planning appeal by chicester homes developments … · planning appeal by chicester homes...

PLANNING APPEAL BY CHICESTER HOMES DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED IN RESPECT OF THE NON DETERMINATION OF A PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF 55 DWELLINGS ON LAND TO THE EAST OF SOUTH PARK BRAUNTON

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

PINS Reference: APP/X1118/W/16/3161459 North Devon Council’s Planning Application Reference: 61139

Technical Report 19201/1 April 2017

CONTENTS Page

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Preamble 1

1.2 Background 2

1.3 Structure of this Written Statement 2

2.0 The Proposal 4

3.0 Policy Context 6

3.1 Introduction 6

3.2 NPPF 6

3.3 Local Plan 8

3.4 Emerging Joint North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 9

4.0 The Issues 13

4.1 Introduction 13

4.2 Guidance on Transport Assessment 13

4.3 Preamble 15

4.4 The Application Process 16

4.5 The Transport Assessment 25

4.6 The Appellants’ Statement of Case 29

4.7 Summary 35

5.0 Summary and Conclusions 37

Appendices

DR/MB/A Photographs

Planning Appeal by Chichester Homes Developments Limited in respect of the non determination of a planning application

for the erection of 55 dwellings on land to the east of South Park Braunton

Written Statement on Highways / Transport Issues Prepared by M Baker BSc CEng MICE FCIT FILT Eur Ing

on behalf of Love Braunton


Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preamble

1.1.1 This Written Statement on Highways and Transport Issues has been prepared by Mark

Baker of Mark Baker Consulting Limited of 32 Montpelier Court, Station Road,

Montpelier, Bristol BS6 5EA. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree with Honours in

Civil Engineering from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. I am a Member of the

Institution of Civil Engineers, a Chartered Engineer, and a European Engineer. I am a

Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Transport, and of the Chartered Institute of Logistics

and Transport.

1.1.2 I am a Director of Mark Baker Consulting Limited. I have been involved in the fields of

transportation and traffic engineering since 1978. My experience covers the range

from urban highway design to major transportation studies both in the UK and

Overseas.

1.1.3 I have advised a wide range of clients including those in both the public and private

sectors in the UK, and Overseas Government Agencies. I have recently advised with

regard to the highways and traffic implications of a variety of residential, retail,

commercial, leisure and office developments.

1.1.4 I have been appointed by Love Braunton to prepare this Written Statement on

Highways and Transport Issues on their behalf. I am familiar with the site subject of

the Appeal, the surrounding highway network, and conditions on the adjacent and

surrounding highway network.

1.1.5 The evidence which I have prepared and provide for the Appeal in this Written

Statement is true and has been prepared and is given in accordance with appropriate

guidance of my professional institutions. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my

true and professional opinions.

1.1.6 This Written Statement should be read in conjunction with the various Statements

submitted by Love Braunton. This Written Statement is intended to supplement their

overall objection. This Written Statement refers to various documents submitted during

the course of the progression of the planning application, which are included within the

Appeal documentation, and which are not unnecessarily reproduced.

1.1.7 I should add at this point that I have used the term “Love Braunton” as an independent

objector group formed of a large number of local objectors. Individual objections have

also been submitted by individual members of Love Braunton with regard to the

planning application, and in respect of this appeal.






Page 2

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The Appeal is in respect of the non-determination of a planning application, North

Devon Council’s (the Council’s) planning application reference 61139, which is for the

erection of 55 dwellings on greenfield land to the east of South Park, Braunton. The

planning application being submitted by Chichester Homes Developments Limited.

1.2.2 The planning application was submitted on the 29th April 2016, and the applicants

appealed on the 21st October 2016 following the deferring of consideration of the

planning application at the 12th October 2016 Planning Committee. The site had been

subject of a site visit by the Council’s Planning Committee on the 1st September 2016.

1.2.3 The appeal proposals were reported to the Council’s Planning Committee on the 14th

December 2016 in order to determine the Council’s stance had the appeal not been

submitted. The Council resolved on the 14th December 2016 that had it been able to

determine the planning application that the planning application would have been

refused with two reasons for refusal.

1.3 Structure of this Written Statement

1.3.1 The detailed objections by others on highways and transport issues have variously

highlighted a number of areas of concern on highways / transport grounds namely,

i) The site has already been rejected in the emerging Local Plan process as site

reference BRA108,

ii) The roads providing access to the site are considered to be narrow roads in

part impacted upon by the presence of parked cars, and some with sub-

standard footway widths,

iii) The traffic generation is underestimated with the traffic survey within the

submitted TA being out of peak holiday season,

iv) The inadequate nature of Lower Park Road (as shown on plate 1), Heanton

Street (as shown on plate 2), Hill View (as shown on plate 3), and Wrafton Road

(as shown on plate 4) being single width in places due to the levels of parking

along their length in part, and various roads being used as rat runs at times to

avoid congestion on the A361 through Braunton (as shown on plates 5 and 6),

and

v) Inadequate public transport.

1.3.2 This Written Statement only considers the areas within my expertise i.e.: those that are

highways / transport related. This Written Statement should be read in conjunction






Page 3

with all other objections to give a complete overview of the extent of the objection

covering all relevant disciplines.

1.3.3 This Written Statement is structured as following:

i) Section 2 considers the proposal in detail to set the context for this Written

Statement,

ii) Section 3 considers the relevant national and local policy context from a

highways / transport perspective,

iii) Section 4 considers the main issues and in particular the highway safety, and

access issues, and

iv) Section 5 presents the summary and conclusions of this Written Statement.

1.3.4 Appendix DR/MB/A contains photographs illustrating various points referred to within

this Written Statement for the ease of reference of the Inspector.






Page 4

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The appeal is in respect of the non-determination of a planning application for 55

homes on greenfield land to the east of South Park, Braunton. The site adjoins

residential development on South Park to the west, and Lower Park Road to the north.

Two sections of South Park run to the boundary of the site on its western side.

2.2 The sole vehicular access is from South Park which can be used by both vehicles,

pedestrians and cyclists. Plate 7 shows the section of South Park proposed for the

site access. The site also abuts a separate section of South Park to the north, but

neither vehicular or pedestrian access is proposed at this location. This is illustrated

on plate 8. The Design and Access Statement (DAS) indicated that this access option

had been discounted as the more southerly access allowed traffic to be dispersed

within South Park more evenly.

2.3 The site has an existing single track access onto Lower Park Road that will be closed

off as part of the proposal as shown on plate 9. It would be wholly unsuitable for any

access to the site due to its inadequate width at barely 4.2m wide at the gate posts

which would not allow for an adequate road width to serve such a level of development

of 55 units plus adjacent footway widths. In addition, third party land on either side of

this corridor does not allow for the achievement of adequate levels of visibility splays

onto Lower Park Road of 2.4m by 43m in either direction. There is no other frontage

available by which to provide an alternative vehicular access.

2.4 The planning application is in outline with all matters being reserved for future

determination save for the means of access by all modes. The proposal indicates that

there would be 35% affordable units although there is a dispute as to whether this

represents 19 or 20 units. The numbers are not pertinent to my considerations. The

proposal comprises a mix of three, four and five bedroomed units for the open market

element, and one, two and three bedroomed for the affordable units. Full details of the

proposal were detailed in the DAS, which is submitted in respect of the appeal.

2.5 A Transport Assessment (TA) and a Travel Plan Statement both dated April 2016 were

prepared by Peter Evans Partnership, and have been submitted in support of the

planning application. Self-evidently we were not party to any Scoping Discussions that

may have occurred with the County Council prior to the preparation of the TA. In our

opinion, any agreement with the County Council regarding the TA does not alter the

validity that any third parties may have relating to the extent or assumptions embodied

within the TA itself.






Page 5

2.6 There are some significant reservations regarding the submitted TA and these are

considered in further detail in section 4.5 of this Written Statement.






Page 6

3.0 POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The relevant planning policy context against which the Appeal should be considered is

set out at national level in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and at the

local level being the saved policies of the Local Plan, and the policies of the emerging

North Devon and Torridge Joint Local Plan (eJLP).

3.2 NPPF

3.2.1 Paragraph 28 recognises that there is a need to provide a vibrant rural economy, and

indicates:

“To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans

should:

support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of

business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion

of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;

promote the development and diversification of agricultural and

other land-based rural businesses”

3.2.2 With paragraph 28 in mind, NPPF introduces a degree of realism at paragraph 29

regarding the potential use of sustainable transport modes in such rural areas by

indicating:

“the Government recognises that different policies and measures will be

required in different communities and opportunities to maximise

sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.”

3.2.3 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF indicates that:

“All developments that generate significant amounts of movement

should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport

Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been

taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to

reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

safe and suitable access to be site can be achieved for all

people; and

improvements can be undertaken within the transport network

that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the






Page 7

development. Development should only be prevented or refused

on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of

the development are severe.”

3.2.4 This Written Statement considers whether there are opportunities for the use of

sustainable modes of transport, whether a safe and suitable access to the site can be

achieved for all modes of travel, and whether the residual cumulative impact of the

development can be classed as severe. These issues being considered further in

section 4 of this Written Statement.

3.2.5 It is our conclusion as detailed subsequently that by reference to NPPF paragraph 32

the general location is one where the settlement provides the opportunity for access to

services and facilities but that the desirable and acceptable walking distances from this

site to such services and facilities are exceeded.

3.2.6 Furthermore, that a safe and suitable access is not achieved for all modes due to

deficiencies in the adjacent highway network in particular the deficiencies in road

widths at various locations, and the considerable levels of parked vehicles leading to

an inevitable increase in conflicts.

3.2.7 These issues leading to safety concerns, and in addition with the third bullet point in

mind it is contended for the various reasons outlined in the remainder of this Written

Statement that there is a severe impact of the proposal, and in particular that the

second issue constitutes one degree of severity with the impact at the A361 / B3231

traffic signals the other degree of severity. I should add at this point that there is no

definition of “severe” within either the NPPF, or the PPG, and it is for the decision

maker to define, which in this case is the Inspector.

3.2.8 In my opinion, the severe impact is notwithstanding the quantum of impact. This is

due to the inevitable increase in conflicts particularly locally where there are restrictions

in road width that do not allow for the free passage of vehicles, and where there are

restrictions in width. Vehicles are not able to wait to avoid such conflicts due to the

restricted widths where vehicles are parked leading to the inevitable increases in

reversing to adjacent informal passing spaces primarily at private accesses. There are

no formal areas along Wrafton Road where passing places to avoid parked cars are

provided. The only passing places being either gaps in the parked vehicles, or gaps

at private driveways as illustrated by plate 4. Plates 10 and 11 show typical scenes

along Wrafton Road illustrating for this section shown on plate 10 parking on both sides

of the road which measures of the order of 7m, and vehicles having to manoeuvre






Page 8

between the stream of parked cars. Plate 11 shows the section which is generally

6.5m so that parking can only occur on one side.

3.2.9 Paragraph 34 of the NPPF indicates:

“Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate

significant movement are located where the need to travel will be

minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be

maximised. However this needs to take account of policies set out

elsewhere in this Framework, particularly in rural areas.”

3.3 Local Plan

3.3.1 The relevant saved policies from the North Devon Local Plan 1995 to 2011 adopted

July 2006 are TRA1A and TRA6 though the accompanying text to the Local Plan forms

an important part of the Local Plan.

3.3.2 Policy TRA1A “Promoting Sustainable Transport Choices” is also relevant, and

indicates:

“1. A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAT WILL GENERATE A

SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TRAVEL OR HAVE AN IMPACT

ON THE LOCAL HIGHWAY NETWORK WILL ONLY BE

PERMITTED IF IT WILL HAVE GOOD ACCESSIBILITY TO A

CHOICE OF TRANSPORT MODES INCLUDING WALKING,

CYCLING AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN ACCORDANCE

WITH A TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT OR STATEMENT.

2. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, A NON-RESIDENTIAL

PROPOSAL MUST INCORPORATE A TRAVEL PLAN THAT

DELIVERS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT MEASURES.

3. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE

ROUTES, AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, WILL BE

SAFEGUARDED FROM DEVELOPMENT.

4. IN THE CASE OF FLATS AND NON RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT, SECURE CYCLE PARKING AND, WHERE

APPROPRIATE, ASSOCIATED FACILITIES MUST BE

PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 4.”

3.3.3 In my opinion, policy TRA1A is not conformed to for the principle reason that it does

not have in the context of distances to facilities good accessibility.

3.3.4 Policy TRA6 is entitled “General Highway Considerations”, and indicates:






Page 9

“A DEVELOPMENT WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED WHERE:-

A) PROVISION IS MADE FOR SAFE ACCESS ONTO AND

EGRESS FROM THE HIGHWAY FOR ALL FORMS OF

TRAVEL SERVING THE SITE;

B) THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ROAD NETWORK OR THE

SAFETY OF HIGHWAY USERS IS NOT HARMED; AND

C) THE CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE LOCALITY IS NOT

HARMED BY ANY HIGHWAY WORKS NECESSARY TO

ACCOMMODATE THE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY

THE DEVELOPMENT.”

3.3.5 In my opinion, policy TRA6 is not conformed to for the reason that the functioning /

operation of the highway network will be adversely impacted upon without off-setting

highway improvements.

3.3.6 The references in the saved Local Plan to desirable walking distances contained at

table 3, and in the text at paragraph 6.10 are considered in detail in section 4.5 of this

Written Statement.

3.4 Emerging Joint North Devon and Torridge Local Plan

3.4.1 The emerging North Devon and Torridge Local Plan (eJLP) is at an advanced stage in

its process towards adoption. The hearing into the eJLP began in late November 2016.

3.4.2 DM05 “Highways” indicates:

“All development must ensure safe and well designed vehicular access

and egress, adequate parking and layouts which consider the needs

and accessibility of all highway users including cyclists and pedestrians.

All developments shall protect and enhance existing footways,

cycleways and bridleways and facilitate improvements to existing or

provide new connections to these routes where practical to do so.”

3.4.3 The explanatory text at paragraph 12.43 indicates:

“The transport impact of any development will need to be assessed, with

any impacts minimised through sustainable development principles,

such as creating genuinely safe and attractive routes for walking, cycling

and reaching local facilities with ease. Any residual impacts should be

minimised through practical measures, such as, but not limited to,

modification of the transport infrastructure to provide additional capacity,






Page 10

or offsetting any impact through other measures including bus

infrastructure improvements.”

3.4.4 The text at paragraph 12.44 indicates:

“Development proposals that would give rise to significant levels of

vehicular movement must be accompanied by a Transport Statement

for smaller developments or a Transport Assessment for more

significant developments; these should be accompanied by a Travel

Plan appropriate to the scale and impact of the proposed development.

Guidance on the indicative thresholds for transport assessments is

provided in the national guidance, currently – the national ‘Planning

Practice Guidance.’”

3.4.5 Policy ST10 sets out the overarching transport strategy for North Devon. It inter alia

promotes providing infrastructure that facilitates the delivery of strategic housing,

protects strategic routes including the A361, and recognises the transport impacts from

seasonal traffic. In addition, the Policy aims to reduce environmental impacts by

reducing the need to travel by car and ensuring that access to new developments are

safe and appropriate.

3.4.6 The relevant parts of eJLP policy ST10 being:

“The Transport Strategy for northern Devon will:

(1) Provide good strategic connectivity by:

(a) ensuring the operational effectiveness of the strategic road

network (A361 and A30) and other strategic routes including the

A39, linking the area to the national road network (M5 and A30)

and to Exeter, Plymouth and Cornwall;

(b) maintaining the function of the wider strategic road network

within northern Devon”

3.4.7 This part of ST10 justifies packages of infrastructure works in order to maintain the

operational effectiveness of the highway network. There are none along the section

of the A361 from Braunton to Barnstaple proposed.

3.4.8 In addition ST10 indicates:

“(2) Meet the needs of local communities and visitors to the area by:

(a) providing transport infrastructure that facilitates the delivery of

proposed strategic extensions for housing and employment

development and facilitates economic regeneration;






Page 11

(e) protecting and enhancing the function and safety of the road

network; and

(f) recognising transport impacts from the seasonal nature of traffic

in northern Devon.”

3.4.9 This part of ST10 supports the package of infrastructure improvements in order to

maintain the appropriate operation of the highway network, and supporting the concept

of infrastructure facilitating effectively housing and employment allocations. However,

no such measures are proposed locally to accommodate all other allocated sites either

within Braunton, or further afield to Ilfracombe that need to use the A361 to access a

wider range of services and facilities.

3.4.10 Furthermore:

“(3) Reduce the environmental and social impacts of transport by:

(a) reducing the need to travel by car and enabling alternative

sustainable travel options as supported by the Local Transport

Plan;

(c) requiring a Transport Assessment for major developments that

generate significant traffic movements and Travel Plans for

major developments;

(f) maximising safety on transport networks through improvements

to physical infrastructure design; and

(g) ensuring that access to new development is safe and

appropriate.”

3.4.11 This part of ST10 is consistent with the preceding sections confirming the approach of

defining a package of highways improvements, but there are none locally.

3.4.12 Policy ST23 relates to the delivery of infrastructure, and indicates:

“(1) Developments will be expected to provide, or contribute towards

the timely provision of physical, social and green infrastructure

made necessary by the specific and / or cumulative impact of

those developments having regard to the viability of

development.

(2) Where on-site infrastructure provision is either not feasible or not

desirable, then off-site provision or developer contributions will

be sought to secure delivery of the necessary infrastructure,






Page 12

through methods such as planning obligations or the Community

Infrastructure Levy.

(3) Developments that increase the demand for off-site services and

infrastructure will only be allowed where sufficient capacity exists

or where the extra capacity can be provided, if necessary

through developer-funded contributions.”

3.4.13 This emerging policy confirms the approach followed by the County Council elsewhere

in their consideration of other applications by providing for off-setting highway

improvements that in this case need not be disproportionate for this development alone

to provide in total. No level of contribution to offset the impact on the A361 either at

the A361 / B3231 traffic signals or elsewhere has been sought by the County Council.






Page 13

4.0 THE ISSUES

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section considers the traffic safety and access issues with particular reference to

the policy context both national and local considered in section 3.

4.1.2 The main issues at dispute for this appeal in my opinion are those within the context

of NPPF paragraph 32, and are summarised as:

i) The impact of the additional movements generated by the appeal proposal,

ii) The impact of those additional movements on the local highway network,

iii) Whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users,

iv) Whether there is a severe impact, and

iv) Whether the proposal amounts to sustainable development.

4.2 Guidance on Transport Assessment

4.2.1 Guidance on the content of TSs, and TAs was contained within the Department for

Transport (DfT), and the Department for Communities and Local Government’s

(DCLG) publication “Guidance on Transport Assessment” (GTA) albeit this has

recently been revoked, and it is now for each highway authority to determine the

content, and the need for either a TS or TA based on their own thresholds. The County

Council however still follows the GTA.

4.2.2 The introduction at paragraph 1.4 of the GTA indicates that the GTA:

“is intended to assist stakeholders in determining whether an

assessment may be required and, if so, what the level and scope of that

assessment should be. It provides guidance on the content and

preparation of TAs and TSs.”

4.2.3 The guidance is clear at paragraph 4.50 of the GTA that:

“The assessment years should consider person trips from all committed

developments that would impact significantly on the transport network,

particularly where they substantially overlap, such as at the same

junctions and / or on roads as the proposed development. The

committed developments will typically include development sites that

have extant planning permission as well as development plan

allocations in an adopted or approved plan. Developments that have

been completed but not fully occupied should be included in these

assessments. The inclusion or exclusion of committed developments






Page 14

in the assessments should be agreed with the relevant authorities at the

pre-application stage.”

4.2.4 In March 2014, the DCLG issued a suite of planning practice guidance notes (PPG) to

supplement the NPPF. Of relevance is that the PPG provides specific guidance on

“Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision Making.” This

reiterates the approach of the revoked GTA.

4.2.5 Of particular note is the section of PPG that defines the periods of surveys for

subsequent assessment which is considered subsequently. PPG 42-013-20140306

dated 6th March 2014 indicates:

“Local planning authorities must make a judgment as to whether a

development proposal would generate significant amounts of

movement on a case by case basis (i.e. significance may be a lower

threshold where road capacity is already stretched or a higher threshold

for a development in an area of high public transport accessibility).

In determining whether a Transport Assessment or Statement will be

needed for a proposed development local planning authorities should

take into account the following considerations:

the Transport Assessment and Statement policies (if any) of the

Local Plan;

the scale of the proposed development and its potential for

additional trip generation (smaller applications with limited impacts

may not need a Transport Assessment or Statement);

existing intensity of transport use and the availability of public

transport;

proximity to nearby environmental designations or sensitive areas;

impact on other priorities/strategies (such as promoting walking and

cycling);

the cumulative impacts of multiple developments within a particular

area; and

whether there are particular types of impacts around which to focus

the Transport Assessment or Statement (e.g. assessing traffic

generated at peak times).”






Page 15

4.2.6 PPG-42-015-20140306 also dated 6th March 2014 includes the information that should

be included in TAs, and TSs. The indication is:

“In general, assessments should be based on normal traffic flow and

usage conditions (e.g. non-school holiday periods, typical weather

conditions) but it may be necessary to consider the implications for any

regular peak traffic and usage periods (such as rush hours). Projections

should use local traffic forecasts such as TEMPRO drawing where

necessary on National Road Traffic Forecasts for traffic data.”

4.2.7 This section of the PPG is clear that non-school holiday periods should be assessed

when traffic conditions are more likely to be typical. The PPG also indicates that other

peak periods may be appropriate in addition, and not instead of typical conditions.

PPG 54-007-20141010 dated 10th October 2014 identifying data collection indicating:

“Transport data should be included that reflects the typical (neutral) flow

conditions on the network (for example, non-school holiday periods,

typical weather conditions etc.) in the area of the Plan, and should be

valid for intended purposes. It should also take account of holiday

periods in tourist areas, where peaks could occur in periods that might

normally be considered non-neutral. The recommended periods for

data collection are spring and autumn, which include the neutral months

of April, May, June, September and October.”

4.2.8 This section of PPG indicates that as well as typical or neutral conditions that a TA

should also (i.e. in addition) consider holiday periods. The consideration of holiday

periods being in addition to typical conditions rather than instead of it. The TA prepared

by Peter Evans Partnership as considered in section 4.5 has only considered the

holiday flows, and has therefore failed to fully assess the impact of the development

proposals.

4.3 Preamble

4.3.1 As detailed previously, the reference in the NPPF paragraph 32 is to planning

applications and it follows Appeals and the reference is to essentially refuse them only

“where the residual cumulative impact of developments are severe.”

4.3.2 There is however in guidance no clear definition of “severe” but there is often

considered to be a linkage to the second bullet point of paragraph 32 that requires

“safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people.”






Page 16

4.3.3 Access is holistically defined as being both the site access junction, and also all roads

that provide access from the wider highway network including in my opinion in this

case logically the A361 / B3231 traffic signals in the heart of Braunton. Plate 5 shows

a scene taken during the mid morning of conditions at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals.

Plate 6 shows the juxtaposition of the traffic signals to Heanton Street, and to the A361

pelican crossing. The two junctions represent a complex arrangement which is the

scene of frequents queues and delays in school term time, and congestion sometimes

severe in the school holiday periods.

4.3.4 There is nothing in NPPF, or the companion PPG that can be taken as implying that

“severe” represents as seemingly accepted by the County Council, and by the

appellants a particular quantum of impact either in absolute or percentage terms.

Previous guidance and the GTA advocated a 5% impact as being material, and 10%

in less congested areas, but those percentages that defined “material” impact have

now been revoked.

4.3.5 For reasons that will be outlined in this Written Statement it is my opinion

notwithstanding the quantum of impact that there is a severe impact in the following

regards:

i) The cumulative impact at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals and adjacent A361 /

Heanton Street junction,

ii) The cumulative impact along Wrafton Road due to the additional vehicles

generated by the proposal conflicting with other vehicles on the section of

Wrafton Road that is effectively single lane working due to the presence of

parked cars, and

iii) The impact on the section of Lower Park Road between Barn Field Close, and

South Park that is also a shared surface.

4.4 The Application Process

4.4.1 The planning application was submitted on the 29th April 2016, and the applicants

appealed on the 21st October 2016 following the deferring of consideration of the

planning application at the 12th October 2016 Committee. The site had been subject

of a site visit by Planning Committee on the 1st September 2016.

4.4.2 The application was reported to the Council’s planning committee on the 14th

December 2016 in order to determine the Council’s stance had the appeal not been

submitted. The Council resolved on the 14th December 2016 that had it been able to






Page 17

determine the planning application that the planning application would have been

refused with two reasons for refusal.

The Parish Council’s Consultation Response

4.4.3 Braunton Parish Council’s consultation response dated 9th June 2016 recommended

that the planning application be refused on fourteen strands, and the objection of the

Parish Council as relevant from a highways / transport perspective is summarised as

being:

i) Accessibility

The Parish Council indicated:

“It is considered to be an unsustainable location for residential

development due to its lack of safe accessibility for pedestrian

connections to sustainable transport modes and local services”,

ii) Highway Infrastructure

The Parish indicated:

“The existing road network infrastructure leading to the

development via Moor Lea and Barn Field Close is inadequate

resulting in unsafe conditions”, and

iii) eJLP Considerations

The Parish Council indicated:

“In June 2014 the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan,

Sustainability Appraisal – Technical D: Assessment of Housing

Site Options for North Devon and Torridge, rejected this site

(BRA/108) for future housing development on the grounds that it

was unsustainable in terms of:-

- Increase in traffic through the village centre with

consequent impact on air quality; and

- Limited capacity along Lower Park Road and its junction

to accommodate the development.”

4.4.4 Following the submission of amended plans, the Parish Council submitted a further

consultation response on the 26th August 2016 which indicated:

“Braunton Parish Council wish to recommend refusal, the amended

plans received do not change the Council’s earlier views and therefore

its previous reasons for refusal still stand. In addition to this, as it is a

Greenfield site, taking into account further sustainable information






Page 18

provided the Council strongly feels that the development should be

aiming for a much higher level of sustainability.”

Braunton Access Group Consultation Response

4.4.5 The Braunton Access Group were also consulted, and indicated on the 24th May 2016

that they had concerns on the following grounds:

“There are no Public Transport links covering the area at the present

time resulting in a dependence on motor vehicles. As Mill Lane public

footpaths runs along the eastern boundary could consideration be given

to up-grading this to an all year round surface foot path to allow easy

access for pedestrians & wheelchair users.

Any road without a pavement is on concave road means pushing at an

angle or going down the middle of the road, this is a safety issue for

wheelchair users and their carers.

The access along lower park road (sic) is of grave concern, buggies and

wheelchairs often go along – there is no pavement for quite some

distance, when there is, the dropped kerbs are not in the right place so

most of users (sic) just stick to the road.

Would it be possible to allocated some 106 money to upgrading the

pavements in Lower Park Road and Mill Lane?”

County Council’s Consultation Response

4.4.6 The County Council’s consultation response dated 28th June 2016 did not raise an

highways objection subject to:

“1) The sum of £55,000 for improvements and maintenance of the

existing Public Right of Way No. 18 (Mill Lane) to the east of the

application site, in order to improve the sustainability of

pedestrian users of the application site;

2) The sum of £250 per dwelling to be utilised for Public Transport

vouchers, and

3) The sum of £50 per dwelling to be utilised towards bicycle

provision.”

4.4.7 There were a total of eight conditions recommended by the County Council to be

incorporated onto any planning approval to cover:

i) Infrastructure to be completed in accordance with details to be submitted, and

approved,






Page 19

ii) Infrastructure to be constructed in accordance with a detailed programme to be

submitted, and approved,

iii) No part of the development to be occupied until the first 20m of the access has

been constructed up to base course,

iv) The development to be occupied in an agreed phasing with a schedule of

infrastructure to be provided,

v) The maintenance of the access and turning heads etc to be kept free of

obstruction,

vi) Within twelve months of the first occupation the completion of all infrastructure,

vii) Disposal of surface water within each dwelling curtilage, and

viii) Parking.

September Committee Report

4.4.8 In the Council’s Committee Report of the 1st September 2016 the issue of the SHLAA

process was considered in some detail, and I repeat various points to highlight the

transport / highways issues. The report indicated the Planning Policy’s consultation

response which identified:

“The site has been included within the SHLAA (SHA/BRA/108) for 42

dwellings on a net developable area of approximately 1.4 hectares at

30 dph. For information, when the SHLAA Panel first considered this

site in 2010 they were satisfied with the overall assessment and agreed

with the recommendation that ‘development of this site would be a

logical extension to the east side of Braunton.’ Whilst the SHLAA

recommendation has guided the overall level of housing development

across this site there is no policy objection to a higher number of

housing units being delivered if the principle of development was

considered acceptable on this site and any increase in numbers would

not have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties and

landscape character as well as helping to deliver the spatial vision and

strategy for Braunton and Wrafton as set out within Policy BRA of the

emerging Plan.

Although the site was considered developable in principle, it was not

taken forward as an allocation within the emerging Local Plan.

Technical Document D of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) assessed a

number of alternative housing options, where a number of these were






Page 20

rejected as less sustainable options for future housing development.

The document including those sites that did not deliver key

infrastructure and strategic objectives and the main reasons for which

they were rejected. It identified issues relating to broad areas rather

than precise sites and it recognised that defining the extent of a site in

greater detail could help to mitigate some of the identified impacts but

not the fundamental concerns in terms of sustainability and

deliverability. One of these rejected sites was land at South Park where

it was concluded:

Land to the east of South Park was rejected because of sustainability

issues in terms of:

Increase in traffic through the village centre with consequent impact

on air quality;

Limited capacity along Lower Park Road and its junctions to

accommodate development where the highway is narrow with

limited opportunities to increase capacity;

No existing transport links with the village or pedestrian footpaths

along Lower Park Road; and

Key Network Feature along Mill Lane forming site eastern boundary.

In regard to the above conclusions within the SA, of particular concern

in policy terms is the limited highway capacity of the approach roads /

junctions to South Park and air quality management concerns within the

village centre (Policies TRA1A, TRA6, ST10, DM02, DM05). I would

consider that the application should be accompanied by an air quality

assessment in order to assess what the impacts may be from this

development on the air quality management area and how any impacts

will be mitigated. The contents of this report should be assessed in

consultation with Andy Cole from Environmental Health. However, the

Highway Authority should advise as to whether the local highway

network can accommodate the additional traffic movements without

having an adverse detrimental impact on the highway issues

concerned.”






Page 21

SHLAA Proforma Assessment

4.4.9 In terms of the history, the SHLAA site assessment form was based on a site visit on

the 25th January 2010. The SHLAA assessment indicated the planning history with

relevant applications being C108329 in 2013, and C106361 in 2012. The assessment

indicated that: “Site is currently outside of the defined development boundary but well

related to Braunton.” The assessment also indicated that with regards to public

transport that: “Braunton is well served, but the site is approximately a kilometre from

the nearest route through the village centre.” With regard to access to services and

facilities the assessment indicated: “A kilometre from the village centre. Good

accessibility to higher order centres.”

4.4.10 However in terms of highway access, the response was:

“Yes from South Park, although junctions on Lower Park Road need to

be assessed.

DCC Highways: 1) The increased use of the junction, resulting from the

proposed development would, by reason of the limited visibility from and

of vehicles using the junction, be likely to result in additional danger to

all users of the road and interference with the free flow of traffic.

2) Lower ParkRoad from which access to South Park is gained is, by

reason of its inadequate width, junctions and lack of footway provision,

unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic likely to be

generated.”

4.4.11 The overall consideration at that stage was: “Development of this site is a logical

extension to the east side of Braunton.” However, this is only the consideration of the

SHLAA proforma, and a further detailed assessment followed as detailed in the

Committee Report confirmed that despite the proforma assessment that the site has

been rejected from the eJLP for amongst other reasons three sustainability issues:

i) The increase in traffic through the village centre with the consequent impact on

air quality,

ii) Limited capacity along Lower Park Road and its junctions to accommodate the

development where the highway is narrow with limited opportunities to increase

highway or network capacity, and

iii) No existing transport links with the village or pedestrian footways along Lower

Park Road.






Page 22

October Committee Report

4.4.12 The 12th October 2016 Committee report indicated under the summary of the issues

within respect to highways issues:

“Much comment has been made on traffic related issues including: the

narrow access road; both accesses from South Park should be opened;

traffic generation has been underestimated (8 peak movements);

additional air pollution; pedestrian conflict with vehicles related to school

children and the junction outside; lack of pavement for a stretch of

Higher Park Road; noise; the impact of construction traffic; the physical

constraints of Lower Park Road / Heanton St/Wrafton Rd being single

width in places, having on road parking, congestion and use as ‘rat-run;

Lack of public transport; and, the condition/impact of drainage on Mill

Lane.

The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment and Travel

Plan.

The TA concludes that:

The location of the site is accessible for pedestrians, cyclists and

public transport users and integrates with the surrounding

residential area. Therefore the site is in line with national and local.

Walking distances to schools and local amenities are well within the

boundaries of the acceptable walk distance to education facilities set

out by the CIHT Guidelines ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’.

The small increase in vehicular flows on the local road network as a

result of the proposed development is minimal and would not give

rise to a material impact on existing traffic and safety conditions.

The cumulative impact of the development would not be severe and

thus should not be refused on transport grounds in line with NPPF.

The Local Highway Authority accepts these conclusions and

recommends conditions and a contribution towards improvements

towards Mill Lane.”

4.4.13 The recommendation at that stage being:

“The planning balance is a fine one and arguable given the need to take

into account a range of benefits and dis-benefits. The NPPF advises

that planning applications should be approved unless any adverse






Page 23

impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits, when assessed against this Framework or taken as a whole.

On applying that balance your officers consider that the benefits in

particular of contributing to housing land supply would be substantial in

addition to the other economic and social benefits noted. In the absence

of demonstrably adverse impacts that would significantly or

demonstrably outweigh these benefits it is concluded that the present

proposal represents sustainable development that in accordance with

the presumption in favour of sustainable development suggests that the

application should be supported and planning permission granted.”

4.4.14 The conclusions also indicated:

“The location of this site is accessible for pedestrians (albeit a section

of Higher Park Road has no pavement), cyclists and public transport

users and accords with recommended walking distances to local

amenities whilst the additional traffic generation is not considered such

as to give rise to result in a severe cumulative impact. A contribution is

to be made towards the adjoining PROW.”

4.4.15 The recommendation being of:

“In summary, the site has been identified as developable in the longer

term in the SHLAA exercise that underpins the emerging Local Plan. It

is not however considered necessary to bring the land forward at this

stage given its omission from either the adopted or the emerging

development plan and given outstanding objections raised in particular

by the Council’s Countryside and Landscape Officer on landscape and

ecology grounds. These concerns suggest that a redesigned layout is

required in order to overcome the objections which may in turn result in

a reduction in housing numbers. However, the present application has

progressed to appeal against non-determination and the opportunity to

review the layout and associated ecological mitigation and landscaping

on a ‘without prejudice’ basis has not been progressed.”

December Committee Report

4.4.16 The later 14th December 2016 Committee Report indicated an alternative summary of

the highways issue compared to the 12th October 2016 Committee Report indicating:






Page 24

“Policy TRA6 deals with general highway considerations and requires

that a development will only be permitted where:

a) provision is made for safe access onto and egress from the

highway for all forms of travel serving the site;

b) the functioning of the road network or the safety of highway

users is not harmed; and

c) the character and setting of the locality is not harmed by any

highway works necessary to accommodate the level of traffic

generated by the development.

Much comment has been made on traffic related issues including: the

narrow access road; both accesses from South Park should be opened;

traffic generation (8 peak time movements) has been underestimated;

additional air pollution; pedestrian conflict with vehicles related to school

children and the junction outside; lack of pavement for a stretch of

Higher Park Road; noise; the impact of construction traffic; the physical

constraints of Lower Park Road / Heanton St/Wrafton Rd being single

width in places, having on road parking, congestion and use as ‘rat-run;

Lack of public transport; and, the condition/impact of drainage on Mill

Lane. Objectors have submitted their own traffic surveys.

The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment and Travel

Plan.

The TA concludes that:

The location of the site is accessible for pedestrians, cyclists and

public transport users and integrates with the surrounding

residential area. Therefore the site is in line with national and local

(sic).

Walking distances to schools and local amenities are well within the

boundaries of the acceptable walk distance to education facilities set

out by the CIHT Guidelines ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’.

The small increase in vehicular flows on the local road network as a

result of the proposed development is minimal and would not give

rise to a material impact on existing traffic and safety conditions.

The cumulative impact of the development would not be severe and

thus should not be refused on transport grounds in line with NPPF.






Page 25

The Local Highway Authority accepts these conclusions and

recommends conditions and a contribution towards improvements to

Mill Lane.

In response to questions raised by an objector about the LHA view, the

Highways Officer has commented ‘When considering the impact of

development upon the local highway network this Authority has to

consider any material impacts and the degree to which capacity and/or

safety is likely to be a consideration. I appreciate there are variations

in respect of traffic generation on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. I

believe the Transport Assessment has considered the impact of the

development and identified additional flows that are likely to be taking

place within ‘Wrafton Road’ amongst other roads. Both the figures put

forward by the developers consulting engineers, and yourselves, are

unlikely to lead to capacity issues and, therefore, DCC will not be

requesting detailed capacity analysis to be undertaken at the various

junction (sic). This is partly given on the basis of knowledge of the local

area and traffic conditions.

It is also reasonable to assume that a number of traffic movements will

leave ‘South Park’ and head eastwards if travelling to Barnstaple

avoiding ‘Wrafton Road’ altogether.

Without repeating the conclusions contained within the Transport

Assessment I have indicated previously I agree with such findings

based on the evidence put forward.

It is, of course, available to third parties to put forward an alternative

view, with or without professional representation, into the process.’

The DCC Highways Officer (who is unable to attend the meeting), has

been asked to comment further on questions raised about the

conclusions reached by the applicant’s highways consultant, but at the

time of compiling this report no response had been received from DCC.

On the basis that the LHA continue to raise no concern on traffic related

matters, it is concluded that the Policy will be satisfied.”

4.4.17 The Council resolved on the 14th December 2016 that they were minded to refuse the

planning application if they had jurisdiction, and there were two non-highways reasons






Page 26

for refusal namely the non allocation of the site in the Local Plan, and in the eJLP, and

the percentage of affordable housing.

4.5 The Transport Assessment

Preamble

4.5.1 A TA dated April 2016 was prepared by Peter Evans Partnership, and submitted in

support of the planning application. In our opinion, any agreement with the County

Council regarding the TA does not alter the validity that any third parties may have

relating to the extent or assumptions embodied within the TA itself. Concerns raised

by third parties who have to live with the consequences of development are valid to be

considered, and should be afforded appropriate weight. I am confident that the

Inspector does not need to be reminded of this.

4.5.2 There are some significant reservations regarding the submitted TA and these are now

considered.

Traffic Surveys

4.5.3 The TA included the results of manual classified counts undertaken on Friday 28th and

Saturday 29th August 2015 at the South Park / Lower Park Road junction, and at the

A361 Exeter Road / B3231 Caen Street / East Street / South Street / Heanton Street

signal and priority junctions.

4.5.4 The applicant referred to all links but in fact there are two very closely related junctions

of the A361 / B3231 “The Square” comprising a four armed junction of the A361 Exeter

Road from the south, the B3231 Caen Street from the west, the A361 Chaloner’s Road

from the north, and East Street to the north east with approximately 30m to the south

of The Square is the staggered junction of the A361 Exeter Road to the south, South

Street to the west, the A361 Exeter Road to the north, and Heanton Street to the east.

4.5.5 The TA also included traffic data for the Lower Park Road / South Park junction though

being located to the east of Barn Field Close, these surveys do not reflect general flow

levels on Lower Park Road between Hill View, and Barn Field Close. Data being

collected for these junctions between 07.30 to 11.00, and 14.30 to 18.30.

4.5.6 The indication within the TA was that these periods and days were chosen as this

represented a peak event but this is no substantiation of this assertion within the TA,

and this is a significant failing of the submitted TA. Seemingly additional data was

collected in school term time but not presented in the TA as detailed below. The data

period is not representative using the advice in the companion guide to the National






Page 27

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG). No data for

typical conditions have been provided.

4.5.7 The TA indicated a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour total junction flows of 1391, and

1648 vehicles per hour for the Friday for the A361 / B3231 junction. No surveys were

undertaken of queue lengths, or of average delays to vehicles using the junction. No

detailed impact assessment of the impact of the development at this location were

undertaken subsequently in the TA.

4.5.8 The TA included scant details of an automatic traffic counter for a week commencing

15th September 2015 but there is no data included in the appendices, and as such it

has not been possible to consider the data for in school term time compared to school

holidays. The TA asserts that speeds are low but there is simply no factual data to

verify this. Speeds also are only given for one direction of 27 mph. Third parties as

detailed subsequently in this Written Statement have assessed the differences, and

their survey results are significantly greater.

Walking Distances to Services and Facilities

4.5.9 The TA defined the desirable target walking distances from the saved Local Plan at

table 3 to facilities at paragraph 3.2.6, and indicated:

Facility Walking distance

Food shop 300m

Primary school 300m

Other non-residential facilities 600m

Bus stop 200m

4.5.10 The commentary to the saved Local Plan paragraph 6.20 indicated:

“The target desirable cycling distance between a development and key

facilities is 30 minutes which equates to approximately 8 kilometres

depending on the topography and conditions. Based on the interim

standards contained in the Regional Transport Strategy, desirable

walking distances are set out in Table 3 in order to assess the

accessibility of a development. For residential developments, these set

out the target distances within which facilities are considered to be

within reasonable walking distance. For non-residential developments,

the distances define the pedestrian catchment area of the

development.”






Page 28

4.5.11 The TA at paragraph 3.3.2 in an attempt to argue that the values above were

inappropriate also detailed the CIHT “Guidelines for Providing Journeys on Foot” which

indicate:

Suggested Acceptable Walking Distances

Town Centres Community / School Elsewhere

Desirable 200m 500m 400m

Acceptable 400m 1000m 800m

Proposed Maximum 800m 2000m 1200m

4.5.12 In this regard, although the statutory maximum distance for walking to school for

children below 8 years is 3.2km before the education authority must provide transport,

that is not a desirable or even generally acceptable distance for a pedestrian to walk.

Table 3 of desirable walking distances on page 48 of the North Devon Local Plan 1995

to 2011 adopted in July 2006 (the Local Plan) as detailed at paragraph 4.5.9 are

unrealistically optimistic.

4.5.13 Table 3.2 of the CIHT’s “Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot” regards walking

distance for commuting, to school and for sightseeing as a desirable 500m, an

acceptable 1,000m and a maximum 2,000m and for other purposes as a desirable

400m, acceptable 800m and a maximum of 1,200m. The Manual for Streets also

advises that walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of

facilities within 10 minutes’ (up to about 800m) walking distance of residential areas

which residents may access comfortably on foot and refers to now withdrawn

Government advice to the effect that walking has the greatest potential to replace short

car trips particularly those under 2km. The TA accepts at paragraph 5.2.2 that the

distances to the schools are further than target distances. The TA also accepts that

the walk to bus services are well beyond target, and that there are no late evening or

Sunday bus services.

Trip Rates Assessment

4.5.14 The trip rates derivations were shown in appendix 8 of the TA, and are summarised

as:

Arrivals Departures

A.M. Peak 7 21

P.M. Peak 19 10

4.5.15 The assessment has been undertaken using TRICS in a standard methodology.






Page 29

Trip Distribution

4.5.16 The vehicular distribution of the traffic generated by the development by route being:

A361 South towards Barnstaple via Wrafton Road 72%

B3231 towards Saunton Sands and Croyde 10%

A361 North towards Ilfracombe via Hill View (towards Ilfracombe only)

or the A361 traffic signals 17%

Lower Park Road East 1%

4.5.17 The distribution has been based on 2011 journey to work census data, and again there

is no great dispute with this which is industry standard. However, it is very curious to

say the least that the TA has not assessed the impact of 72% of all vehicles routing

via Wrafton Road, and despite third party concerns this issue was not assessed in the

appellants’ two Statements. We have undertaken that sole assessment, and our

conclusions are very clear.

Construction Traffic

4.5.18 The applicants accept that a Construction Management Plan is needed, and seemingly

anticipate that vehicles will use Wrafton Road where the road width remaining from

parked cars is limited, and where there would be an impact on the Southmead Primary

School, and Braunton Academy. Construction traffic cannot route via Heanton Street

as at 4.1m to 4.2m wide cars could not pass any construction vehicle on this link.

Construction vehicles cannot route along Lower Park Road from the east. On this

basis, the appeal should be dismissed as there is no scope for the safe routing of

construction vehicles of the quantum to construct such a sized development.

Additional Responses

4.5.19 Two additional reports were prepared by Peter Evans Partnership in response to the

Planning Officer’s queries dated 5th October 2016, and to the matters raised by Sue

Prosper dated 25th November 2016. Commentary on these documents is variously

contained in this Written Statement.

4.6 The Appellants’ Statement of Case

4.6.1 I have considered the appellant’s Written Statement dated October 2016 prepared for

this Appeal which has a total of eight sections, and a subsequent Addendum which

was dated February 2017. No separate highways / transport case was submitted in

respect of the appeal. Paragraph 1.12 detailed the case for the appellant which

included no reference whatsoever to the highways / transport issues, and this is rather

curious given that at that stage that the Council has not issued their putative reasons






Page 30

for refusal, and as such the appellants should have provided evidence on all relevant

issues. That said highways issues are included as paragraphs 7.7.3 to 7.7.8 of the

original Statement.

Accessibility

4.6.2 The appellant’s proposition 6 at paragraph 7.6.1 of their Statement of Case is that “this

proposal will be for a sustainable development.” The text at paragraph 7.6.1 indicates:

“The sustainability credentials of the appeal proposals are not in

dispute. The appeal site is well located in relation to existing shops,

services and facilities, including schools and open space and is

therefore a suitable and sustainable location for housing. This is

confirmed by the Council’s SHLAA assessment of the appeal sites (sic)

which concludes that “development of this site is a logical extension to

the east side of Braunton” and the officer report attached as Appendix

3.”

4.6.3 It is generally accepted that Braunton has a range of services and facilities appropriate

to its status. There is some dispute, by others, regarding the capacity of the local

schools to accommodate the levels of school children generated by the development.

However, as detailed elsewhere in this Written Statement there are reservations about

the quality of the footway linkages, and the overall distances to some of the services

and facilities. For example, the nearest bus stops are over two and a half times the

distances usually considered as desirable. Once reached there are no late evening or

Sunday services that will also affect their propensity for use. The first service on the

21A route through Braunton is at 07.30 with the last at 20.58. There is no contribution

to improve the services, and these times would be unattractive to those that may have

employment in Barnstaple other than in the town centre itself.

4.6.4 The access and movement issues are considered in further detail in paragraphs 7.7.3

to 7.7.8, and it is prudent to consider each paragraph with our summary retort following.

Traffic Surveys

4.6.5 Paragraph 7.7.3 indicates:

“An assessment of the traffic movements and roads in and around the

site has been undertaken, along with pedestrian routes between the site

and village’s facilities. This is set out within the Transport Statement.”

4.6.6 The TA set out details of a traffic survey undertaken on a Bank Holiday weekday but

despite the passage of time between the surveys, and the date of submission of the






Page 31

TA there was no check survey undertaken by the appellants / applicants of traffic

conditions for a typical weekday in school term time. There is reference to automatic

traffic counts being undertaken but there are no details of the results. The surveys

summarily are not in accord with the advice in the PPG which advocates both seasonal

peaks, and typical conditions being assessed for such locations.

4.6.7 Despite repeated requests by the objectors for the supply of the data, it has not been

forthcoming, and this has led to the objectors undertaking their own surveys which are

at the some variance to those contained within the TA. In some case, there are I

should add significant variations to the data collected on behalf of the applicants now

the appellants. The Love Braunton objectors are the only group that have undertaken

any form of check traffic survey data, and the appellants have not sought to dispute

any of the data collected by third parties.

4.6.8 Notwithstanding this the applicants’ data for Heanton Street appears erroneous with

an indication of 6 vehicles per hour in the morning peak, and 4 vehicles per hour in the

evening peak. These values have to be seen in the context of the limited photographs

of this Written Statement which cast considerable doubt on these values. If these

values are correct this development using the applicants’ distribution will lead to a

doubling of traffic flows on this link.

4.6.9 As detailed in the letter from D Relph to the Council on the 3rd October 2016, traffic

flows on Wrafton Road in school term time of 206 vehicles per hour southbound, and

101 vehicles per hour northbound between 08.00 and 09.00 on the 13th June 2016

within school term time. “The Studies of Delays to Traffic on Single Lane Carriageways

with Passing Places” undertaken by TRRL indicates:

“Results from TRRL studies indicate that simply in terms of their capacity

for carrying moving traffic single lane carriageways, correctly designed,

are unlikely to incur significant increases in delay compared with traffic

in free-flow conditions, at flow levels of up to 300 vph (total two way).”

Wrafton Road operates as single track but has no formal passing places, and flows

are above this threshold currently. The addition of the development traffic will increase

delays, and conflict potential.


“The site is within a 15 minutes walking distance of the village centre

and the bus stops on the A361. It is also within a 10 minute walk to and






Page 32

from the nearest primary and secondary schools located on Wrafton

Road.”

4.6.11 Using the guidance referred to within the MfS the village centre, school, and local bus

services are all outside the MfS “walkable neighbourhood” definition. All of the facilities

are also well outside of the target distances of the adopted Local Plan. The majority

of the services and facilities are above the desirable and acceptable distances, and

some are above the maximum walk distances contained within the CIHT “Guidelines

for Providing Journeys on Foot”.


“Vehicular access to the site will be provided from a continuation of

South Park eastwards. Pedestrians will also be able to use a footpath

link to Mill Lane to the south.”

4.6.13 Plates 12 and 13 show the general condition of Mill Lane showing its unsuitability for

use other than in a recreational role. Whilst Plate 14 shows Chicken Lane that provides

a link between Curve Acre and Wrafton Road providing a shorter walk to Southmead

Primary School, and to Braunton Academy though Chicken Lane itself suffers from no

overlooking, and as such poor levels of natural surveillance, and it has no street lighting

where not overlooked that will affect its propensity for use, and potentially impact upon

the safety of users.

4.6.14 South Park provides access to the site via Barn Field Close, and Moor Lea to the west,

or via South Park to the east. Plate 7 shows the proposed access point, and indicates

the context of the remainder of the estate that the proposal would be seen as an

extension to. Plate 15 shows a view along Moor Lea showing the existing traffic

calming to constrain vehicle speeds through the development. Even without the

additional traffic burden of the proposed development, there appears to be a historic

concern about vehicles through the estate that has led to the introduction of traffic

calming.

4.6.15 The use of Barn Field Close, and Moor Lea resulting in an increase in vehicle

movements through a residential development. The use of Barn Field Close results in

an intensification in the use of the Lower Park Road / Barn Field Close junction where

traffic associated with the care home frequently parks on the north side of Lower Park

Road forcing Lower Park Road into single lane working as shown on plate 16. The

use of South Park to the east would increase traffic along Lower Park Road between

South Park and Barn Field Close where the road is shared surface generally of the






Page 33

order of 4.6m to 5.0m wide with no footway provision as shown on plate 17. A road

width using MfS figure 7.1 of 4.6m allows two cars to pass with 5.0m allowing a

commercial vehicle to pass a car. Assuming the width for the various pedestrian types

from figure 6.8 any pedestrians on this section of Lower Park Road would result in

vehicles being unable to pass one another. There are no safe places for pedestrians

to step aside apart from at private driveways.

4.6.16 Paragraph 7.2.14 of MfS indicates:

“Subject to making suitable provision for disabled people, shared

surface streets are likely to work well:

In short lengths, or where they form cul-de-sacs;

Where the volume of motor traffic is below 100 vehicles per hour

(vph) (peak); and

Where parking is controlled or it takes place in designated areas.”

4.6.17 Lower Park Road is not a cul-de-sac, and carries some levels of through traffic.

Additionally, there is over this section no control of parking. The research into shared

surfaces on page 83 of MfS indicates:

“A study of public transport in London Borough Pedestrian Priority Areas

(PPAs) undertaken by TRL for the Bus Priority Team at Transport for

London concluded that there is a self-limiting factor on pedestrians

sharing space with motorists, of around 100 vph. Above this,

pedestrians treat the general path taken by motor vehicles as a ‘road’ to

be crossed rather than a space to occupy. The speed of vehicles also

had a strong influence on how pedestrians used the shared area.

Although this research project concentrated on PPAs, it is reasonable

to assume that these factors are relevant to other shared space

schemes.”

4.6.18 The general width is shown on plate 1 near South Park looking to the west, and plate

19 looking eastwards. Plate 19 is on the approach to Barn Field Close showing that

there is no verge for pedestrians to step onto. The relatively straight nature of Lower

Park Road does not constrain vehicular speeds. Parked cars are a hazard along

Lower Park Road as shown on plate 20 affecting Barn Field Close, and on plate 21 on

first entry from Wrafton Road.

4.6.19 Reference is drawn to Mill Lane, which is not on any great logical pedestrian desire

line. Notwithstanding its present surfacing, and lack of lighting coupled with very






Page 34

limited overlooking, the use of the lane would not be logical to use to reach the nearest

primary or secondary school, or to access the services and facilities in the centre of

the village, or to access bus services.


“The development will generate around 28 additional vehicles on South

Park in the morning and evening peak hours. On a Saturday lunchtime

peak an additional 20 vehicles would travel along South Park. An

additional vehicles every 2-3 minutes at peak times would not be

noticeable.”

4.6.21 It is noted that the applicants now the appellants have used industry standard software

in terms of the TRICS database, and I have no great reason to dispute their selection

criteria in that assessment. In addition they have used journey to work census data to

define likely distribution of trips, and modal share. There is nothing unusual about this.

The additional vehicles have however to be seen in the context of background traffic

flows. Given the character of the roads, and the shared surface nature this is disputed.


“Based on the likely routes taken an additional 8 cars are likely to travel

through the centre of Braunton in the morning and evening peak hours.

This is compared to the 1600 vehicles recorded travelling through the

town centre in peak hours during the busy summer holidays. The

increase is less than 1% and is within typical daily variations, so no

difference in traffic would be observed.”

4.6.23 The distribution in the TA indicates that 72% of all residents would route towards and

from Barnstaple via Wrafton Road. 1% is predicted within the TA to use Lower Park

Road to the east routing along country lanes to reach destinations whilst 27% of all

residents use other routes including Croyde and Ilfracombe. For travel towards Croyde

and Saunton Sands, the only logical route is via the A361 / B3231 traffic signals which

is predicted by the appellants to be 10% of all residents. The remaining 17% is bound

to or from Ilfracombe to the north. Hill View avoids the use of the A361 / B3231 traffic

signals to travel towards Ilfracombe but it is narrow in width with parked vehicles along

most of its length reducing it to single lane working as shown on plate 3. There is also

a 6ft 6in width restriction at its northern end where it is also one way northbound and

as such traffic from Ilfracombe towards the site has no option but to route through the

traffic signals. From Lower Park Road, the traffic signals are reached via Heanton






Page 35

Street that is 4.1m wide with a footway for its most part of 1.1m wide as shown on plate

22. As indicated on figure 7.1 of MfS this road width is only adequate for two cars to

pass, and plate 22 clearly indicates that cars cannot pass commercial vehicles.

Heanton Street is not a part or does not constitute an arm of the signal controlled

junction but forms a priority junction approximately 30m to its south at a complex

arrangement. Traffic leaving Heanton Street at peak hours has to rely on either the

adjacent pelican crossing being used, and no vehicles blocking the junction, or vehicles

on the A361 being courteous. Either operation causes an issue. Firstly if vehicles pull

out when the pelican is used, it consequentially increases the queue length on the

A361 northbound arm, and secondly if a vehicle is let out by a courteous driver this

can result in less vehicles being able to turn right from Croyde or travel along the A361

from the north.


“The County Highways Authority has no objections to the appeal

proposals subject to conditions and contributions being secured

towards improvements to the adjoining public right of way and travel

plan measures.”

4.6.25 There is in section 8 “Concluding Remarks” no specific reference to highways and

transport issues save for that many be construed by the fifth bullet point viz:

“the very limited harm that would arise from the appeal proposals does

not significantly and demonstrably, nor in any way, outweigh the very

clear and substantial benefits it would deliver”

4.6.26 The appellants’ Statement of Case omits any detailed reference to Wrafton Road. The

indication is one additional vehicle every three minutes but this does not acknowledge

that Wrafton Road operates for most of the day as single track. The quantum of

increase will lead to inevitable additional conflicts.

4.6.27 Wrafton Road is not an A road nor a B road, it is a residential road with frontage access,

and two schools along its length. In addition, it has a public house, a social club, and

a retail unit.

4.6.28 It is generally 6.5m to 7.0m wide though where the lesser width it has on one side

parking restricting it to single lane working as shown on plate 23, and where the greater

width has parking on both sides resulting in it also being single track too. The section

of most concern being from south of Heanton Street through to Barton Lane.






Page 36

4.6.29 Beyond Barton Lane the existence of Southmead Primary School to the east, and

Braunton Academy to the west results in significant demand to cross. The Braunton

Academy car park also being located on the eastern side.

4.6.30 Traffic calming reduces the width of Wrafton Road in three locations to 3.6m, 3.7m and

4.1m from north to south respectively as shown on plates 24, 25 and 26. Plate 27

shows a view along Wrafton Road. However, the issue of the width of Wrafton Road

is not just related to that section between Heanton Street, and Braunton Academy as

plate 28 shows a view along Wrafton Road near the Knowl Water bridge with parked

vehicles, and plate 29 a view further south in the vicinity of The Williams Arms showing

residential properties abutting the road.

4.7 Summary

4.7.1 The main issues at dispute for this appeal in my opinion are those within the context

of NPPF paragraph 32, and are summarised as:

i) The impact of the additional movements generated by the appeal proposal

which are not disputed in quantum though are disputed in terms of impact,

ii) The impact of those additional movements on the local highway network and in

particular on Wrafton Road, and through the A361 / B3231 traffic signals where

along Wrafton Road the additional 72% of all vehicles generated by this site will

be bound to increase conflict potential on the sections constrained by parked

cars on one side, or on both sides, and where the development will impact at

the A361 / B3231 traffic signals due to the juxtaposition of junctions, and traffic

intensity meaning that traffic only exits Heanton Street when other vehicles are

courteous,

iii) Whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users,

iv) Whether there is a severe impact, and in this context, it is contended that there

is at both the A361 / B3231 traffic signals, and along Wrafton Road, and

iv) Whether the proposal amounts to sustainable development.






Page 37

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF indicates that:

“All developments that generate significant amounts of movement

should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport

Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been

taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to

reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

safe and suitable access to be site can be achieved for all

people; and

Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network

that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the

development. Development should only be prevented or refused

on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of

the development are severe.”

5.2 The Written Statement has considered whether there are opportunities for the use of

sustainable modes of transport, whether a safe and suitable access to the site can be

achieved for all modes of travel, and whether the residual cumulative impact of the

development cannot be classed as severe.

5.3 It is our conclusion that:

i) The location is one where the opportunity for sustainable modes of access are

limited,

ii) That a safe and suitable access is not achieved for all modes due to

deficiencies in road widths that are not proposed to be improved as part of this

planning application,

iii) Safe and suitable access using the adjacent network cannot be achieved due

to the deficiencies in road width leading to an inevitable increase in conflicts

leading to safety concerns,

iv) In addition with the third bullet point in mind it is contended for the

various reasons outlined in this Written Statement that there is a severe impact

of the proposal, and

v) That there is a severe impact in the following regards:

a) The cumulative impact at the A361 / B3231 traffic signals and adjacent

A361 / Heanton Street junction,






Page 38

b) The cumulative impact along Wrafton Road due to the additional

vehicles generated by the proposal conflicting with other vehicles on the

section of Wrafton Road that is effectively single lane working due to the

presence of parked cars, and

c) The impact on the section of Lower Park Road between Barn Field

Close, and South Park that is also a shared surface.

5.4 The severe impact is notwithstanding the quantum of impact. This is due to the

inevitable increase in conflict particularly locally where there are restrictions in road

width that do not allow for the free passage of vehicles, and where the restrictions

mean vehicles approaching the constrained sections of highway locally may not be

aware of the potential oncoming conflicts. Vehicles are not able to wait to avoid such

conflicts due to the restricted widths leading to inevitable increasing in reversing to

adjacent passing spaces primarily at private accesses.

5.5 It is respectfully requested that the Inspector dismisses the Appeal.

Appendix DR/MB/A

PHOTOGRAPHS

Plate 1 Lower Park Road

Plate 2 Heanton Street

Plate 3 Hill View

Plate 4 Passing places along Wrafton Lane at private accesses

Plate 5 Mid morning conditions at the A361 traffic signals

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

crossing

Plate 7 South Park Proposed Access

Plate 8 South Park Abutting the Site to the north

Plate 9 Existing Access onto Lower Park Road

Plate 10 Typical scene along Wrafton Lane

Plate 11 Wrafton Road

Plate 12 Mill Lane from the north at Lower Park Road

Plate 13 Mill Lane from the south

Plate 14 Chicken Lane

Plate 15 Traffic calming along Moor Lea

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

Plate 17 Lower Park Road shared surface

Plate 18 Lower Park Road west of South Park looking east

Plate 19 Lower Park Road west of South Park looking west

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

Plate 21 Lower Park Road

Plate 22 Heanton Street

Plate 24 Wrafton Road near Braunton Academy looking north

Plate 25 Wrafton Road near Braunton Academy looking south

Plate 26 Wrafton Road outside Southmead Primary School

Plate 27 Wrafton Road south of Barton Lane looking north

Plate 29 Wrafton Road by The Williams Arms

planning appeal by chicester homes developments … · planning appeal by chicester homes...

Documents