST DEMAND (SATURDAY) ...................................................................................... 19

TABLES TABLE 2-1: TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED (NO LINKED TRIPS) ................................................................................................ 2 TABLE 2-2: TOTAL TRIPS GENERATED AFTER DISCOUNTING FOR LINKED TRIPS...................................................................... 3 TABLE 2-3: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRIPS USING BRIDGWATER AGREED TRIP RATES FOR SAXONVALE ........................................ 3 TABLE 2-4: DIFFERENCE IN LINKED TRIPS BETWEEN THE TWO METHODS ............................................................................ 4 TABLE 2-5: PROPOSED LAND USES COMPARED ............................................................................................................. 8 TABLE 2-6: TRIP GENERATION COMPARED (TWO-WAY).................................................................................................. 9

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

iv

May 2014


TABLE 5-1: RELATIVE DISTANCES TO SHOPPING LOCATIONS FROM FROME WARDS ............................................................ 21 TABLE 7-1: 2015 BASE AND BASE + DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 28 TABLE 7-2: 2015 BASE + DEVELOPMENT DO SOMETHING........................................................................................... 29 TABLE 7-3: 2025 BASE + DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 29 TABLE 7-4: 2025 BASE + DEVELOPMENT DO SOMETHING........................................................................................... 30 TABLE 7-5: 2015 BASE AND BASE + DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 32 TABLE 7-6: 2015 BASE + DEVELOPMENT DO SOMETHING........................................................................................... 33 TABLE 7-7: 2025 BASE AND BASE + DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 7-8: 2025 BASE + DEVELOPMENT DO SOMETHING........................................................................................... 34 TABLE 7-9: 2015 BASE AND BASE + DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 34 TABLE 7-10: 2025 BASE AND BASE + DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 35 TABLE 7-11: 2015 BASE AND BASE + DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 35 TABLE 7-12: 2025 BASE AND BASE + DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 36 TABLE 7-13: 2015 BASE + DEVELOPMENT DO SOMETHING......................................................................................... 37 TABLE 7-14: 2025 BASE + DEVELOPMENT DO SOMETHING......................................................................................... 38 TABLE 7-15: 2015 BASE + DEVELOPMENT DO SOMETHING......................................................................................... 38 TABLE 7-16: 2025 BASE + DEVELOPMENT DO SOMETHING......................................................................................... 39 TABLE 7-17: 10% PASS-BY SENSITIVITY TEST ............................................................................................................. 39 TABLE 7-18: 5% PASS-BY SENSITIVITY TEST ............................................................................................................... 40 TABLE 7-19: 50/50 TRIP DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................................................... 41

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

v

May 2014


1 1.1 1.1.1

INTRODUCTION About this Report Frontier Estates Ltd submitted a planning application to Mendip District Council for the regeneration of the Saxonvale site, Frome in October 2013. A Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan (TP) prepared by Callidus Transport and Engineering Ltd accompanied the planning application.

1.1.2

Comments on the TA dated 16th December 2014 from the Highway Authority, Somerset County Council (SCC), were subsequently received by Callidus on 17th December 2013.

1.1.3

Further comments on the TP dated (incorrectly) 1st April 2014, were received by Callidus on the 5th March 2014.

1.1.4

This Transport Note has been prepared to address the comments raised by SCC on the TA and TP. The Transport Note also includes additional analysis of the ‘three part junction’ of Christchurch Street West, Bath Street, Christchurch Street East, Gorehedge and Butts Hill. For ease of reference, this Transport Note deals with the issues in the same order as the comments from SCC with the SCC paragraph numbers shown in brackets.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

1

May 2014


2

TRIP GENERATION

2.1 2.1.1

Current Land Use (2.2) The trip generation for the Merchants Barton car park was derived using the total number of parking spaces available on Saxonvale, and dividing these by the traffic flow on Saxonvale collected as part of the traffic surveys undertaken in September and October 2013. The total number of parking spaces includes those for M&S Food which is likely to generate a higher turnover of spaces than the Merchants Barton public spaces. Therefore, the trip rates derived and used in the transfer of the Merchants Barton car park to the proposed new development, are considered to be robust.

2.2 2.2.1

Proposed Land Use (2.3) The trip generation for the proposed development in the TA assumed a worst-case scenario i.e. the trips were generated as if the foodstore was a standalone store and didn’t take into account linkage with other land uses and the town centre itself. Notwithstanding this approach, Callidus has considered the trip generation from all the other proposed land uses on the site. The trip generation is shown in Appendix A. The total trips generated by the proposals are as follows: IN

OUT

TOTAL

AM (0800-0900)

152

99

251

PM (1600-1700)

305

317

622

SAT (1100-1200)

346

307

653

Table 2-1: Total trips generated (no linked trips)

2.2.2

For a mixed use site, it is reasonable to assume that a proportion of the trips to the individual land uses will be combined with visits to other land uses in the development (i.e. linked trips). TRICS Research Report 05/11 analysed the effects of linked trips in developments with multiple retail and leisure uses. The report concluded that: Multi-use sites with 4 or more developments reduce on average the total number of external trips by 20% through trip linking.

1

Trip Attraction Rates of Development with Multiple Retail and Leisure Uses – TRICS Research

Report 05/1 (2005)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

2

May 2014


2.2.3

Callidus has reviewed this research report and the sites used in it. We are of the opinion that the findings of the research can be appropriately applied to the proposed development.

2.2.4

Therefore, allowing for 20% of trips being linked gives the following trip generation: IN

OUT

TOTAL

AM (0800-0900)

122

80

202 (224)

PM (1600-1700)

244

253

498 (521)

SAT (1100-1200)

277

245

522(489)

Table 2-2: Total trips generated after discounting for linked trips

2.2.5

The figures in the total column in brackets, show the figures used in the TA for the foodstore only. It can be seen that the TA approach (i.e. considering the foodstore in isolation) represented a robust estimate of the trips for the weekday AM and PM peaks but that the Saturday flows are 6% higher for a mixed use site.

2.2.6

Callidus has reviewed a planning application for a new foodstore in Bridgwater2 as directed by SCC’s highway comments (2.8). This site has received planning consent. The foodstore in Bridgwater is a Tesco that is 1.9 times larger than the one proposed at Saxonvale. It has similar amounts of ancillary non-food and office development.

2.2.7

The trip generation rates for the Bridgwater foodstore were agreed with the Highway Authority. The difference between the trips using the trip rates used for the Bridgwater foodstore, and those trips reported in the Saxonvale TA would be as shown in Table 2-3. IN

OUT

TOTAL

AM Peak

-22

-6

-28

PM Peak

13

22

36

SAT Peak

27

-14

13

NOTE: A ‘-‘ minus means Saxonvale TA has a lower number of trips Table 2-3: Difference between trips using Bridgwater agreed trip rates for Saxonvale

2

Ref: 08/12/00168 ‘Proposed Retail Development and Associated Works, Northgate Development,

Bridgwater – Transport Assessment’ (TPA 2012)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

3

May 2014


2.2.8

The table shows that the TA for Saxonvale has forecast less trips in the AM peak than it would have done if it had used the Bridgwater trip rates. However, in the PM peak and on a Saturday, which are the busier periods for a foodstore, the TA has forecast trips higher than if it had used the Bridgwater trip rates. Therefore, there should be no reason why the TA trip rates are not acceptable to the Highway Authority (2.5 and 2.6).

2.2.9

The Bridgwater TA assumed that a 75% discount should be applied to trips generated by uses other than the foodstore to represent linked trips. Callidus is not clear as to the basis for this discount but has compared it to the 20% reduction applied to all trips and used by this report, based on the TRICS Research Report 05/01. The differences are shown in Table 2-4. IN

OUT

TOTAL

AM (0800-0900)

19

10

29

PM (1600-1700)

30

30

59

SAT (1100-1200)

0

8

8

NOTES: +ve values means that this Transport Note uses a larger discount figure Table 2-4: Difference in linked trips between the two methods

2.2.10 The table shows that the discounted trips are higher using the application of the TRICS method for Saxonvale but that the difference is not that large, especially on a Saturday. Callidus is of the view that a higher number of linked trips is likely at Saxonvale because the site is more closely integrated with the town centre than for Bridgwater, where the store is on the outside of the inner ring road. Furthermore, Saxonvale also incorporates an existing public car park in the design which the Bridgwater site does not. 2.2.11 (2.4) The existing Merchants Barton car parking trips have been transferred to the car park below the footstore in the TA analysis (see TA para. 5.1.3).

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

4

May 2014


2.3 2.3.1

Pass-by trips The assumption in the TA of 30% of trips to the foodstore being pass-by trips, as based on TRICS Research Report 95/23, is contended by the Highway Authority who cites the Bridgwater application assuming pass-by trips of 5%, 20% and 5% for an AM peak, PM peak and Saturday respectively.

2.3.2

The ability of a development to attract passing trips has to be a function of its proximity to a town’s strategic road network, especially those roads that attract traffic that is coming to, and going from, the town, or passing through the town; rather than traffic circulating within the town. The maps below compare the respective road networks for both the Bridgwater and the Frome developments.

Route from which pass-by trips will be extracted

Bridgwater Proposed Foodstore Location

Saxonvale Proposed Development Location Figure 2-1: Location and Bridgwater and Saxonvale Developments Compared

3

Pass-by & Diverted – A Resume TRICS Research Report 95/2 (1995)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

5

May 2014


2.3.3

The pass-by percentages used for the Bridgwater foodstore were applied to traffic entering from the route around the city centre that consists of Mount Street, Northgate and The Clink. These roads are not part of the strategic road network that brings traffic from outside to the centre of Bridgwater. Traffic on Mount Street, Northgate and The Clink is much less likely to be ‘passing by’ and therefore the lower percentages assumed for Bridgwater may not be unreasonable.

2.3.4

However, for Frome, the A362 passing the site is a part of the strategic road network and is the only A-road to enter the town centre. Furthermore, the A362 is not part of a circulatory route in the town. As well as a local route, it is also the strategic route from both Warminster and Westbury to Radstock.

2.3.5

Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data collected on Portway, Frome in September 2013 shows how the A362 carries a steady flow of traffic throughout much of the day for both a weekday and a Saturday. There is no less passing traffic, whether for commuting or other purposes (2.8), between a Saturday or a weekday. Therefore, there should be no less reason why a Saturday will not attract pass-by traffic compared to a weekday. 1200

Two-Way Traffic Flow By Hour - Portway

All Vehicles

1000

800 600

Friday Two-way Saturday Two-way

400 200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 Hours

Figure 2-2: Traffic flows on Portway (September 2013)

2.3.6

As part of the evidence submitted to MDC for the Asda planning application (MDC ref: 2012/0570), traffic counts were undertaken at the access to the site on a Friday (17001800) and on a Saturday (1400-1500).

On a Friday, of the 125 vehicles travelling

westbound on the A362 that turned left into Asda, 78 turned right out of Asda, indicating 38% were pass-by trips. On a Saturday, of the 100 vehicles travelling westbound on the A362 that turned left into Asda, 84 turned right out of Asda, indicating 16% were pass-by trips.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

6

May 2014


2.3.7

Notwithstanding this Asda evidence, it should also be recognised that Asda is not an appropriate comparison with Saxonvale as it is located on the edge of town and beyond the divergence between the A3098 and the A362. As such, it is unlikely to attract as many pass-by trips as Saxonvale. However, the ASDA data does indicate that the pass-by values put forward by the Highway Authority for use at Saxonvale are unrealistically low, not supported by evidence and inconsistent with rates applied elsewhere.

2.3.8

In considering at Appeal the pass-by rates of 70% for a foodstore application in Bath on the Lower Bristol Road, a strategic arterial route into the city centre, the Inspector concluded that advice in TRICS remains appropriate: TRICS advice, which I have no reason to conclude does not remain relevant, suggests pass-by rates of less than 50%...The impact of using a rate of 50%, which having regard to TRICS guidance appears reasonable, would give a PRC of ….

2.3.9

Callidus is of the opinion that this site is likely to attract a significant amount of pass-by traffic and that the 30% assumed in the TA is conservative.

Notwithstanding the

conclusions of this section of the report, a sensitivity test for a Saturday of a pass-by rate of 10% and 5% has been undertaken and is reported on in the chapter of this report entitled ‘Analysis’. 2.3.10 (2.9) The TA assumes 30% of trips are diverted and 30% of trips are transferred. It could be the case that a higher proportion are transferred e.g. a diverted to transferred split of 10/50.

However, this would make no difference to the amount of traffic assumed in the

report to flow through the junction of Garsdale / Portway / Christchurch St E / Vicarage St – all diverted and transferred trips have been assumed to be new to this junction, irrespective of the proportion of each. Therefore, the impacts reported in the TA will remain.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

7

May 2014


2.4 2.4.1

Consented and Permitted Use The Saxonvale site is currently mostly derelict.

We understand that there is some

manufacturing that takes place on the site but this only represents a small proportion of site’s overall operating potential. The TA did not consider this full operating potential but only considered the likely trip generation from the current site usage. Perhaps for this reason, there is no recognition in the SCC highway comments to the fact that the site has a permitted use and has a ‘pending’ planning application, that has a resolution for approval from the LPA (Mendip DC) subject to a s106 agreement. The permitted use of the site, or its use as proposed by planning application 120416/004, would generate much more traffic than the current use of the site. Consented 2.4.2

The pending planning application (ref: 120416/004) by Terramond, which was validated in 2008, was for the following development: Type 120416/004 Residential 350 units Retail non and food 5000m2 Professional A2 1000m2 Restaurant and Cafes A3 2500m2 Pub / Hotel 1000m2 Employment B1 34000m2 Education / FETE 500m2 Car Parking Spaces 477* (mostly resi.) NOTES: *includes Merchants Barton transfer of spaces

Frontier Estates 2013/1514 0 7364m2 0 880m2 1899m2 1285m2 530m2 258*

Table 2-5: Proposed land uses compared

2.4.3

The trip generation for the retail component of the Terramond application was agreed on the basis of taking the trips from the Merchants Barton car park and increasing them prorata by the additional parking spaces that would be made available for retail (120416/004 TA para. 7.4). This resulted in an additional 7 AM peak, 18 PM peak and 44 Saturday peak additional two-way vehicle trips associated with the retail element of the development.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

8

May 2014


2.4.4

Callidus is of the view that the trips rates for retail use reported in the Frontier Estates TA and in this Transport Note are proportionally significantly greater than those applied for the Terramond application. The minutes of the MDC Planning Board (4 Aug 2010) advises that the Highways Authority “did not object to the application subject to the Applicants entering into a S106 legal agreement to secure the design, construction and funding of certain highway works.” We understand therefore, as the MDC Planning Board Minutes indicate, that the HA agreed the trip rates for retail in respect of the Terramond application. On that basis it is unclear on what grounds the HA is disputing our trip rate figures. We remain confident that the figures used in our TA represent an appropriate and robust forecast of the site’s trip generation.

2.4.5

Overall, comparing the total trips forecast for the Terramond application with the (robust) forecasts of trip generation from this document, shows the following: 120416/004

This Report**

AM Peak*

164

202

PM Peak*

156

498

Saturday

133

522

NOTES: * Pending application assumes a Tuesday AM 0800-0900 and PM 1700-1800 peak, and a Saturday 1115-1215, whilst this application assumes a Friday AM 0800-0900 and PM 1600-1700 peak. ** includes discount for linked trips, 30% pass-by and 21% of 30% transferred from ASDA as pass-by (see TA Table 5-7).

Table 2-6: Trip generation compared (two-way)

2.4.6

The degree of additional highway impact of the proposed development should therefore be considered within the context of the pending development which Callidus understands the Highway Authority has approved. Permitted

2.4.7

The site’s existing permitted use is for general industry. The site is currently underused but if it were to be reused to its full potential, then Callidus estimates that up to 50% of the site could be used for general industrial floor space i.e. 12,000m2. This is about four times greater than the site operation currently and which was assumed by the TA.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

9

May 2014


2.4.8

Typically a site of this size, operating at full capacity, could generate between 60 and 100 vehicles in the peak hours. The degree of additional highway impact of the proposed development should therefore also be considered within the context of the permitted development on the site. It should be noted that the permitted development would most likely generate a significantly larger number of goods vehicle trips than the proposed development. Allocated

2.4.9

The Saxonvale site is allocated for town centre uses in the adopted Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan4. Core Policy 6 of the emerging Local Plan identifies town centre redevelopments – including the Saxonvale site – to deliver a medium scale foodstore (a purpose of which is to draw back trade from out of town larger format foodstores), up to 7000 sqm of additional retail floorspace, plus uses that “enhance the attraction of the town to visitors and as an evening destination for leisure and social activities”, and 11,500sqm of office and studio space. In partnership with the District Council, SCC has a role in supporting this growth (ref: TA para. 3.3.1 on the Somerset Future Transport Plan – Policies Schedule).

2.4.10 The Local Plan Infrastructure and Delivery Plan (October 2013) makes no reference to highway improvements in the town to support this allocation other than the remodelling of Market Place to reduce traffic impacts. 2.4.11 As a statutory consultee to the Local Plan, we would expect the Highway Authority to concur with the allocation of the site for town centre uses and, in turn, the deliverability of the Local Plan policy (Policy CP6) that expects development of the site compliant with its allocation. If it is the case of the HA that the traffic to be generated by the redevelopment of the Saxonvale site in a manner consistent with emerging Local Plan policy is unacceptable, then that puts significant risk on the deliverability of the Local Plan policy and undermines the strategic objectives of the Local Plan for development in Frome. This is not an issue that has been expressed by the HA during the preparation of the emerging Local Plan (including at the recent Local Plan EIP), nor for that matter has it been an issue historically in the application of the existing adopted Local Plan policy allocation of the site.

4

Mendip District Council Local Plan 2006-2028 – Pre-Submission Draft (November 2012)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

10

May 2014


2.4.12 This policy compliant planning application, and the additional traffic that it is forecast to generate, should be considered in this wider context.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

11

May 2014


3

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

3.1.1

There appears to be no points of contention with regard to the TA trip distribution.

3.1.2

It should be noted that the TA assumes a worst-case scenario by loading 70% of the development traffic onto Christchurch Street East and assuming much of the traffic comes through the town centre. A report5 prepared on behalf of the Town Council looks at the introduction of traffic calming measures in the Market Place with the aim of displacing traffic.

3.1.3

A study by SCC6 into the effect of the Town Council proposals concluded that ‘given the short length of road affected, this is not likely to be perceived by many drivers as a significant change in travel time’ and that ‘the alternative routes assessed are longer and at most times, slower than the town centre option’.

3.1.4

Notwithstanding this conclusion, the town centre can become congested at times when cars and buses are manoeuvring which might persuade a greater number of shoppers from the north of the town to use the alternative Rodden Road / New Road route to the site.

Callidus has carried out a sensitivity test of this effect in the chapter entitled

‘Analysis’. 3.1.5

(3.2) It can be confirmed that the only entry into the development from King Street will be for pedestrians only.

3.1.6

Revised traffic flows reflecting the change in the Friday peak hour and the trips associated with the other land uses on the site are contained in Appendix B.

5

Frome Town Centre Remodelling Feasibility Study (October 2012)

6

Frome Town Centre Traffic Management Assessment – Review of Journey Times and Potential

for Diversion SCC (July 2013)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

12

May 2014


4 4.1 4.1.1

TRAFFIC IMPACTS Traffic Growth / Committed Development (4.2 and 4.3) The extent of committed development was agreed at the TA Scoping stage and has been incorporated in the TA accordingly. TEMPRO growth rates have been included in the analysis, which account for planned growth within the current land use plan, as well as growth due to other demographic parameters.

4.1.2

(4.4) Figure 4-1 shows daily flow on Portway. It can be seen that Friday is the busiest day of the week with 969 vehicles more per day than the next busiest day, which is a Thursday. Saturday is acknowledged as being the busiest day for retail trips.

4.1.3

Figure 2-2 shows the traffic flows on Portway over a 24 hour period for a Friday and Saturday. The AM peak hour is as quoted in the TA i.e. 0800 to 0900. The PM peak hour is 1600-1700 at 974, which is slightly higher than the evening peak of 1700-1800 used in the TA at 925. Therefore, for the purposes of sensitivity testing, the analysis in this report has assumed a 1600-1700 PM peak period.

Two-Way Traffic Flow By Day - Portway 14000 12000

All Vehicles

10000 8000

6000

Two-Way

4000 2000 0 s

s

m

t

w

t

f

Days Figure 4-1: Daily traffic flows on Portway

4.2 4.2.1

Garsdale / Portway / Christchurch Street East / Vicarage Street miniroundabout (4.7) The geometry used in the capacity analysis of the junction is provided in drawing TE1122/304A and TE1122/305A in Appendix C. This includes the current geometry and the proposed geometry.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

13

May 2014


4.2.2

(4.8-4.11) Scale drawings of the junction in its current form, with the proposed minor highway improvements and with the gateway treatment of Vicarage Street were shown in Appendix B of the TA as drawings 304, 305 and 306 respectively. Drawing 306 Rev A at a larger scale has additionally been included in Appendix C of this report. The SCC comments acknowledge that all arms are brought under capacity by the proposed minor highway improvements but that ‘it is noted that delay would still be significantly increased by the development along Garsdale’ (4.10).

4.2.3

It should be noted that the reason why the delay, measured as vehicle minutes / time segment, is currently so low on Garsdale is that the Saxonvale site is virtually derelict and therefore does not generate traffic to the degree it would if it were developed. This issue will be reviewed in more detail below. An increase in delay per vehicle is to be expected if the vehicle numbers increase.

However, if the junction can accommodate these

vehicles, which is what the TA demonstrates, then it is normally the case in highway terms that this is deemed acceptable. 4.2.4

Whilst we stand by the conclusions of the TA, further analysis has been carried out as part of this report to include the trips generated by the other proposed land uses and for the period 1600-1700. This is reported on in the chapter entitled ‘Analysis’.

4.3 4.3.1

Christchurch Street West, Bath Street, Christchurch Street East, Gorehedge and Butts Hill three-part junction (4.12-4.14) Notwithstanding the comments made in the TA, traffic surveys have been undertaken subsequent to the TA submission at this junction and analysis of the traffic capacity of the junction has been undertaken. This is reported on in the chapter entitled ‘Analysis’.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

14

May 2014


5 5.1 5.1.1

ACCESSIBILITY Walking (5.1) The streets between the site and the town centre are narrow historic streets. King Street is an example of such a street (see Figure 5-1), which in this case has one-way vehicle access. The footways are narrow and parking is permitted along short sections of the street. Vehicle speeds are low.

5.1.2

Callidus is of the opinion that there is no reason why such a street environment cannot be shared equally between pedestrians and motorists in the spirit of ‘shared space’. Indeed, many of the criteria for speed and flow identified in the LTN 1/117 would seem to be met.

5.1.3

However, as shown in Figure 5-1 b), some of the positioning of the parking obstructs the pedestrian desire lines and there maybe benefits is regulating parking, especially where cars obstruct dropped kerbs.

Figure 5-1: King Street a) looking east from Market Place and b) looking west from Kingsway

5.1.4

It could be possible to enhance the sense of shared space whilst maintaining the character of the street by implementing a simple shared space scheme that maintains the visual appearance of a separate carriageway and footway but has both on a common level. An example of this can be found in Green Street in Bath as shown in Figure 5-2.

5.1.5

Green Street is a one-way historic street with shops along either side. The carriageway has been raised to the height of the footway but still remains distinctive. Improved drainage measures have been incorporated in the design.

7

Local Transport Note 1/11 ‘Shared Space’ DfT (2011)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

15

May 2014


5.1.6

The benefit of the scheme is that pedestrians feel they can share the street with cars and service vehicles safely. Maintaining the appearance of a footway is consistent with the ‘comfort zones’ identified in LTN 1/11 and provides a linear reference for the blind and partially sighted.

Figure 5-2: Green Street, Bath shared space

5.1.7

(5.2) A Riverside walk is included in the application and can be seen in the TA Appendix A layout plan produced by architects Broadway Malyan.

5.1.8

(5.3) It may well be the perception that Frome is not a safe place in which to walk and cycle. However, the accidents statistics collected by Callidus for the TA, which cover the Gorehedge, Christchurch Street East, Portway, Garsdale and Vicarage Street area, indicate that in the last five years there has been only 1 cycle and 1 pedestrian injury accident recorded. This may be because people are choosing not to walk and cycle but anecdotal evidence from walking around Frome town centre doesn’t support this conclusion.

5.1.9

The proposals for Saxonvale include improved walking routes along pedestrian desire lines, importantly connecting the land east of Garsdale to the town centre by two different routes. Furthermore, the proposal will remove a significant amount of the traffic associated with Merchants Barton car park from Vicarage Street and Saxonvale making this a more attractive route for pedestrians and cyclists.

5.1.10 Additionally, the design of the site has safeguarded a new route from Garsdale to Saxonvale, which would enable the possible closure of Vicarage Street and Kings Street to traffic in the future. This benefit has not been acknowledged by the comments from SCC.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

16

May 2014


5.1.11 (5.5) A Travel Plan (TP) was submitted as part of the planning application. Separate comments from SCC on the TP were received by Callidus on the 5th March 2014 and are reported on below. 5.2 5.2.1

Parking The SCC comments contend the number of parking spaces being provided and the compliance with the County Council’s own parking standards.

5.2.2

The proposed parking provision for the development has been identified in compliance with the NPPF8: If setting local parking standards for residential and non-residential development, local planning authorities should take into account:

5.2.3



the accessibility of the development;



the type, mix and use of development;



the availability of and opportunities for public transport;



local car ownership levels; and



an overall need to reduce the use of high-emission vehicles.

This also aligns with the objectives in the SCC parking strategy for parking provision in new developments, which include: 

Enabling well designed development that uses land efficiently and minimises nuisance to residents and neighbours;



Having maximum car parking standards and minimum standards for cycle parking for non-residential development; and

 5.2.4

Encouraging the use of more sustainable modes through parking provision.

Policy PM19 describes how the County Council will work with the District Council to review their parking activities and develop local strategies based on comprehensive evidence of parking supply and demand. Such information would be useful in determining the amount of parking necessary in Frome. However, Callidus is not aware of this work having been undertaken and it was not raised by SCC at the TA Scoping stage.

8

Promoting Sustainable Transport Para. 39 NPPF

9

Transport Policies – Parking Strategy SCC (2012 and 2013)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

17

May 2014


5.2.5

(6.2) Callidus does not accept the view of SCC that ‘the standards appear to have been misunderstood’. Rather we consider there to be a degree of incoherence in respect of SCC’s parking policy. In SCC’s response dated October 2013 to the TA Scoping Report, SCC directed Callidus to the March 2012 Parking Strategy Guidelines. Furthermore, in the response to the TP from the SCC TP Officer, the March 2012 Parking Strategy is again referred to. Neither in the technical response to the TA, nor in the covering letter, is there any mention to the fact that a more recent version of the Parking Strategy had been issued, dated September 2013.

5.2.6

The release of the Parking Strategy September 2013 appears to have been subsequent to the submission of the outline planning application and therefore the development proposals were (correctly) progressed with regard to the adopted Parking Strategy applying at that time. The Parking Strategy September 2013 contains a wording change in respect of non-residential developments, with the word ‘maximum’ replaced by the word ‘optimum’. Whilst appearing as only a subtle textual difference, this

change

has

potentially fundamental implications. 5.2.7

It quite clearly states on page 42 of the Parking Strategy March 2012 that ‘Somerset County Council has developed maximum non-residential parking standards for car parking provision to ensure that new development make efficient use of land and promote sustainable travel choices, in line with national guidance’. In the Parking Strategy September 2013, the same sentence reads as ‘optimum’.

5.2.8

However, unlike the policy reason given for using ‘optimum’ standards for residential parking (‘optimum standards are given, rather than maximum or minimum, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework’ para 3.4.2 Parking Strategy September 2013), there seems to be no comparable policy reason stated why the non-residential has been changed to ‘optimum’.

5.2.9

The change to the word ‘optimum’ in the new Parking Strategy (September 2013), brings non-residential parking in line with residential parking i.e. parking is expected to be provided no more and no less than the standard. However, Callidus is of the opinion that if the policy is applied rigidly, then the new Parking Strategy is likely to result in somewhat perverse outcomes. For example, a foodstore on the edge of a market town will have the same requirements for parking as one in the centre of the town, irrespective of whether there is other parking available, whether there is better public transport and the prospect of linking trip purposes.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

18

May 2014


5.2.10 Similarly perverse, is the Parking Strategy’s requirement for a lower level of parking for a foodstore on the edge of Taunton, Yeovil or Bridgwater, than for one in the centre of Frome. 5.2.11 It cannot be the case that these potential outcomes are reasonable or acceptable in the context of either the NPPF, or indeed to the successful delivery of the regeneration of the Saxonvale site as expected by both the adopted and emerging Local Plan. Rather, as we argue, parking provision should have regard to a number of factors including site accessibility, the nature of the proposed development, the availability and opportunity for public transport etc. In this respect, and in the absence of any clarification as to the reasoning and justification for the ‘policy’ change from ‘maximum’ to ‘optimum’, we consider ‘optimum’ in the context of the Parking Strategy can only be applicable, and should be assessed, in the context of the particular circumstances of the site, the proposed development and the policy objectives for the site. These factors are examined in the TA and subsequently in this supplementary Technical Note. 5.2.12 (6.3) It is not the case that demand for parking will outstrip the proposed parking supply. Figure 5-3 shows the demand for parking based on the trips generated by all the land uses on the site, including that assumption that the Hotel can use the car park for overnight parking.

Also shown is the parking supply excluding the 69 spaces that will act as

replacements for the Merchants Barton car park. The figure shows that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the demand for parking.

Parking supply against demand (Saturday)

200

Parking Spaces

150

100 Demand Supply

50

0 1 -50

3

5

7

9

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Hours

Figure 5-3: Parking supply against demand (Saturday)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

19

May 2014


5.2.13 (6.5) It is not proposed to provide staff car parking. Figure 3.2 ‘Provision of Long and Short Stay Parking in Somerset Towns’ of SCC’s Parking Strategy based on 2010 data, suggests that Frome has an abundance of Long Stay parking but less short stay parking than Glastonbury, Street or Wells. Conversion of long stay parking to short stay parking to encourage shoppers and discourage commuters is consistent with the approach of the SCC Parking Policy in respect of Market Towns whereas providing more long stay parking is not. 5.2.14 The TA for the Terramond planning application (ref: 120416/004 dated 2008 that has a resolution for approval subject to a s.106) reports that it was agreed with highway officers that traffic is not likely to increase on a pro-rata basis for proposed increases in retail and commercial floor area in the town centre. Therefore, in that case it was accepted that an additional 22 parking spaces to reflect the additional 5,000m2 of additional mixed use retail development was acceptable (I space per 227m2). Applying this methodology consistently to the additional 189 proposed by this application (for 7364m2 of mixed use retail GFA) indicates a ratio of 1 space per 39m2, and which therefore should be acceptable. 5.3 5.3.1

Overall accessibility There should be no disputing the fact that the site is in a sustainable location being located as it is on the edge of Frome town centre. This fact is not recognised by either the comments on the TA or the comments on the TP.

5.3.2

The Local Plan section ‘The Garsdale Area’ states that the ‘juxtaposition of the existing town centre use, the new retail floorspace, employment creating development and housing will provide the opportunity for linked trips and to minimise car use’.

5.3.3

Furthermore, the principle of development in this location is supported by paragraph 23 of the NPPF which states that Local Planning Authorities should allocate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre and where viable town centre sites are not available.

5.3.4

The benefits of the town centre location for food shopping over the alternative foodstores in Frome is demonstrated in Table 5-1. This shows the potential annual travel mileage savings assuming every Frome resident shops either at Sainsbury, Asda or the town centre. Compared to everyone shopping at Asda, the town centre option would save 2.4 million miles of travel (one-way) annually. Compared to everyone shopping at Sainsbury, the town centre would save 2.7 million miles of travel (one-way) annually.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

20

May 2014


A - Frome College B - Frome Berkeley Down C - Frome Keyford D - Frome Park E - Frome Oakford F - Frome Market

h'holds 2001 1707

PST/Year 869835 742033

2074 2061 1223 2132

901568 895917 531638 926780

Distance (miles) Asda Sains Town 1.4 1.8 0.7 0.9 2.2 1.1 1 1.8 1.7 1.6

Annual Person Miles (one-way) Asda Sains Town 1217769 1565702 608884 667830 1632472 816236

1.2 0.8 1.3 1.5

0.6 901568 1081881 540941 1.1 1612650 716733 985508 1.1 903785 691130 584802 0.9 1482849 1390171 834102 Total 6786449 7078090 4370474 NOTES: PST is person shopping trips. Persons per h’hold is based on 2.3 (ONS 2011). It is assumed that each person makes 189 shopping trips per year (NTS 2012) Table 5-1: Relative distances to shopping locations from Frome Wards

5.3.5

These travel distance savings show that, by looking beyond the impacts on the local road network immediately around the site, the impacts on the wider Frome transport network can be considered to be significantly beneficial. These benefits are not recognised by the SCC comments on the TA or TP.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

21

May 2014


6 6.1 6.1.1

TRAVEL PLAN Introduction Comments received on the Travel Plan from SCC dated 5th March 2014. SCC state that the Travel Plan has been reviewed against the SCC Travel Plan Standards (TVS) contained with Somerset County Council’s Travel Planning Guidance. Callidus is of the opinion that the TP should also be considered in the context of the NPPF and its accompanying guidance as set out in the previous chapter.

6.1.2

As a general response to the SCC’s TP comments, Callidus wishes to highlight the fact that the planning application for Saxonvale is an outline application, with all matters reserved, with the exception of the point of access. Furthermore, no operators have yet been determined for the site. This means that many of the detailed design requirements set out in SCC’s TP comments cannot be determined at this stage of the planning process e.g. location of cycle parking, information points, customer travel options leaflet, benches, salary sacrifice schemes etc. Callidus is of the view that whilst there is a commitment to such measures in the TP that accompanied the planning application, the details can be more effectively dealt with as part of any reserved matters applications or as planning conditions.

6.2 6.2.1

Preparation, Registration and Travel Plan Fee (2.4) SCC’s comments set out a requirement for the TP to demonstrate that the additional trips generated by the development as set out in the TA will be offset by a reduction in single-occupancy-vehicle (SOV) use and an increase in sustainable modes. It is unclear as to what is meant by ‘additional trips’.

6.2.2

If this refers to all the trips that are generated at the access to the development, then in Callidus’s opinion, this seems an unreasonable expectation. We are not aware of such a requirement for any other development. Furthermore, this requirement seems to be contrary to the TP guidance in the NPPF which states that: They (TPs) should not be used as an excuse for unfairly penalising drivers and cutting provision for cars in a way that is unsustainable and could have negative impacts on the surrounding streets. (para. 003)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

22

May 2014


6.2.3

An alternative, and possibly more acceptable requirement, would be to recognise that the only additional trips generated by the development in Frome as a whole are those trips classified as ‘new’ trips (see table 5-7 in the TA). Based on TRICS Research Paper 95/2, these are only likely to be at most 10% of all the trips. It is likely that the connectivity improvements proposed by the development along with the off-site highway works will provide a wider benefit for sustainable modes e.g. the connection to the Garston Road new development.

However, it will be virtually impossible to quantify these wider

benefits. 6.2.4

(2.5) The applicant has no objection to registering and uploading the TP. However, as is mentioned above, the stage that the development is at in the planning process means that many of the requirements set out in the SCC comments cannot be provided at this time. On this basis, it would seem unreasonable to withhold planning consent on the basis that the TP isn’t approved because it hasn’t been uploaded to the iOnTravel system.

6.2.5

Having reviewed briefly the iOnTravel website, it seems that the system is set up for TPs ranging from ‘In preparation’ to ‘Approval’ and ‘Operational’. Callidus questions whether ‘Approval’ on the iOnTravel system should be considered the same as approval in planning terms. Therefore, (2.6) it would seem reasonable, for the purposes of providing ‘planning’ approval of a TP for an outline planning application, to condition its progress through the iOnTravel system approvals process. In Callidus’s opinion, the iOnTravel system’s approval process should not be used as a reason to withhold planning consent.

6.2.6

(2.7-2.8) The SCC TP fee could be a condition of the planning consent. It is understood that it is required prior to commencement of development, although it would appear more appropriate (assuming it can be justified as necessary) to require it prior to occupation rather than commencement.

However, the applicant would like to

understand what the TP fee will pay for before agreeing to it.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

23

May 2014


6.3

Site Audit

6.3.1

(3.1-3.7)

The

comments

about

accessibility

by

different

modes

makes

no

acknowledgement of the fact that the site is on the edge of the town centre (as currently defined), is allocated for town centre development and will be, functionally, part of the town centre once developed. Therefore, unlike the other major foodstores in Frome, this site benefits from being at the focal point of Frome in terms of shopping, the transport network, employment, leisure, tourism etc. To suggest therefore that public transport is inadequate and the narrow streets are a problem for pedestrians, must therefore be viewed as a comment on the town centre as a whole and as such seems somewhat surprising. 6.3.2

The topography of the town will deter many from cycling, and clearly there is not much that can be done by this application about it. However, charging points for cars in the car parks, and other charging point(s) for electric bikes and scooters can potentially be accommodated within the development, and will be examined as part of the reserved matters detailed design work to be taken forward pursuant to the outline permission.

6.3.3

(3.8) Callidus has reviewed the SCC requirements for a site audit from the ‘Moving Somerset Forward’ website. The requirements appear to be very similar to those often referred to as a PERS (Pedestrian/cycle Environment Review System) audit developed by the Transport Research Laboratory and Transport for London.

6.3.4

The level of detail required by these audits does not in our opinion inform the planning decision making process although the audits can be a valuable tool in determining infrastructure requirements e.g. lighting, dropped kerbs, signing etc.

Indeed, in our

experience, the bewildering amount of detail that is generated from these audits can sometimes detract from making sound professional judgments. We are not currently aware of any justification in this case, to require such an audit, and whilst Callidus has undertaken similar reviews elsewhere, it has done so normally to satisfy a

planning

condition. 6.3.5

(3.9-3.12) Additional details in addition to those in the TA and TP about the walking, cycling and the public transport network can be provided as part of the Travel Plan for uploading to the iOnTravel system.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

24

May 2014


6.3.6

Other comments about road safety and accessibility are made in section 5 of this report. It should also be noted that there is information about the connectivity of the site to the town centre in the Design and Access Statement that accompanied the planning application.

6.4 6.4.1

Action Plan The point about provision for motorcycles is acknowledged. As part of the detailed design work, pursuant to the outline permission, we anticipate that the layout of the car park will consider different users, different modes and ancillary infrastructure e.g. charging points, covered cycle parking etc.

6.4.2

(4.2-4.10) Similarly, for the design of the travel information point, customer leaflet, welcomes packs etc, these will be prepared at later stages, pursuant to the outline permission being granted. The applicant would be happy to enter into a commitment to provide reasonable measures as part of any planning condition. However, all measures need to be specific to the site and some of the measures listed in the comments that might impact company working practices e.g. flexible working, can only be negotiated once operators/employers are identified.

6.4.3

(4.10-412) A table following the format of SCC TP guidance can be produced at a later stage and once more detail is known about the occupiers and the detailed layout of the site. This also applies to the role and responsibilities of the Travel Plan Coordinator and the Travel Plan Steering Group.

6.4.4

(4.13-4.16) These points can be conditioned and informed once more is known about the detailed design of the site and occupiers.

6.4.5

(4.17-4.18) Area-wide travel plan initiatives are supported and it is recognised that there is value in joint working with neighbouring businesses, the Town Council, town centre Manager, Highway Authority etc. However, it is too early in the planning process to consider such initiatives, or review the opportunity / advantages of bringing prospective partners together.

6.4.6

(4.19) The TVS9 paragraph states that ‘outline applications must include detailed design principles relating to how the TP physical measures will be brought forward at the design stage’. The Design and Access Statement deals with these matters under the sections entitled ‘Proposals’ and ‘Access’.

6.4.7

(4.21-4.22) We consider this inappropriate at outline planning application stage.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

25

May 2014


6.4.8 6.5 6.5.1

(4.23-4.26) Parking issues are discussed in section 5.2 of this report on Parking. Setting Targets and Monitoring Travel Plan Adopting SCC’s survey format should be acceptable although it may need adjustment. For example some of the confidential questions may be viewed as intrusive by some operators, and the surveys don’t appear to apply to shoppers / customers. Implementing an Automatic Traffic Counter should be acceptable.

6.5.2

In terms of setting targets ‘now’ (5.8) and the approach to target setting (5.2-5.9), Callidus finds this unacceptable at this stage for the following reasons: i.

The trip generation from the proposed development is a forecast and takes assumptions from the activities of other competing foodstores in Frome and the existing road network. Should there be a change in any of these factors, which are beyond the control of the development, then this could negatively impact on the targets.

ii.

With regard to the requirement under paragraph 2.4 of SCC’s TP as explained above, any targets reflecting this requirement would be in our view unreasonable.

iii.

SCC considers the amount of parking proposed for the development to be a ‘huge issue’ and require an additional 180 spaces, a 53% increase. The TRICS Research report 05/110 concludes that ‘a generous supply of parking at multi-use developments was shown on average to generate an additional 25% more car trips’. Therefore, complying with SCC’s parking requirements is likely to undermine any targets that are set resulting in the development foregoing its Safeguarding Bond (6.4)

6.5.3

A further concern with setting targets as set out in the TP comments, is that they may run counter to SCC’s Parking Strategy. Policy ‘PM3: Management of Publicly Owned Car Parks Policy’ seeks to encourage short stay parking for shoppers over long stay parking for commuters. It acknowledges under PM3.1 that the policy to restrict length of stay encourages a higher turnover of spaces which allows more users to be accommodated per space. It states that this normally increases revenue due to ‘churn’.

10

Trip Attraction Rates of Development with Multiple Retail and Leisure Uses TRICS (2006)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

26

May 2014


6.5.4

Whilst the proposed car park will be privately owned, it will be part of the town centre parking stock and will be priced in accordance with other town centre car parks. SCC has stated that they want to see more parking, and the Planning Brief for the site specifies at least 296 parking spaces for the site. Therefore, whilst on the one hand the SCC TP comments are requiring the TP to reduce the number of car borne shoppers to the town, on the other, there are Council policies which will be trying to encourage more - so as to increase parking revenue but more positively, to encourage the growth of the town centre itself.

6.5.5

Callidus is of the view that, set against this apparent policy contradiction, targets aimed at transporting more people to the town by bus, walking and cycling remain a sensible and positive approach. This is the approach taken by the TP, which puts forward provisional targets for each of the above modes.

6.5.6

For the reasons given above, the requirement for a non-redeemable Safeguarding Sum of £170,980 in the event that the TP fails to meet its targets is unreasonable. However, it is accepted that the TP is likely to require securing by way of condition or, if appropriate, a s.106 Agreement.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

27

May 2014


7 7.1 7.1.1

ANALYSIS Introduction The mini-roundabout junction of Gardale / Portway / Christchurch Street East / Vicarage Street and the three part junction (two priority junctions and a mini-roundabout) of Christchurch Street East and West, Bath Street, Gorehedge and Wesley Slope have been tested for the year 2015 and 2025 with and without development. Growth rates as set out in the TA have been applied to base traffic. See Appendix D for modelling outputs.

7.1.2

The tables report the capacity for the worst 15 minute segment in the peak hour periods taken as AM 0800-0900 and PM 1600-1700 on a Friday and 1100-1200 on a Saturday.

7.2 7.2.1

Garsdale / Portway / Christchurch St E / Vicarage St Mini-Roundabout The results of testing the junction based on its current layout (see drawing TE1122/304A in Appendix C) are shown in Table 7-1. This shows that arm C of the junction nears an RFC of 100% in the PM and just exceeds 100% on a Saturday after the development traffic is added. 2015 Base RFC

2015 Base + Development

End Q

Delay (veh.min / segment)*

RFC

End Q


AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) A

0.203

0.3

3.8

0.333

0.5

7.4

B

0.417

0.7

10.6

0.449

0.8

12.1

C

0.634

1.7

25.3

0.732

2.6

38.9

D

0.191

0.2

3.5

0.227

0.3

4.4

PM Peak Hour (1600-1700) A

0.407

0.7

10.0

0.961

10.8

142.2

B

0.565

1.3

19.2

0.675

2.0

30.1

C

0.749

2.9

42.2

0.999

17.6

227.7

D

0.513

1.0

15.4

0.590

1.4

20.2

A

0.427

0.7

10.9

0.939

9.4

127.1

B

0.591

1.4

21.3

0.719

2.5

36.6

C

0.754

2.9

43.1

1.060

29.0

355.3

0.515

1.0

15.5

0.608

1.5

21.8

SAT (1100-1200)

D

Table 7-1: 2015 Base and Base + Development Notes:

Arm A: Garsdale Arm B: Portway Arm C: Christchurch Street East Arm D: Vicarage Street

7.2.2

Highway improvements as proposed in the TA are shown in Drawing TE1122/305A in Appendix C. Following these improvements, the junction will operate as shown in Table 7-2.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

28

May 2014


7.2.3

It can be seen from this table that the junction will operate within capacity on all arms of the mini-roundabout after the development traffic is added. 2015 Base + Development (Do Something) Delay RFC End Q (veh.min / segment)* AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) A

0.333

0.5

7.4

B

0.449

0.8

12.1

C

0.601

1.5

22.1

D

0.228

0.3

4.4


0.976

12.3

162.0

B

0.674

2.0

30.0

C

0.815

4.1

60.3

D

0.606

1.5

21.7

A

0.962

11.4

151.5

B

0.718

2.5

36.4

C

0.856

5.3

76.9

D

0.643

1.7

25.1

SAT (1100-1200)

Table 7-2: 2015 Base + Development Do Something

7.2.4

Table 7-3 shows how the junction will operate in 2025. Both arm A and C exceed an RFC of 100% when the development traffic is added. 2025 Base RFC

End Q

2025 Base + Development Delay (veh.min / segment)*

RFC

End Q



0.238

0.3

4.6

0.375

0.6

8.9

B

0.464

0.9

12.9

0.497

1.0

14.6

C

0.707

2.3

34.8

0.811

4.0

58.2

D

0.222

0.3

4.2

0.265

0.4

5.3


0.533

1.1

16.3

1.085

28.3

339.9

B

0.650

1.8

27.2

0.760

3.0

44.9

C

0.864

5.6

80.6

1.127

49.1

583.0

D

0.630

1.6

24.2

0.705

2.2

32.5

A

0.520

1.1

15.7

1.031

20.8

259.9

B

0.661

1.9

28.4

0.802

3.8

55.9

C

0.848

5.0

72.2

1.183

62.3

731.0

0.605

1.5

22.0

0.693

2.1

31.2

SAT (1100-1200)

D

Table 7-3: 2025 Base + Development

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

29

May 2014


7.2.5

Table 7-4 shows how the junction will operate following the implementation of the highway improvements. It can be seen that arm C will operate at under an RFC of 100% for all periods. Arm A will exceed capacity in the PM peak and on a Saturday. 2025 Base + Development (Do Something) Delay RFC End Q (veh.min / segment)* AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) A

0.376

0.6

8.9

B

0.497

1.0

14.6

C

0.665

1.9

28.9

D

0.265

0.4

5.3


1.165

41.2

477.5

B

0.753

2.9

43.5

C

0.917

8.6

120.9

D

0.791

3.3

46.4

A

1.100

32.0

378.7

B

0.795

3.7

54.0

C

0.953

11.6

158.6

D

0.797

3.4

47.6

SAT (1100-1200)


7.2.6

Whilst it is not ideal to have traffic queuing on an arm of the junction, the queue will only impact on the traffic that is departing from Garsdale. The improvements proposed to arm C of the junction have improved the flow of traffic on the A362 at the expense of the departing development traffic. Effectively, the growth in base traffic to 2025 is resulting in it becoming more difficult for the development traffic to leave Gardale but general traffic on the A362 is not negatively impacted.

7.2.7

However, taken in context, this queue occurs in the busiest 15 minute period of the busiest periods of the week taking into account 11 years of traffic growth. No allowance has been made for Travel Plan measures in managing the traffic demand.

7.3 7.3.1

Three part junction The three part junction has been modelled as its current layout and then as a proposed new layout that is aimed at accommodating the forecast traffic growth, the development traffic and providing improved pedestrian facilities. The improved layout is described in more detail below.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

30

May 2014


Proposed highway improvement 7.3.2

As will be shown below, the three part junction is heavily trafficked effectively being at the cross-roads of the north-south route (B3090) and the east-west route (A362). The existing eastern approach on the A362 forms a minor road approach to the B3090 at the priority junction of Gorehedge and Wesley Slope.

Additional traffic from the

development will be added to this approach which is already near to the limit of its capacity (99.9% in 2015 without development). 7.3.3

Callidus has identified a highway improvement scheme (see drawing TE1122/307 in Appendix C) that consists of the following: 

Conversion of the Wesley Slope / Christchurch Street East junction from a priority junction to a mini-roundabout. This creates a double mini-roundabout arrangement with the junction of Bath Street / Wesley Slope and Christchurch Street West. This is a conventional layout design in accordance with TD54/0711.



Changing the Christchurch Street East arm of the junction from one-way eastbound to two-way.



Changing Gorehedge from one-way westbound to two-way.



Increasing the approach road lane length on Wesley Slope for the Wesley Slope to Frome town centre movement.

 7.3.4

Provision of improved pedestrian crossing facilities and footways.

The benefits of the proposed scheme can be summarised as follows: 

Enhanced capacity for traffic arriving at the junction from the east;



Improved pedestrian crossing facilities including new pedestrian refuges on Wesley Slope (in line with Wesley Methodist Church), Christchurch Street East and Gorehedge;



Increased capacity for traffic from Wesley Slope to Bath Street by increasing the approach road length from 20m to 28m;



Reducing the traffic on Gorehedge and narrowing the width of the road at the junction with Wesley Slope as an environmental enhancement and for improved pedestrian connectivity; and



Widening the footway on the south side of Christchurch Street East at its junction with Wesley Slope.

11

DMRB Volume 6 Section 2 Part 2 TD 54/07 (DfT)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

31

May 2014


7.3.5

The results of capacity testing the three part junction as its current layout and as the proposed improved layout are described below (the modelling measurements are shown in drawing TE1122/308 in Appendix C). Gorehedge / Wesley Slope Priority Junction (existing layout)

7.3.6

Testing this junction12 (see Table 7-5) shows that in the base situation, without development, the right turning traffic movement (B-A) from Gorehedge to Wesley Slope is virtually at capacity (an RFC of 0.999 and 0.936 on a Friday PM and Saturday respectively). When the development traffic is added, this movement exceeds capacity for both a Friday PM and a Saturday. 2015 Base RFC


End Q


RFC

End Q


AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) B-A

0.772

3.10

45.3

0.820

4.02

58.1

B-C

0.206

0.26

3.9

0.235

0.31

4.6

C-B

0.000

0.00

0.0

0.000

0.00

0.0

PM Peak Hour (1600-1700) B-A

0.999

13.67

177.2

1.139

35.86

426.9

B-C

0.471

0.88

13.1

0.551

1.20

17.9

C-B

0.000

0.00

0.0

0.000

0.00

0.0

B-A

0.936

8.52

116.5

1.068

23.79

292.2

B-C

0.362

0.56

8.4

0.432

0.75

11.2

0.000

0.00

0.0

0.000

0.00

0.0

SAT (1100-1200)

C-B

Table 7-5: 2015 Base and Base + Development

Notes: Arm B-A: Gorehedge right turn to Wesley Slope Arm B-C: Gorehedge right turn to Wesley Slope Arm C-B: Wesley Slope right turn to Gorehedge 7.3.7

12

Table 7-6 shows the results of testing the junction with highway improvements.

Adjustments were made to the intercept parameter for this junction to ensure that the surveyed

base traffic did not exceed 100% of the capacity of the junction. This is an accepted validation method.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

32

May 2014


2015 Base + Development (Do Something) Delay RFC End Q (veh.min / segment)* AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) B-A

0.000

0.00

0.0

B-C

0.193

0.24

3.6

C-B

0.263

0.35

5.3


0.000

0.00

0.0

B-C

0.439

0.77

11.6

C-B

0.301

0.43

6.4

B-A

0.000

0.00

0.0

B-C

0.345

0.52

7.8

C-B

0.347

0.52

7.9

SAT (1100-1200)


7.3.8

Table 7-6 shows that, following the junction improvements, all arms of the junction will operate satisfactorily in 2015 with the development traffic.

7.3.9

As shown in the tables below, the same can be concluded for 2025. 2025 Base RFC


End Q


RFC

End Q


AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) B-A

0.922

7.48

103.0

0.969

10.59

140.8

B-C

0.245

0.32

4.8

0.273

0.37

5.6

C-B

0.000

0.00

0.0

0.000

0.00

0.0


1.263

53.02

620.1

1.412

86.49

1012.6

B-C

0.556

1.23

18.3

0.637

1.71

25.3

C-B

0.000

0.00

0.0

0.000

0.00

0.0

B-A

1.114

28.93

347.8

1.277

60.95

713.1

B-C

0.410

0.69

10.3

0.487

0.94

14.0

C-B

0.000

0.00

0.0

0.000

0.00

0.0

SAT (1100-1200)


Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

33

May 2014



0.000

0.00

0.0

B-C

0.218

0.28

4.1

C-B

0.294

0.41

6.2


0.000

0.00

0.0

B-C

0.508

1.02

15.2

C-B

0.341

0.51

7.7

B-A

0.000

0.00

0.0

B-C

0.388

0.63

9.4

C-B

0.387

0.63

9.4

SAT (1100-1200)


Wesley Slope / Christchurch St E Priority Junction (existing layout) 7.3.10 The tables below show that this junction would operate satisfactorily with and without development in 2015 and 2025.

However, it is proposed that this junction will be

converted to a mini-roundabout as part of the proposed highway improvements to the Three Part junction.

The results of this are reported on under ‘Wesley Slope /

Christchurch St E mini-roundabout (proposed)’ below. 2015 Base


End Q


RFC

End Q


-

-

-

-

-

-

0.264

0.36

5.3

0.319

0.46

6.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.264

0.36

5.3

0.392

0.64

9.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.304

0.43

6.5

0.451

0.81

12.1

RFC AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) B-AC C-B

PM Peak Hour (1600-1700) B-AC C-B SAT (1100-1200) B-AC C-B


Notes: Arm C-B: Wesley Slope right turn to Christchurch St East

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

34

May 2014


2025 Base


End Q


RFC

End Q


-

-

-

-

-

-

0.307

0.44

6.6

0.365

0.57

8.5

RFC AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) B-AC C-B

PM Peak Hour (1600-1700) B-AC C-B

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.328

0.48

7.2

0.464

0.85

12.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.357

0.55

8.2

0.522

1.07

15.9

SAT (1100-1200) B-AC C-B


Bath Street / Wesley Slope / Christchurch St W Mini -Roundabout 7.3.11 The results of testing this existing mini-roundabout are set out below. 7.3.12 Table 7-11 shows that the junction is heavily trafficked at all of the periods being modelled. Arms A and B in particular are at or nearing 90% of their capacity. However, with the addition of the development traffic, arms B and C remain at under 100% of their capacity for all modelled periods. Arm A operates at 104%, which results in the queue on this arm increasing by 10 vehicles. 2015 Base RFC


End Q


RFC

End Q



0.787

3.5

51.0

0.802

3.8

55.3

B

0.886

6.8

98.8

0.901

7.8

111.6

C

0.791

3.6

52.6

0.795

3.7

53.8


0.979

14.3

187.8

1.040

24.5

301.4

B

0.901

7.7

110.4

0.954

13.1

179.7

C

0.880

6.4

92.3

0.898

7.3

104.4

A

0.884

6.4

91.2

0.951

11.0

149.1

B

0.904

8.0

114.4

0.946

12.1

167.3

0.833

4.6

66.8

0.863

5.6

80.9

SAT (1100-1200)

C


Notes: Arm A: Bath Street Arm B: Wesley Slope Arm C: Christchurch Street West

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

35

May 2014


7.3.13 By 2025, the addition of traffic growth means that the junction will operate on all arms at over 100% in the PM peak and on arms A and B at over 100% on a Saturday, irrespective of whether development traffic is added. 2025 Base RFC


End Q


RFC

End Q



0.905

7.4

104.5

0.925

8.7

120.6

B

0.991

19.8

259.1

1.008

24.3

310.7

C

0.899

7.3

103.5

0.902

7.5

105.9


1.168

59.9

695.9

1.231

76.8

888.8

B

1.025

30.7

384.2

1.075

52.2

625.8

C

1.027

27.1

337.3

1.037

30.2

372.8

A

1.018

21.0

263.7

1.111

42.7

501.5

B

1.008

24.9

317.1

1.056

43.8

530.8

C

0.944

10.9

149.7

0.984

16.6

217.8

SAT (1100-1200)


7.3.14 Due to the historic character and the constrained physical dimensions of the streets, it is unlikely that highway improvements to Bath Street of Christchurch Street West can be made without significant environmental impact. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to manage traffic demand and promote sustainable modes of transport. This can be achieved by discouraging through traffic that doesn’t have a destination in the town and displacing it to more appropriate routes. For trips that do have a destination in the town, these should be encouraged to take place outside of the peak periods and / or by sustainable modes of transport. Wesley Slope / Christchurch St E Mini -Roundabout (Proposed) 7.3.15 The results of testing the proposed new mini-roundabout with the development traffic is shown in the tables below. 7.3.16 It can be seen from Table 7-13 that the junction will operate within capacity for all periods modelled with the addition of the development traffic. This shows that the traffic which was formerly right turning from Gorehedge to Wesley Slope (Table 7-5) has been successfully accommodated by the proposed junction.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

36

May 2014


7.3.17 Whilst it is shown that some queuing is occurring on arm A, which is the short link between the two-mini-roundabouts, this traffic does not have to give-way to any conflicting movements on the mini-roundabout.

It therefore only reflects the delay

caused by the geometry of the junction and will be continually dissipating. Yellow box keep clear markings could be used if any queuing occurs across the junction. 2015 Base + Development (Do Something) Delay RFC End Q (veh.min / segment)* AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) A

0.728

2.6

38.9

B

0.449

0.8

12.1

C

0.577

1.3

20.1


0.893

7.3

105.9

B

0.650

1.8

26.8

C

0.559

1.3

18.7

A

0.835

4.8

70.3

B

0.590

1.4

21.1

C

0.564

1.3

19.1

SAT (1100-1200)


Notes: Arm A: Wesley Slope southbound Arm B: Christchurch St East Arm C: Wesley Slope northbound 7.3.18 Table 7-14 shows the situation in 2025. The growth in base traffic adds pressure to arm A such that it operates at 101% of capacity in the PM peak. Arm A for all other modelled periods operates satisfactorily. As stated above, this traffic does not have to give-way to any conflicting traffic movements and will therefore continuously disperse. 7.3.19 In fact the traffic feeding into this arm of the junction from Bath Street and from Christchurch Street West is unlikely to do so at a rate greater than the rate at which it will dissipate from this arm of the junction. Therefore, the results shown in the table below for this arm are likely to be an overestimate of the impacts. 7.3.20 The other arms of the junction remain within capacity.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

37

May 2014


2025 Base + Development (Do Something) Delay RFC End Q (veh.min / segment)* AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) A

0.805

3.9

58.4

B

0.515

1.0

15.6

C

0.658

1.9

28.1


1.009

26.1

334.7

B

0.767

3.1

45.3

C

0.672

2.0

29.7

A

0.932

10.6

150.0

B

0.683

2.1

30.9

C

0.664

1.9

28.8

SAT (1100-1200)


Gorehedge / Christchurch St E Priority Junction (Proposed) 7.3.21 The results of testing this newly formed priority junction are shown in the tables below. 7.3.22 It can be seen from the tables that the junction will continue to perform within capacity in both 2015 and 2025, with and without development. 2015 Base + Development (Do Something) Delay RFC End Q (veh.min / segment)* AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) B-A

0.351

0.54

8.0

B-C

0.000

0.00

0.0

C-AB

0.000

0.00

0.0


0.465

0.85

12.7

B-C

0.000

0.00

0.0

C-AB

0.000

0.00

0.0

B-A

0.544

1.16

17.3

B-C

0.000

0.00

0.0

C-AB

0.000

0.00

0.0

SAT (1100-1200)


Notes: Arm A: Christchurch St East westbound Arm B: Gorehedge Arm C: Christchurch Street East eastbound

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

38

May 2014



0.399

0.65

9.8

B-C

0.000

0.00

0.0

C-AB

0.000

0.00

0.0


0.549

1.18

17.5

B-C

0.000

0.00

0.0

C-AB

0.000

0.00

0.0

B-A

0.630

1.63

24.2

B-C

0.000

0.00

0.0

C-AB

0.000

0.00

0.0

SAT (1100-1200)


7.4 7.4.1

Sensitivity Testing The following sensitivity tests have been undertaken on the improved mini-roundabout junction of Garsdale / Portway / Christchurch St E / Vicarage Street: i.

Assuming 30% pass-by trips on a Saturday are instead 10% or 5%.

ii.

Assuming that the 30/70 east/west directional split of traffic to and from the site on Portway and Christchurch Street East is split 50/50.

7.4.2

For the sensitivity tests it is assumed that the improvements to the junction have been carried out. 10% pass-by

7.4.3

The results in Table 7-17 shows that the junction can accommodate a 10% pass-by rate in 2015. In 2025, arm A will be over capacity with a queue increasing from 32 vehicles (based on 30% pass-by in Table 7-4) to 36 in the table below. All other arms operate satisfactorily. 2015 Base + Development 10%

2025 Base + Development 10%

RFC

End Q


RFC

End Q


A

0.990

14.3

184.0

1.121

35.9

420.9

B

0.738

2.7

40.0

0.816

4.1

60.7

C

0.898

7.3

103.3

0.984

16.2

212.7

D

0.664

1.9

27.1

0.808

3.6

50.0

SAT (1100-1200)

Table 7-17: 10% Pass-by sensitivity test

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

39

May 2014


Notes: Arm A: Garsdale Arm B: Portway Arm C: Christchurch Street East Arm D: Vicarage Street 5% Pass-by 7.4.4

The results in Table 7-18 show that the junction can accommodate a 5% pass-by rate in 2015. In 2025, arm A will be over capacity with a queue increasing from 32 vehicles (based on 30% pass-by in Table 7-4) to 38 in the table below. The Christchurch Street East arm of the junction will reach 100% capacity with a queue of 20 vehicles. 2015 Base + Development 5%

2025 Base + Development 5%

RFC

End Q


RFC

End Q


A

0.997

15.0

192.8

1.133

38.1

445.2

B

0.743

2.8

41.0

0.819

4.2

61.8

C

0.906

7.8

111.0

1.004

19.6

252.8

D

0.669

1.9

27.6

0.817

3.7

52.0

SAT (1100-1200)

Table 7-18: 5% Pass-by sensitivity test

7.4.5

As expected, the results of sensitivity testing the lower rates of pass-by trips show a worsening of the operation of the improved junction compared to the assumed 30% passby rate used in the TA. However, for the reasons explained in section 2.3 of this report, these lower pass-by rates are not considered to be realistic for this site. 50/50 Distrbution

7.4.6

Table 7-19 shows that redistributing the traffic 50% to the east and 50% to the west will make very little difference to the result from the 30/70 split.

In 2015 with the

development, all arms of the junction will operate satisfactorily.

In 2025 with

development, arm A of the junction will operate over capacity and therefore the same views as expressed for Table 7-4 remain.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

40

May 2014


2015 Base + Development 50/50 RFC

2025 Base + Development 50/50

End Q


RFC

End Q



0.974

12.2

160.3

1.167

41.5

481.8

B

0.701

2.3

33.7

0.783

3.4

50.7

C

0.792

3.6

52.9

0.896

7.3

103.4

D

0.606

1.5

21.8

0.796

3.4

47.6

A

0.959

11.1

147.9

1.096

31.7

375.5

B

0.749

2.9

42.4

0.826

4.4

64.5

C

0.825

4.3

63.4

0.924

8.9

123.8

D

0.641

1.7

25.0

0.798

3.4

48.1

SAT (1100-1200)

Table 7-19: 50/50 trip distribution

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

41

May 2014


8 8.1 8.1.1

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS Summary This Transport Note has been prepared to address the comments made by SCC on the TA and TP submitted in support of the planning application by Frontier Estates Ltd for the redevelopment of the Saxonvale site in Frome.

8.1.2

The main points covered by the Transport Note can be summarised as follows: i.

The trip generation figures used in the original TA represent a robust analysis and have been supplemented in this report with additional analysis of the other land use elements on the site and sensitivity testing.

ii.

The number of parking spaces proposed for the site represents an appropriate parking provision that balances the demand for shoppers and visitors with not encouraging additional car based trips.

iii.

The impact of the trips generated by this proposed development should be considered in the context of the trips that could be generated by the permitted use of the site and also the trips generated by the Terramond consented (subject to s.106) planning application.

iv.

The proposed development is consistent with the Local Plan allocation for the site, which the Highway Authority would have been a statutory consultee. Therefore, it is presumed that the Highway Authority find the quantum of development identified by the Local Plan as acceptable in terms of its impact on the transport network.

v.

The transport sustainability of the site should be unquestionable as its location is on the edge Frome Town Centre which is the focus for public transport and the road network.

vi.

A robust TP has been prepared for the site that will act as the framework from which detailed TP measures and initiatives will be developed as part of subsequent reserved matters planning applications pursuant to outline planning permission being granted.

vii.

An analysis of the Garsdale / Portway / Christchurch Street East / Vicarage Street mini-roundabout has shown that, with the improvements proposed to the junction that are described in the TA, the junction can accommodate the development traffic in the year 2015. The improvements ensure that by 2025, forecast queuing on Christchurch Street East will be resolved. The only queuing that is forecast to take place will be on the Garsdale arm of the

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

42

May 2014


junction during the Friday PM peak hour and on a Saturday between 1100 and 1200. This queue will not affect general traffic on the A362. viii.

An analysis of the ‘three part junction’ has shown that the Bath Street / Wesley Slope / Christchurch Street West mini-roundabout is heavily trafficked. In 2015, the addition of the development traffic will increase the queue on the Bath Street arm of the junction by 10 vehicles in the Friday PM peak hour only. Other arms of the junction will operate satisfactorily. In the 2025 test year, without development, the underlying traffic growth will result in all arms of the junction operating at over capacity in the Friday peak hour and Bath Street and Wesley Slope operating at over capacity on a Saturday. This cannot be easily resolved through highway improvements but should be mitigated through displacing through traffic from the town and promoting sustainable modes of transport.

ix.

The analysis of the ‘three part junction’ also showed that the development traffic will add additional pressures to an already heavily trafficked Gorehedge approach to Wesley Slope. Therefore, it has been proposed that a new highway scheme is implemented that makes Gorehedge two-way, a new miniroundabout is introduced at the Christchurch Street East / Wesley Slope junction, and Christchurch Street East becomes two-way.

x.

The proposed highway improvements to the ‘three part junction’ highlighted above will have the following affects: a. In 2015, the development traffic will be fully accommodated by the new junction arrangement; and b. In 2025, the development traffic will be fully accommodated by the new junction arrangement with the exception of the Wesley Slope southbound arm of the new mini-roundabout, which will operate at 101% due to baseline traffic growth pressures.

xi.

Notwithstanding that fact that Callidus does not agree with SCC’s views on pass-by trips, pass-by sensitivity testing has been undertaken. This shows that the Garsdale / Portway / Christchurch Street East / Vicarage Street improved mini-roundabout will operate satisfactorily in 2015 with development assuming a 5% and 10% pass-by rate. In 2025, traffic queues on the Garsdale arm will increase by 4 vehicles under the 10% assumption and by 6 vehicles under the 5% assumption. In 2025, Christchurch Street East arm of the junction will operate at 100% under the 5% assumption.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

43

May 2014


xii.

A sensitivity test of the redistribution of trips from the assessed 30/70 to 50/50 east/west split indicated that the Garsdale / Portway / Christchurch Street East / Vicarage Street improved mini-roundabout would continue to operate in much the same way. The redistribution of traffic would take some of the pressure off the Christchurch Street East arm of the junction and add pressure to the Portway arm of the junction. However, the Portway arm would be able to satisfactorily accommodate the traffic in 2015 and 2025.

8.2 8.2.1

Conclusion A town centre is by its very nature a busy location, and Frome Town Centre is no exception. It is surely accepted that in most successful town centres, a degree of traffic congestion is an inevitable part of attracting many visitors and shoppers.

To not

recognise this risks harming the economic viability and future growth of the town centre. Furthermore, it is not always possible, or indeed desirable, to resolve entirely traffic congestion, especially at times of peak demand if this is harmful to the urban fabric of the town or to the dis-benefit of other non-car road users. 8.2.2

The Saxonvale site is an allocated site in the Local Plan with an intended use as a retail-led mixed use development. It is to be presumed that as a statutory consultee, the Highway Authority accept this allocation and the impact that it will have on the surrounding road network.

8.2.3

The redevelopment of the Saxonvale site will inevitably result in additional traffic, especially when compared to the sites current underuse.

However, by locating

development in a sustainable location, which Saxonvale is, there is a much greater opportunity to reduce the impact of traffic by using sustainable modes, reducing car mileage and combining trip purposes, whilst simultaneously achieving successful regeneration. 8.2.4

To accommodate the traffic that is generated by the proposed development, highway improvements have been proposed that help to mitigate the traffic impacts of the development. These have been designed to be sensitive to the historic and physically constrained nature of the local street network in Frome, and also to the non-car road users.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

44

May 2014


8.2.5

Callidus remains of the view that the regeneration of the Saxonvale site can be successfully achieved with the support of the proposed highway improvements and sustainable transport measures set out in the TA, TP and this report.

These

improvements will not only help to accommodate the development traffic and general traffic, they will result in wider benefits to the town as a whole. 8.2.6

For the reasons given above, Callidus is of the opinion that there should be no traffic or highway reasons why this development should be unacceptable to the determining authorities. Therefore, we hope that the Highway Authority will be supportive in helping to unlock this important regeneration site.

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

45

May 2014


APPENDIX A TRIP GENERATION

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

46

May 2014


Trip generation Hours: AM: 0800-0900 PM: 1600-1700 SAT: 1100-1200 Foodstore (GFA 4494sqm) Rates

IN

OUT

TOTAL

Trips

IN

OUT

TOTAL

AM

3.042

1.924

4.966

AM

137

86

223

PM

5.861

6.05

11.911

PM

263

272

535

SAT

5.664

5.236

10.9

SAT

255

235

490

Non-food (GFA 2870sqm)

Rates

IN

OUT

TOTAL

Trips

IN

OUT

TOTAL

AM

0.394

0.208

0.602

AM

11

6

17

PM

1.172

1.326

2.498

PM

34

38

72

SAT

2.956

2.318

5.274

SAT

85

67

151

Restaurant (880sqm)

Rates

IN

OUT

TOTAL

Trips

IN

OUT

TOTAL

AM

0

0

0

AM

0

0

0

PM

0.571

0.4

0.971

PM

5

4

9

SAT

0.343

0.114

0.457

SAT

3

1

4

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

47

May 2014


Hotel (35 beds) Rates

IN

OUT

TOTAL

Trips

IN

OUT

TOTAL

AM

0.114

0.2

0.314

AM

4

7

11

PM

0.093

0.091

0.184

PM

3

3

6

SAT

0.115

0.115

0.23

SAT

4

4

8

TOTAL (no linked trips)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

IN

OUT

TOTAL

AM

152

99

251

PM

305

317

622

SAT

346

307

653

48

May 2014


Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

49

May 2014


APPENDIX B TRAFFIC FLOWS

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

50

May 2014

59

Saxonvale

Market Place

24

0% 3%

Site location

NOTES: No base data available for the following junctions: - Portway / Lock's Hill

14 21%

N 99 (99%) 130 1%

Church St

64 5%

Christchurch Street West 209

88 6%

169 5%

338 4%

108 1%

Garsdale

Bath Street

46 7%

All Vehicles % HGV

27 11%

40 5%

20 0%

398

2% Portway

7%

384

2% 434 3% 372 5%

288 3%

446 4% 402 339

545 3%

108 1%

273

6%

96

4%

1% 5%

24

0%

61

2%

314

2%

3

0%

Gorehedge

1 1

52 0%

55 0%

0 0

328

5% Portway

Christchurch Street East

Butt's Hill

49

0%

38

5%

257

6%

6

0%

391

2%

8

0%

19 0%

Title:

Traffic Flows (AM 0800-0900 Base 2013)

322

5%

6

0%

7 0% 0 0% Alexandra Rd

Project Title: Job Number: Client: Status Scale:

0 0% 0 0%

Saxonvale, Frome TE1122 Frontier Estates Planning Figure No: NTS

0 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A1

0 0% 0 0%

64

Saxonvale

Market Place

42

2% 5%

Site location


140 0%

N 99 (99%) 157 1%

Church St

66 0%


223 1%

180 2%

409 4%

163 1%

Garsdale

Bath Street

55 0%

All Vehicles % HGV

77 1%

121 2%

25 0%

583

2% Portway

2%

461

2% 515 3% 466 2%

355 2%

380 3% 468 510

492 3%

97 3%

354

2%

203

2%

3% 3%

32

0%

64

2%

370

3%

2

0%

Gorehedge

3 0

63 2%

97 1%

0 0

462

2% Portway


Butt's Hill

68

1%

31

0%

368

3%

2

0%

578

2%

23

4%

21 0%

Title:

Traffic Flows (PM 1600-1700 Base 2013)

457

2%

5

0%



0 0% 0 0%


0 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A2

0 0% 0 0%

61

Saxonvale

Market Place

48

0% 0%

Site location


141 0%

N 99 (99%) 186 1%

Church St

135 1%


233 0%

164 2%

404 2%

186 1%

Garsdale

Bath Street

86 0%

All Vehicles % HGV

86 0%

121 1%

26 0%

520

2% Portway

1%

414

1% 460 2% 395 3%

358 1%

467 1% 449 495

520 1%

117 2%

342

2%

160

3%

2% 1%

48

2%

84

1%

314

2%

3

0%

Gorehedge

5 0

81 0%

100 1%

0 0

468

1% Portway


Butt's Hill

76

1%

82

0%

325

1%

7

14%

515

2%

19

0%

23 4%

Title:

Traffic Flows (SAT 1100-1200 Base 2013)

464

1%

4

0%



0 0% 0 0%


0 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A3

0 0% 0 0%

59

Saxonvale

Market Place

24

0% 3%

Site location


14 21%

N 99 (99%) 130 1%

Church St

64 5%


88 6%

169 5%

339 4%

108 1%

Garsdale

Bath Street

46 7%

All Vehicles % HGV

27 11%

40 5%

20 0%

399

2% Portway

7%

385

2% 435 3% 373 5%

288 3%

447 4% 403 340

546 3%

108 1%

273

6%

96

4%

1% 5%

24

0%

61

2%

315

2%

3

0%

Gorehedge

1 1

52 0%

55 0%

0 0

329

5% Portway


Butt's Hill

49

0%

38

5%

257

6%

6

0%

392

2%

8

0%

19 0%

Title:


323

5%

6

0%



0 0% 0 0%


0 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A5

0 0% 0 0%

64

Saxonvale

Market Place

42

2% 5%

Site location


140 0%

N 99 (99%) 158 1%

Church St

66 0%


224 1%

181 2%

410 4%

164 1%

Garsdale

Bath Street

55 0%

All Vehicles % HGV

77 1%

121 2%

25 0%

585

2% Portway

2%

462

2% 517 3% 467 2%

356 2%

381 3% 469 512

494 3%

97 3%

355

2%

204

2%

3% 3%

32

0%

64

2%

371

3%

2

0%

Gorehedge

3 0

63 2%

97 1%

0 0

463

2% Portway


Butt's Hill

68

1%

31

0%

369

3%

2

0%

580

2%

23

4%

21 0%

Title:


458

2%

5

0%



0 0% 0 0%


0 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A6

0 0% 0 0%

61

Saxonvale

Market Place

48

0% 0%

Site location


141 0%

N 99 (99%) 186 1%

Church St

135 1%


233 0%

164 2%

405 2%

186 1%

Garsdale

Bath Street

86 0%

All Vehicles % HGV

86 0%

121 1%

26 0%

521

2% Portway

1%

415

1% 461 2% 396 3%

359 1%

468 1% 450 496

521 1%

117 2%

343

2%

160

3%

2% 1%

48

2%

84

1%

315

2%

3

0%

Gorehedge

5 0

81 0%

100 1%

0 0

469

1% Portway


Butt's Hill

76

1%

82

0%

326

1%

7

14%

516

2%

19

0%

23 4%

Title:


465

1%

4

0%



0 0% 0 0%


0 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A7

0 0% 0 0%

-11 0% 0%

24

0%

12 0%

-3 0%

-12

0%

77

0%

-19

0%

0

0%

-1 0%

9 0%

27

OUT

TOTAL

-17 0%

Christchurch Street West

-22

5 0%

Garsdale

Bath Street

-17 0%

IN

Church St

Food 10% 30% 24% Merchants Bart Non Food 10% 30% 24% Hotel 10% 30% 24% Restaurant 10% 30% 24% Existing Employment TOTAL (exc. linked trips) Linked trips: 20%

74 0%

Passby

-4 0%

136 0%

Transfer Passby

0%

All Vehicles % HGV Transfer

9

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

New

-9

Site location

Saxonvale

Market Place


6% 30%

137

86

223

-

26

4

30

6% 30%

11

6

17

6% 30%

4

7

11

6% 30%

0

0

0

-

11

4

15

166

99

266

0% Portway

0 0

49 0%

25 0%

1 0

15

0% Portway

-28 0% 14 0%

36 0%

6 0% 47 20

-17 0%

22 0%

21

0%

13

0%

0% 0% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:

Traffic Flows (AM 0800-0900 Development Only)


50

0%

-5

0%

-26

0%

0

0%

27

0%

0

0%

0 0%

23 0% 4 0% 15

0%

0

0%

0 0%

Alexandra Rd Saxonvale, Frome TE1122 Frontier Estates Planning Figure No: NTS

0 0%

6 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A9

9 0% 0 0%

N

-22 0% 0%

50

0%

25 0%

-27 0%

-13

0%

159

0%

-37

0%

0

0%

-12 0%

10 0%

91

OUT

TOTAL

-19 0%


-43

-29 0%

Garsdale

Bath Street

-19 0%

IN

Church St


280 0%

Passby

-39 0%

270 0%

Transfer Passby

0%


10

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

New

-10

Site location

Saxonvale

Market Place


6% 30%

263

272

535

-

29

39

68

6% 30%

34

38

72

6% 30%

3

3

6

6% 30%

5

4

9

-

3

12

15

331

344

675

0% Portway

0 0

186 0%

94 0%

1 0

35

0% Portway

-55 0% 45 0%

74 0%

20 0% 108 108

-34 0%

45 0%

67

0%

41

0%

0% 0% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:

Traffic Flows (PM 1600-1700 Development Only)


102

0%

-6

0%

-51

0%

0

0%

91

0%

0

0%

0 0%

78 0% 13 0% 35

0%

0

0%

0 0%


0 0%

22 0% 0 0%

14 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A10

N

-25 0% 0%

60

0%

31 0%

-31 0%

-19

0%

187

0%

-42

0%

0

0%

-13 0%

15 0%

92

OUT

TOTAL

-27 0%


-46

-29 0%

Garsdale

Bath Street

-27 0%

IN

Church St


290 0%

Passby

-44 0%

319 0%

Transfer Passby

0%


15

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

New

-15

Site location

Saxonvale

Market Place


6% 30%

254

235

490

-

42

44

86

6% 30%

85

67

151

6% 30%

4

4

8

6% 30%

3

1

4

-

0

0

0

388

351

740

0% Portway

0 0

194 0%

96 0%

1 0

41

0% Portway

-60 0% 41 0%

89 0%

17 0% 125 104

-37 0%

55 0%

62

0%

38

0%

0% 0% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:

Traffic Flows (SAT 1100-1200 Development Only)


117

0%

-8

0%

-58

0%

0

0%

92

0%

0

0%

0 0%

78 0% 14 0% 41

0%

0

0%

0 0%


0 0%

25 0% 0 0%

16 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A11

N

158 6% 7%

409

2%

350 3%

24 12%

12

0%

138

1%

296

2%

3

0%

39 5%

29 0%

426

OUT

TOTAL

47 6%


187

93 5%

Garsdale

Bath Street

29 10%

IN

Church St


182 1%

Passby

10 30%

266 0%

Transfer Passby

3%


68

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

Site location

New

15

Saxonvale

Market Place


6% 30%

137

86

223

-

26

4

30

6% 30%

11

6

17

6% 30%

4

7

11

6% 30%

0

0

0

-

11

4

15

166

99

266

2% Portway

1 1

101 0%

80 0%

1 0

343

5% Portway

407 3% 387 5%

324 3%

453 4% 449 360

529 4%

130 1%

295

6%

109

4%

1% 5% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:

Traffic Flows (AM 0800-0900 Base 2015 + Development)


99

0%

33

6%

232

6%

6

0%

419

2%

8

0%

19 0%

23 0% 4 0% 337

5%

6

0%

7 0%


0 0%

9 0% 0 0%

6 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A13

N

159 3% 2%

512

2%

435 4%

50 2%

19

0%

223

0%

334

4%

2

0%

109 2%

35 0%

676

OUT

TOTAL

47 0%


198

195 2%

Garsdale

Bath Street

36 0%

IN

Church St


444 0%

Passby

101 0%

428 0%

Transfer Passby

4%


74

99 (99%)

Diverted

3%

Site location

New

32

Saxonvale

Market Place


6% 30%

263

272

535

-

29

39

68

6% 30%

34

38

72

6% 30%

3

3

6

6% 30%

5

4

9

-

3

12

15

331

344

675

2% Portway

3 0

249 0%

191 1%

1 0

499

2% Portway

462 4% 513 2%

430 2%

401 3% 578 619

460 4%

143 2%

422

1%

245

2%

2% 2% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:

Traffic Flows (PM 1600-1700 Base 2015 + Development)


170

1%

25

0%

318

3%

2

0%

671

2%

23

4%

21 0%

78 0% 13 0% 494

2%

5

0%

5 0%


0 0%

22 0% 0 0%

14 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A14

N

140 2% 2%

475

1%

437 2%

55 0%

29

3%

271

0%

273

2%

3

0%

109 1%

41 0%

614

OUT

TOTAL

109 1%


179

205 0%

Garsdale

Bath Street

59 0%

IN

Church St


476 0%

Passby

98 0%

506 0%

Transfer Passby

0%


76

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

New

33

Site location

Saxonvale

Market Place


6% 30%

254

235

490

-

42

44

86

6% 30%

85

67

151

6% 30%

4

4

8

6% 30%

3

1

4

-

0

0

0

388

351

740

1% Portway

5 0

275 0%

196 1%

1 0

511

1% Portway

402 2% 438 2%

449 1%

486 1% 576 602

485 1%

172 1%

406

2%

199

2%

1% 1% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:

Traffic Flows (SAT 1100-1200 Base 2015 + Development)


194

1%

74

0%

268

1%

7

14%

609

1%

19

0%

23 4%

78 0% 14 0% 507

1%

4

0%

5 0%


0 0%

25 0% 0 0%

16 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A15

N

65

Saxonvale

Market Place

27

0% 3%

Site location


16 21%

N 99 (99%) 144 1%

Church St

71 5%


98 6%

187 5%

375 4%

120 1%

Garsdale

Bath Street

51 7%

All Vehicles % HGV

30 11%

44 5%

22 0%

441

2% Portway

7%

426

2% 481 3% 412 5%

319 3%

494 4% 446 376

604 3%

120 1%

303

6%

106

4%

1% 5%

27

0%

68

2%

348

2%

3

0%

Gorehedge

1 1

58 0%

61 0%

0 0

364

5% Portway


Butt's Hill

54

0%

42

5%

285

6%

7

0%

433

2%

9

0%

21 0%

Title:


357

5%

7

0%



0 0% 0 0%


0 0% 0 0%

0 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A17

73

Saxonvale

Market Place

48

2% 5%

Site location


160 0%

N 99 (99%) 179 1%

Church St

75 0%


255 1%

206 2%

467 4%

186 1%

Garsdale

Bath Street

63 0%

All Vehicles % HGV

88 1%

138 2%

29 0%

666

2% Portway

2%

527

2% 588 3% 532 2%

406 2%

434 3% 535 583

562 3%

111 3%

404

2%

232

2%

3% 3%

37

0%

73

2%

423

3%

2

0%

Gorehedge

3 0

72 2%

111 1%

0 0

528

2% Portway


Butt's Hill

78

1%

35

0%

420

3%

2

0%

660

2%

26

4%

24 0%

Title:


522

2%

6

0%



0 0% 0 0%


0 0% 0 0%

0 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A18

68

Saxonvale

Market Place

53

0% 0%

Site location


156 0%

N 99 (99%) 206 1%

Church St

150 1%


258 0%

182 2%

448 2%

206 1%

Garsdale

Bath Street

95 0%

All Vehicles % HGV

95 0%

134 1%

29 0%

576

2% Portway

1%

459

1% 510 2% 438 3%

397 1%

518 1% 498 549

576 1%

130 2%

379

2%

177

3%

2% 1%

53

2%

93

1%

348

2%

3

0%

Gorehedge

6 0

90 0%

111 1%

0 0

519

1% Portway


Butt's Hill

84

1%

91

0%

360

1%

8

14%

571

2%

21

0%

25 4%

Title:


514

1%

4

0%



0 0% 0 0%


0 0% 0 0%

0 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A19

176 6% 7%

450

2%

387 3%

27 12%

15

0%

145

1%

330

2%

3

0%

43 5%

31 0%

468

OUT

TOTAL

54 6%


210

103 5%

Garsdale

Bath Street

34 10%

IN

Church St


194 1%

Passby

12 29%

280 0%

Transfer Passby

3%


74

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

Site location

New

18

Saxonvale

Market Place


6% 30%

137

86

223

-

26

4

30

6% 30%

11

6

17

6% 30%

4

7

11

6% 30%

0

0

0

-

11

4

15

166

99

266

2% Portway

1 1

107 0%

86 0%

1 0

378

5% Portway

453 3% 427 5%

355 3%

501 4% 492 396

587 4%

142 1%

324

6%

120

4%

1% 5% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:

Traffic Flows (AM 0800-0900 Base 2025 + Development)


104

0%

37

6%

259

6%

7

0%

460

2%

9

0%

21 0%

23 0% 4 0% 372

5%

7

0%

8 0%


0 0%

9 0% 0 0%

6 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A21

N

184 2% 2%

576

2%

492 4%

61 2%

24

0%

232

0%

386

4%

2

0%

126 2%

39 0%

757

OUT

TOTAL

56 0%


232

226 2%

Garsdale

Bath Street

44 0%

IN

Church St


466 0%

Passby

121 0%

450 1%

Transfer Passby

4%


83

99 (99%)

Diverted

3%

Site location

New

38

Saxonvale

Market Place


6% 30%

263

272

535

-

29

39

68

6% 30%

34

38

72

6% 30%

3

3

6

6% 30%

5

4

9

-

3

12

15

331

344

675

2% Portway

3 0

258 0%

205 1%

1 0

563

2% Portway

533 4% 578 2%

479 2%

454 3% 643 691

528 4%

156 2%

472

1%

273

2%

2% 2% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:

Traffic Flows (PM 1600-1700 Base 2025 + Development)


179

1%

29

0%

369

3%

2

0%

751

2%

26

4%

24 0%

78 0% 13 0% 558

2%

6

0%

6 0%


0 0%

22 0% 0 0%

14 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A22

N

160 2% 2%

525

1%

486 2%

66 0%

35

3%

281

0%

311

2%

3

0%

123 1%

44 0%

677

OUT

TOTAL

125 1%


207

233 0%

Garsdale

Bath Street

70 0%

IN

Church St


499 0%

Passby

115 0%

528 0%

Transfer Passby

0%


84

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

Site location

New

39

Saxonvale

Market Place


6% 30%

254

235

490

-

42

44

86

6% 30%

85

67

151

6% 30%

4

4

8

6% 30%

3

1

4

-

0

0

0

388

351

740

1% Portway

6 0

285 0%

208 1%

1 0

568

1% Portway

458 2% 486 2%

492 1%

542 1% 631 662

548 1%

187 1%

447

2%

218

2%

1% 1% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:

Traffic Flows (SAT 1100-1200 Base 2025 + Development)


203

1%

84

0%

307

1%

8

14%

671

1%

21

0%

26 4%

78 0% 14 0% 563

1%

5

0%

6 0%


0 0%

25 0% 0 0%

16 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A23

N

138 2% 2%

487

1%

441 2%

55 0%

29

3%

286

0%

294

2%

3

0%

109 1%

41 0%

604

OUT

TOTAL

109 1%


172

205 0%

Garsdale

Bath Street

59 0%

IN

Church St


476 0%

Passby

98 0%

506 0%

Transfer Passby

0%


76

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

New

33

Site location

Saxonvale

Market Place


8% 10%

254

235

490

-

42

44

86

8% 10%

85

67

151

8% 10%

4

4

8

8% 10%

3

1

4

-

0

0

0

388

351

740

1% Portway

5 0

281 0%

190 1%

1 0

531

1% Portway

392 2% 446 2%

465 1%

491 1% 612 637

479 1%

182 1%

416

2%

205

2%

1% 0% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:

Traffic Flows (SAT 1100-1200 Base 2015 + Development 10% pass-by)


179

1%

74

0%

297

1%

7

14%

599

1%

19

0%

23 4%

63 0% 18 0% 527

1%

4

0%

5 0%


0 0%

40 0% 0 0%

20 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A24

N

Church St

109 1%


138 2%

170

2%

490

1%

205 0%

Garsdale

Bath Street

59 0%

442 2%

55 0%

29

3%

289

0%

299

2%

3

0%

109 1%

41 0%

601

IN

OUT

TOTAL


476 0%

Passby

98 0%

506 0%

Transfer Passby

0%


76

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

New

33

Site location

Saxonvale

Market Place


5%

254

235

490

42

44

86

9% 9%

5%

85

67

151

9%

5%

4

4

8

9%

5%

3

1

4

0

0

0

388

351

740

-

1% Portway

5 0

282 0%

189 1%

1 0

535

1% Portway

389 2% 448 2%

469 1%

492 1% 620 645

478 1%

185 1%

419

2%

207

2%

1% 0% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:



176

1%

74

0%

304

1%

7

14%

596

1%

19

0%

23 4%

60 0% 19 0% 531

1%

4

0%

5 0%


0 0%

44 0% 0 0%

21 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A25

N

158 2% 2%

537

1%

490 2%

66 0%

35

3%

296

0%

332

2%

3

0%

123 1%

44 0%

667

OUT

TOTAL

125 1%


199

233 0%

Garsdale

Bath Street

70 0%

IN

Church St


499 0%

Passby

115 0%

528 0%

Transfer Passby

0%


84

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

Site location

New

39

Saxonvale

Market Place


8% 10%

254

235

490

-

42

44

86

8% 10%

85

67

151

8% 10%

4

4

8

8% 10%

3

1

4

-

0

0

0

388

351

740

1% Portway

6 0

291 0%

203 1%

1 0

588

1% Portway

447 2% 494 2%

509 1%

547 1% 667 697

542 1%

197 1%

458

2%

225

2%

1% 0% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:



188

1%

84

0%

337

1%

8

14%

661

1%

21

0%

26 4%

63 0% 18 0% 583

1%

5

0%

6 0%


0 0%

40 0% 0 0%

20 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A26

N

Church St

125 1%


157 2%

197

2%

540

1%

233 0%

Garsdale

Bath Street

70 0%

491 2%

66 0%

35

3%

299

0%

337

2%

3

0%

123 1%

44 0%

664

IN

OUT

TOTAL


499 0%

Passby

115 0%

528 0%

Transfer Passby

0%


84

99 (99%)

Diverted

0%

Site location

New

39

Saxonvale

Market Place


5%

254

235

490

42

44

86

9% 9%

5%

85

67

151

9%

5%

4

4

8

9%

5%

3

1

4

0

0

0

388

351

740

-

1% Portway

6 0

292 0%

201 1%

1 0

592

1% Portway

445 2% 495 2%

512 1%

548 1% 674 704

541 1%

199 1%

460

2%

226

2%

1% 0% Gorehedge


Butt's Hill

Title:



185

1%

84

0%

343

1%

8

14%

659

1%

21

0%

26 4%

60 0% 19 0% 587

1%

5

0%

6 0%


0 0%

44 0% 0 0%

21 0% Lock's Hill

Figure A27

N


APPENDIX C FIGURES AND DRAWINGS

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

51

May 2014


APPENDIX D TRAFFIC MODELLING OUTPUTS (ON CD)

Ref: TE\1122\302\RS

52

May 2014

Callidus TRANSPORT HIGHWAYS DRAINAGE FLOOD RISK PLANNING SUPPORT SERVICES

Callidus Transport & Engineering Ltd Regency House, 2 Wood St, Queen Square, Bath, BA1 2JQ T 01225 303 523 E [email protected] W www.callidusgroup.co.uk