TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT
MELL ROAD, TOLLESBURY, ESSEX
CLIENT: GLADMAN
P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Document Control Job Number P19022 Document Version Final Revision B N:\Projects 2019\P19022 - Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex (2018- File Reference 119)\7.Reports\TA Date July 2019 Client Gladman Name Position Written By Vanessa Blackburn Transport Planner Checked & Approved By David Schumacher Director
P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 Purpose of Report ...... 3 1.2 Scope of Report ...... 3 2 TRANSPORT POLICY AND GUIDANCE ...... 5 2.1 Introduction ...... 5 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework ...... 5 2.3 Planning Practice Guidance ...... 6 2.4 Essex Transport Strategy: The Local Transport Plan ...... 7 2.5 Development Management Policies – February 2011 ...... 8 2.6 Maldon District Local Development Plan (2014-2029) ...... 10 2.7 Manual for Streets ...... 12 2.8 The Essex Design Guide 2018 ...... 13 2.9 Summary ...... 13 3 EXISTING SITUATION ...... 15 3.1 Site Description ...... 15 3.2 Local Highway Network ...... 16 3.3 Existing Traffic Conditions ...... 16 4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ...... 21 4.1 Development Description ...... 21 4.2 Access Strategy ...... 21 4.3 Additional Access for Pedestrians and Cyclists ...... 23 4.4 Parking ...... 24 4.5 Summary ...... 24 5 ACCESS BY SUSTAINABLE MODES ...... 27 5.1 Introduction to Sustainable Modes of Transport ...... 27 5.2 Access on Foot ...... 27 5.3 Access by Cycle ...... 29 5.4 Access by Bus ...... 31 5.5 Summary ...... 32 6 ENCOURAGING THE USE OF SUSTAINABLE MODES ...... 35 6.1 Introduction ...... 35 6.2 Reducing the Need to Travel ...... 35 6.3 Residential Travel Information Pack ...... 36 6.4 Other Methods of Awareness Raising and Marketing ...... 36 6.5 Measures to Encourage Walking ...... 37 6.6 Measures to Promote Cycling ...... 37
1 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
6.7 Measures to Encourage Public Transport ...... 38 6.8 Measures to Reduce Single Occupancy Car Trips ...... 38 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 39 7.1 Introduction ...... 39 7.2 Traffic Growth ...... 39 7.3 Committed Development ...... 39 7.4 Vehicular Trip Generation ...... 40 7.5 Person Trip Rates ...... 42 7.6 Trip Distribution ...... 43 7.7 Impact Assessment ...... 44 7.8 Junction Capacity Assessments ...... 44 7.9 Summary ...... 47 8 HIGHWAY SAFETY ...... 49 8.1 Accident Data ...... 49 8.2 Road Safety Audit ...... 50 8.3 Summary ...... 53 9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 55 9.1 Summary ...... 55 9.2 Conclusion ...... 56
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A SCOPING CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX B FIGURES APPENDIX C TRAFFIC FLOW DIAGRAMS APPENDIX D TECHNICAL DRAWINGS APPENDIX E TRICS TRIP GENERATION OUTPUT APPENDIX F TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION CALCULATION APPENDIX G JUNCTION CAPACITY MODEL OUTPUT APPENDIX H ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
2 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Report
1.1.1 This report considers the highways and transportation implications associated with Gladman’s proposal for a residential development comprising up to 90 dwellings located on land off Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex.
1.1.2 This document has been prepared in accordance with the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance: Transport evidence bases in plan making (October 2014) and Travel Plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking (March 2014) as well as Essex County Council’s Development Management Policies (February 2011) and the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA) (March 2007).
1.1.3 The conclusions and recommendations contained herein have been drawn based on information available and obtained in advance of the planning submission to which this report relates.
1.1.4 Reasonable checks have been carried out on any third-party information used in the preparation of this report but, nonetheless, Prime Transport Planning accepts no liability for the accuracy or otherwise of this data.
1.1.5 Third-party rights are excluded for the use of information contained within this report.
1.2 Scope of Report
1.2.1 This report has been prepared in accordance with Transport evidence bases in plan making which replaced the DfT’s GTA on the 22nd October 2014. However, the new document is not a like-for-like replacement for GTA, providing no guidance on the production of Transport Assessments to accompany developments. The latest guidance instead helps local planning authorities assess strategic transport needs to reflect and, where appropriate, mitigate these in their Local Plan.
1.2.2 More relevant information is provided within the PPG under Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision-Taking however this also does not provide the level of detailed guidance that was contained within DfT’s GTA.
1.2.3 The lack of current detailed guidance places greater emphasis on agreeing the scope of a TA with the highway authority responsible for the location in which the development is proposed and in employing industry best-practice. Given that GTA was in place for 7-years, Prime believes that assessment in-line with the document still represents industry best-practice, particularly for aspects where the current guidance lacks the necessary detail to form a robust assessment.
1.2.4 Essex County Council (ECC) is the highway authority responsible for the highway network in Tollesbury. An email based scoping exercise was undertaken with ECC, and an initial scoping note
3 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
highlighting the proposed methodology was submitted to the Highways Officers at ECC on 20th March 2019.
1.2.5 The original Scoping Note, ECC’s response and other correspondence regarding the scope of this TA is provided in Appendix A.
1.2.6 Following this introduction, the remainder of this report is structured as follows:
Section 2 describes the relevant local and national transport policy and guidance; Section 3 describes the existing situation in terms of the site, local highway network and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; Section 4 details the development proposal including the access strategy and parking arrangements; Section 5 details access to the site by sustainable modes of travel which includes walking, cycling and public transport; Section 6 discusses the forecasting methodology, trip generation of the site and the ability of the proposed site access and various off-site junctions to accommodate the generated traffic; Section 7 describes the existing safety of the local highway network adjacent to the site and details a Road Safety Audit undertaken of the proposed access arrangement; and Section 8 concludes the findings of the Transport Assessment.
4 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
2 TRANSPORT POLICY AND GUIDANCE
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 It is important that any new developments conform to and complement national and local planning policy. This section details the policies that are relevant to this development.
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework
2.2.1 The current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in February 2019 and sets out the Government’s current planning policies. At the core of NPPF is ‘a presumption in favour of sustainable development’ as detailed in paragraphs 10 and 11.
2.2.2 Section 9 of the NPPF, Promoting sustainable transport, outlines the important role that the planning system has in facilitating sustainable development. It states in paragraph 103 that:
‘Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health.’
2.2.3 The document offers guidance for planning policies including:
supporting appropriate mixes of land uses; minimising the number and length of journeys; actively involving local highway authorities, transport infrastructure providers and operators and neighbouring councils in order to align strategies and investments for supporting sustainable travel; and providing high quality walking and cycling networks and associated supporting facilities such as cycle parking.
2.2.4 Paragraph 108 of the NPPF provides direction for the assessment of sites for development, stating:
‘…it should be ensured that:
a) appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location;
b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and
c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.’
5 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
2.2.5 In determining planning applications, paragraph 109 states that:
‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.’
2.2.6 Paragraph 110 continues:
‘Within this context, applications for development should:
a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use;
b) address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport;
c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards;
d) allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; and
e) be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.’
2.2.7 In the context of PRoW connections and enhancement, point a) of paragraph 118 acknowledges improved public access to the countryside as being a benefit that should be encouraged.
2.2.8 Paragraph 111 highlights the need for planning applications for developments that will ‘generate significant amounts of movements’ to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment or Transport Statement and a Travel Plan so that the ‘likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed’.
2.3 Planning Practice Guidance
2.3.1 The theme of sustainable development runs throughout Planning Practice Guidance, with the detailed elements regarding transport being focussed in the following sections:
Transport Evidence Bases in Plan Making and Decision-Taking; and Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision-Taking.
2.3.2 Both sections of the Guidance provide significant amounts of detail on the information types and sources that are appropriate for helping Local Planning Authorities to take forward their Local Plan
6 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
with an appropriate evidence base. The Guidance is also a useful reference for assessing schemes such as the development which this report accompanies.
2.3.3 The core components of the requirements for assessment, as set out in the Guidance, can be summarised as:
‘The key issues, which should be considered in developing a transport evidence base, include the need to:
assess the existing situation and likely generation of trips over time by all modes and the impact on the locality in economic, social and environmental terms. assess the opportunities to support a pattern of development that, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport. highlight and promote opportunities to reduce the need for travel where appropriate. identify opportunities to prioritise the use of alternative modes in both existing and new development locations if appropriate. consider the cumulative impacts of existing and proposed development on transport networks. assess the quality and capacity of transport infrastructure and its ability to meet forecast demands. identify the short, medium and long-term transport proposals across all modes.’
2.3.4 The principles set out in Planning Practice Guidance are consistent with the approach undertaken in the production of this Transport Assessment.
2.4 Essex Transport Strategy: The Local Transport Plan
2.4.1 The Essex Transport Strategy: The Local Transport Plan (referred to as LTP3) was adopted as policy in June 2011 and sets out how ECC will manage and improve transport between 2011 and 2026. The plan aims to achieve the following five broad outcomes:
Provide connectivity for Essex communities and international gateways to support sustainable economic growth and regeneration; Reduce carbon dioxide emission and improve air quality through lifestyle changes, innovation and technology; Improve safety on the transport network and enhance and promote a safe travelling environment; Secure and maintain all transport assets to an appropriate standard and ensure that the network is available for use; and Provide sustainable access and travel choice for Essex residents to help create sustainable communities.
7 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
2.4.2 Policy 2 of LTP3 states that new developments should be located in areas which are accessible to key services by sustainable forms of transport. Furthermore, Policy 7 states that new development should minimise the number and length of trips made by private vehicles.
2.4.3 Policy 8 of LTP3 states that more sustainable travel will be supported by ensuring adequate provision is made within new developments for public transport and other low carbon forms of travel that the new development complies with current Council parking standards and that low carbon travel choices are promoted through travel planning and similar measures.
2.4.4 Policy 15 goes on to state that ECC will ensure that the public rights of way network is well maintained and easy to use by walkers, cyclists and equestrians.
2.5 Development Management Policies – February 2011
2.5.1 The aims of the Development Management Policies are to achieve the following aims:
Protect and maintain a reliable and safe highway infrastructure; Improve access to services in both rural and urban locations; Offer where possible alternative travel options to the private car; Support and enhance public transport provision; Address the impact of commercial vehicles on the highway network and communities; and Support the aims and objectives of the County Council as the Highway Authority.
2.5.2 The policies considered applicable to this application are as follows:
Policy DM7 – Application of Design Standards
‘The Highway Authority will protect the highway network for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods by ensuring that all works within the highway comply with the current national ECC design standards appropriate for the category of road and ensuring that:
I. Visibility splays and stopping sight distances (SSD) for all roads with the exception of internal estate roads which carry or are intended to carry HGV’s and/or passenger transport vehicles at a level of less than 5% of the overall traffic flow, must comply with standards contained within DMRB unless otherwise agreed with the Highway Authority.
II. Visibility splays and stopping sight distances (SSD) for internal estate roads must comply with standards contained within the Essex Design Guide or Manual for Streets, or their subsequent replacement documents, except where 5% or more of the overall traffic flow consists of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV’s and/or passenger transport vehicles).’
8 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Policy DM8 – Vehicle Parking Standards
‘The Highway Authority will ensure that development proposals comply with Essex County Council’s current ‘Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice’ documents, or its subsequent replacement.’
Policy DM9 – Accessibility and Transport Sustainability
‘The Highway Authority will ensure that the developer will minimise the number of trips by private vehicle through the provision of alternative transport modes and/or associated infrastructure.’
Policy DM10 – Travel Plans
‘The Highway Authority will require the provision of a Travel Plan and monitoring fee as part of any development proposals that meets the following criteria:
I. All new residential dwellings will require the provision for a Residential Travel Information Pack.’
Policy DM11 – Public Rights of Way
‘The Highway Authority will:
II. Safeguard the existing network of Definitive Public Rights of Way where affected by development, ensuring that it remains protected and open for use by the public.
III. Require that, where Definitive Rights of Way exist through a development site, it will be retained on its existing alignment and the development designed and laid out to accommodate it. In the event that there is no alternative and the development cannot accommodate the existing Definitive Public Right of Way, a diversion and / or alternative route shall be provided. Any such diversion and / or alternative must be approved as convenient and suitable in all aspects by the Highway Authority and will be constructed in accordance with current standards.
IV. Require the creation of new and / or enhancement of existing Definitive Rights of Way and / or permissive routes to encourage alternative modes of transport.
V. Take appropriate consideration of Rights of Way reasonably alleged to subsist, where affected by development.’
9 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Policy DM13 – Transport Assessments
‘The Highway Authority will require:
I. A Transport Assessment (TA) to accompany a planning application with the thresholds as set out in Appendix B (C3 Residential dev >50 units), or where the Highway Authority deems it necessary.’
Policy DM14 – Safety Audits
‘The Highway Authority will require:
II. A Stage 1 Safety Audit report will include designer’s response where appropriate to accompany any planning application which seeks to materially alter the existing highway.
III. Any Safety Audit accompanying a planning application to have carried out in accordance with current standards by an independent auditor.’
Policy DM 15 - Congestion
‘The Highway Authority will protect the safety and efficiency of the public highway by:
I. Requiring the developer to demonstrate that the development proposal has no detrimental impact upon the existing or proposed highway in congestion terms, as measured by assessing existing and proposed link / junction capacity relevant to the development site; or
II. Require the developer to provide appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that there is no detrimental impact to the existing highway.’
2.6 Maldon District Local Development Plan (2014-2029)
2.6.1 This is the current planning policy document for the Maldon District Council (MDC), and was adopted in July 2017. The Local Development Plan (LDP) demonstrates the planning strategy for future growth over a 15 year period and describes how Maldon District Council will deliver sustainable development across the Maldon District through various objectives and policies.
2.6.2 The spatial vision and development strategy aims to deliver certain objectives, those relevant to this report are shown below:
To provide sufficient, well designed, quality housing to meet our housing needs, increase the supply of affordable housing across the District, and focus future development in sustainable locations, within settlement boundaries, garden suburbs and strategic allocations.
10 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
To facilitate the development of appropriate rural enterprises and protect and enhance rural service provision across the District.
To maintain, improve and co-ordinate public transport provision, and promote sustainable modes of transport.
To facilitate and promote sustainable development in appropriate locations throughout the District.
To facilitate the delivery of new infrastructure to meet the needs of the community.
2.6.3 The policies considered most applicable to this application are:
Policy T1 - Sustainable Transport:
The Council will work with the public and a range of partners to deliver a more sustainable transport network for the District. This will be achieved through the delivery of sustainable transport infrastructure set out in other Policies in this plan, including Policies S3, S4, S5, S6 and I1, and by supporting measures which:
1) Secure provision for sustainable transport in new development;
2) Give priority to pedestrians, wheelchairs, cyclists and public transport over private vehicles;
3) Improve access to railway services by enhancing station facilities and the interchange arrangements between rail and other forms of transport;
4) Enable the provision for new bus services as well as maintaining and improving existing services in the District which connect the more rural and inaccessible communities with key settlements in the District and beyond;
5) Promote and secure the provision for demand responsive services and community transport schemes to increase accessibility for the more rural and inaccessible communities within the District;
6) Develop a high quality, safe and more comprehensive cycle route and footpath network for the District;
7) Seek to provide simple, accurate, accessible and integrated public transport information to the public; and
8) Ease traffic congestion in the historic core of Maldon and Heybridge, as well as other ‘hot-spots’ identified within the District. Transport Assessments and Statements will be
11 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
required to have regard to the adopted Essex County Council’s Development Management Policies or successor documents, in order to assess the impact of development in terms of highway safety and capacity for both access to the proposed development and the wider highway network. Travel Plans will also be required for proposed development as appropriate.
Policy T2 – Accessibility
To create and maintain an accessible environment, development proposals should where relevant to the development involved:
1) Be located where there is physical and environmental capacity to accommodate the type and amount of traffic generated, or locations where the impact can be suitably mitigated, taking into account the cumulative impact of developments;
2) Provide safe and direct walking and cycling routes to nearby services, facilities and public transport where appropriate;
3) Improve accessibility to the countryside and the natural environment and to enhance and protect the provision of Public Rights of Way;
4) Improve accessibility to buildings, streets and public spaces, particularly for those with mobility impairments;
5) Provide sufficient parking facilities having regard to the Council’s adopted parking standards;
6) Provide sufficient and safe access to service and emergency vehicles; and
7) Give appropriate consideration to encourage a people-oriented space within the development.
2.7 Manual for Streets
2.7.1 Manual for Streets (MfS) was published on behalf of the DfT and Communities and Local Government in March 2007 and provides advice for the design of residential streets in England and Wales.
2.7.2 The focus of MfS is to demonstrate the:
‘…the benefits that flow from good design and assigns a higher priority to pedestrians and cyclists, setting out an approach to residential streets that recognises their role in creating places that work for all members of the community. MfS refocuses on the place function of residential streets, giving clear guidance on how to achieve well-designed streets and spaces that serve the community in a range of ways’ (MfS page 7).
12 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
2.7.3 The guidance addresses many common design principles and discusses detailed design issues, often presenting recommended design criteria. Some of the key principles of MfS include:
The need to shift from focusing on designing for motor vehicles to designing streets around the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users which in turn enhances safety; Good design can help to create and strengthen a sense of place and community; Creating streets that are permeable and offer good quality connections to main destinations for all road users; Inclusive design that recognises the needs of people of all ages and abilities; and Cost-effective construction often by avoiding over-designing.
2.7.4 In September 2010 a companion document Manual for Streets 2 – Wider Application of the Principles (MfS2) was published. This document expands on some of the design principles of MfS and provides examples of places where designs based on these principles have been implemented.
2.8 The Essex Design Guide 2018
2.8.1 The Essex Design Guide was created in 1973 and has been updated a number of times since, most recently in 2018. According to the website (www.essexdesignguide.co.uk), ‘The 2018 edition seeks to address the evolution of socio-economic impacts of place-making.’
2.8.2 It provides comprehensive, considered and detailed advice on all aspects of place making, including a number of sections dedicated to roads and movement. The Design Details: Highways Technical Manual V.1 provides specific guidance on the technical criteria for highway infrastructure, including carriageway widths, centreline radii, footway provision etc.
2.8.3 Parking matters are covered within the Design Details: Parking Design V.1 document.
2.9 Summary
2.9.1 This section has outlined national and local transport policies and guidance which are applicable to the development site. How the site conforms to and complements these policies and guidance will be discussed in the following sections of this report, where relevant
13 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
This page has been left intentionally blank
14 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
3 EXISTING SITUATION
3.1 Site Description
3.1.1 The application site is currently undeveloped and in agricultural use. It is located to the south east of the village of Tollesbury, adjacent to the existing residential frontage to Mell Road. Open countryside/ farmland forms the southern and western boundaries of the site with the rear of properties running along Mell Road backing onto the site along the northern and eastern boundaries.
3.1.2 Tollesbury itself is within the county of Essex, located circa 25km to the east of Chelmsford and 15km south of Colchester. The location of the site in the context of Tollesbury and the local highway network is illustrated in Figure 1 in Appendix B.
3.1.3 Image 3.1 below shows the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) in the vicinity of the site, this being an extract of ECC’s online mapping system with footpaths being highlighted in pink. This shows that to the south of the site a public footpath allows for access by foot to Church Street in a western direction and a more southern point of Mell Road in an eastern direction. The blue star indicates the site location.
Image 3.1: Extract from ECC’s Online Mapping System Depicting the Public Rights of Way
Source:https://www.essexhighways.org/getting-around/public-rights-of-way/prow-interactive- map.aspx
15 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
3.2 Local Highway Network
3.2.1 As mentioned above, Mell Road forms the northern and eastern boundaries of the site and provides a connection through to the centre of Tollesbury to the west and to the B1023 Tollesbury Road which leads to the villages of Tolleshunt D’Arcy and Tiptree some 3.5km and 9km to the west respectively.
3.2.2 Adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, Mell Road measures approximately 6m wide along the straight section of carriageway, widening to approximately 6.8m as the road bends northwards when heading west towards the village centre. The road bends again at the junction with Woodrolfe Road where Mell Road becomes East Street and continues west into the village centre. Several of the properties along Mell Road have driveways providing access to in-curtilage parking, however there are some properties, as well as a convenience store towards the northern end of Mell Road where in- curtilage parking is not provided, resulting in some on-street parking.
3.2.3 In proximity to the site, the footway provision on the southern side (site side) of the road measures approximately 1.4m in width, widening to circa 1.8m on the corner with East Street, while the footway on the northern side (opposite side) of the road varies in width between circa 1.0m and 1.4m. The southern footway provides a continuous connection to the centre of the village, where the local church, public house, bus stop etc. are located, however there is a telegraph pole situated within the footway approximately 45m south from the junction with East Street and Woodrolfe Road, obstructing the existing pedestrian route into the village centre, albeit just for a short distance.
3.2.4 Mell Road has a prevailing 30mph speed limit for the extent of the northern and eastern boundaries of the site, this changing to national speed limit (60mph) towards the southern boundary. The speed limit change is demarcated through the provision of speed signs, which are located where the existing dwellings terminate on the western side of the road.
3.3 Existing Traffic Conditions
3.3.1 A site visit was undertaken on Tuesday 9th April 2019. It was observed during the site visit that traffic flows along Mell Road were fairly low. As mentioned previously there are sections of on-street parking along Mell Road, which can result in vehicles having to wait and give way to on-coming vehicles. The on-street parking does appear to help control traffic speeds, with the parked cars providing some side friction and chicane effect to the through movements. While there is the industrial area off Woodrolfe Road, heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements appear to be relatively infrequent.
Traffic Surveys
3.3.2 An email-based Scoping Exercise was undertaken with the initial scoping note being submitted to ECC on the 20th March 2019. A response was received from ECC on the 25th April 2019. Subsequent correspondence to agree the methodology for establishing the trip rates was carried out and agreed
16 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
in an e-mail dated 2nd May 2019. The scoping note together with the relevant ECC’s responses are provided in Appendix A.
3.3.3 It was agreed through the scoping process that manual classified counts and queue length surveys should be undertaken at the following locations:
High Street/North Road/Elysian Gardens (4 arm priority); B1023 Tollesbury Road/B1026 Church Street (3 arm priority); and Mell Road/ Woodrolfe Farm Lane (3 arm priority)
3.3.4 The first two junctions were agreed with highways at ECC for the purpose of the capacity assessment and the third junction was agreed so that a local trip rate could be derived.
3.3.5 The following junction was not discussed during the scoping exercise but was included within the traffic surveys to aid the air quality assessments:
East Street/ Mell Road/ Woodrolfe Road (3 arm priority)
3.3.6 The traffic survey locations are shown graphically in Figure 1 of Appendix B.
3.3.7 The classified turning count and queue length surveys were undertaken on Wednesday 27th March 2019. This is considered a typical weekday within a neutral month, as defined by DfT’s WebTAG guidance. As such, the data is considered appropriate for the purposes of assessment.
3.3.8 The above counts were carried out between 07:00 and 10:00 and 15:30 and 18:30 to ensure that the commuter peaks were surveyed, allowing the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours to be determined.
3.3.9 The utilisation of the results of these surveys in ascertaining the capacity of the abovementioned junctions is described in Section 7.
3.3.10 The traffic survey data has been interrogated to derive the AM and PM peak hours of the local highway network which were found to be as follows:
AM Peak: 07:30 – 08:30; and PM Peak: 16:15 – 17:15
3.3.11 Traffic Flow Diagrams 1 and 2, included at Appendix C, summarise the observed peak hour traffic flows and queue lengths. In order to aid the capacity assessment modelling detailed in Section 7, the three user classes surveyed have been condensed into two, with buses added to the ‘Heavy’ user class.
3.3.12 The observed peak hour traffic flows along Mell Road in the vicinity of the site, High Street and West Street based on the abovementioned surveys are shown in Table 3.1 below.
17 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Table 3.1: Peak Hour Link Flows along Mell Road, High Street and West Street
Link Flow Peak Direction Lights Heavies Total Heavy % Mell Road east of Woodrolfe Road Westbound 82 0 82 0.00% AM Eastbound 46 1 47 2.13% 2-Way 128 1 129 0.78% Westbound 55 0 55 0.00% PM Eastbound 93 0 93 0.00% 2-Way 148 0 148 0.00% High Street east of North Road Westbound 229 5 234 2.14% AM Eastbound 153 7 160 4.38% 2-Way 382 12 394 3.05% Westbound 155 2 157 1.27% PM Eastbound 219 3 222 1.35% 2-Way 374 5 379 1.32% West Street west of North Road Westbound 184 5 189 2.65% AM Eastbound 97 7 104 6.73% 2-Way 281 12 293 4.10% Westbound 122 2 124 1.61% PM Eastbound 179 3 182 1.65% 2-Way 301 5 306 1.63%
3.3.13 The information contained in Table 3.1 suggest that traffic flows on the main road through the settlement are relatively low, and significantly less than what could be considered to be the capacity of a two-way single carriageway of similar width (worst case 750 two-way trips according to Table 2 of TA79/99, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)). The highest link flow of 234 vehicles was recorded westbound on High Street in the AM peak, this figure is equivalent to just 4 vehicles per minute. The HGV numbers are also very low with a maximum of 7 one-way recorded travelling eastbound on High Street and West Street, equivalent to around just 1 every 8-9 minutes in the AM peak hour. Only 1 HGV was recorded in the vicinity of the site.
3.3.14 The queue length surveys recorded the maximum queue lengths every five minutes at all of the junctions surveyed. Queues were measured as stationary and/or slow moving traffic less than 5mph.
3.3.15 The traffic speeds on Mell Road adjacent to the site were measured using an Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) installed for a 7-day period from 22nd March 2019 in the vicinity of the proposed site access.
3.3.16 The results of this survey are shown in Table 3.2
18 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Table 3.2: Recorded Speeds on Mell Road in the vicinity of the proposed site access
Speed (mph) Direction Average 85th %ile Westbound 17.8 23.6 Eastbound 16.7 22.4
3.3.17 The speeds were measured at the approximate location of the proposed site access, this being located within the 30mph speed limit area. The measured speeds reflect the residential nature of the road, and that drivers are driving at an appropriate speed for the residential area, well within the speed limit.
3.3.18 The raw traffic survey data is available on request.
19 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
This page has been left intentionally blank
20 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
4.1 Development Description
4.1.1 As mentioned above Gladman is seeking outline planning permission for up to 90 dwellings on land to the south west of Mell Road which is located to the south east of the village of Tollesbury in Essex. The nature of the application will mean that all matters will be reserved except for the main vehicular access.
4.1.2 Other documents submitted as part of the planning application will provide details relating to the composition of housing to be provided on-site and any areas of public open space. These documents should be available via the online MDC planning portal.
4.1.3 A Development Framework Plan has been produced by FPCR and forms part of the supporting documentation for the planning application. The Development Framework Plan shows that the site is proposed to be accessed via a single priority controlled junction located on Mell Road. A secondary pedestrian/cycle access is proposed on the Mell Road site frontage which would allow pedestrians and cyclists to connect more easily with destinations to the south and east.
4.2 Access Strategy
4.2.1 The proposed access arrangement is illustrated in Drawing P19022-001D in Appendix D and has been agreed in principle with ECC.
Vehicular Access
4.2.2 Access is to be taken through property no.6 Mell Road meaning that the current house will be demolished. Given the number of dwellings proposed as part of this scheme, a single access will be appropriate to serve the site, this being in the form of a priority controlled junction (‘T’-junction). In accordance with The Essex Design Guide, the access will consist of a 5.5m wide carriageway, 6m corner radii and two 2m wide footways either side of the access. The footway to the west of the proposed access will be widened to tie into the wider site side footway provision of 1.6m further northwest along Mell Road. As mentioned previously, a telegraph pole is situated in the southern footway, located approximately 30m west from the proposed vehicular access. The applicant is willing to relocate the telegraph pole into the adopted verge behind the footway, so as to aid the pedestrian desire line into the village centre.
4.2.3 These suggested footways will supplement a network of pedestrian/cycle infrastructure that would be provided within the site, including the pedestrian/cycle route that is shown indicatively traversing the site boundary on the submitted Development Framework Plan.
21 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
4.2.4 In order to ensure that the proposed vehicular access is a safe design, the empirical visibility splays have been calculated based on the stopping sight distance (SSD) for vehicles. MfS2 contains the following calculation for SSD:
SSD = vt + v²/2(d+0.1a) where: v = speed (m/s) t = driver perception-reaction time (seconds) d = deceleration (m/s²) a = longitudinal gradient (%)
4.2.5 Table 10.1 in MfS2 provides a recommendation of variable SSD criteria. For speeds of 60kph (37mph) and below, a reaction time of 1.5s and deceleration rate of 0.45g (equivalent to 4.41m/s²) should be used; for speeds above 60kph, a reaction time of 2s and deceleration rate of 0.375g (3.68m/s²) (absolute), or 0.25g (2.45m/s²) (desirable), should be used.
4.2.6 Table 3.2 within Section 3 presented the results of the survey finding that the 85%ile northwest bound speed was 23.6mph and the southeast bound 22.4mph. No wet weather reduction factor has been used, due to the method of recording speeds being in place for 1 week, with unknown weather conditions.
4.2.7 The above speeds have been input into the SSD calculation provided above, to derive required stopping sight distances, otherwise known as the ‘y’ distance, of 28.4m to the northwest and 2.4m to the southeast.
4.2.8 In-line with MfS and ECC guidance, an ‘x’ distance of 2.4m will be used, which ‘represents a reasonable maximum distance between the front of the car and the driver’s eye’ (MfS2 paragraph 10.5.6). Collectively the ‘x’ and ‘y’ distances are referred to as the visibility splays.
4.2.9 For robustness, visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m have been shown on Proposed Access Arrangement Drawing P19022-001D contained with Appendix D, which is commensurate with the 30mph speed limit. It is clear from the drawing that the above mentioned visibility splays lie within the adopted highway, with greater distances achievable in both directions.
4.2.10 As previously mentioned in Section 3, it was noted that some on-street parking takes place along Mell Road to the north west of the proposed access. It is understood that the on-street parking therefore effectively narrows the width of the carriageway resulting in some vehicles having to wait and give way to on-coming vehicles however, as the existing carriageway is relatively wide in this location at circa 6.2m - 6.8m, the on-street parking helps to act as a traffic calming feature. Due to the nature of the road, it was observed that there are very few through movements along Mell Road, therefore Prime feel that the proposal would have limited impact on the existing situation. If deemed necessary
22 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
however, the applicant would be willing to work with ECC to devise a formal parking scheme to enhance the existing chicane effect and improve the existing situation.
4.2.11 To demonstrate that such an access will be safe and suitable to serve the site for larger vehicles, a swept path analysis using the industry approved AutoTrack software package has been undertaken for a typical non-commercial refuse collection vehicle (3 axle Dennis Eagle Phoenix 2-17N) which represents the largest vehicle (10.22m long) expected to regularly access the site. The swept path analysis has been illustrated in Drawing P19002-002A (Appendix D) which demonstrates that the vehicle can safely access and egress the site in forward gear.
4.2.12 As with junctions at most residential access roads, the refuse collection vehicle encroaches slightly onto the opposing sides of roads when entering and leaving. This is normal and is understood by the drivers who are aware of the vehicle swept path. It is usual for refuse collection vehicle drivers to allow for such overhangs by ensuring that opposing vehicles are either allowed to pass before a manoeuvre is completed or vice versa.
4.2.13 This should be agreeable as such vehicles are only likely to access the site once every week and MfS guidance states that good design should not cater for infrequent movements and vehicle types (over- designing). Furthermore, traffic flows on the minor arm will be minimal i.e. less than one vehicle per minute in the peak hours (see Section 7) so it is unlikely that there will be traffic when the refuse collection vehicle is accessing/egressing the site and any delay incurred will be minimal. Providing an access based on more onerous geometric dimensions would favour vehicles rather than pedestrians, making it more difficult for pedestrians to cross over the access road at the junction.
4.2.14 It is expected that the masterplan associated with any Reserved Matters application will include turning areas within the site for such vehicles, either in the form of internal loops or turning heads.
4.2.15 The design speed of the access road will be 20mph. While the internal layout will be subject to a separate Reserved Matters application by the potential house builder, it is expected that it will be based on The Essex Design Guide and MfS design guidance meaning that the layout will focus on the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users, create a sense of place and community, create permeable streets offering good quality connections and will recognise the needs of people of all ages and abilities. All of these should be achieved without over-designing.
4.3 Additional Access for Pedestrians and Cyclists
4.3.1 Aside from being able to use the above mentioned vehicular access, which would include dropped kerbs at the crossing desire line to aid crossing for wheelchair and buggy users, an additional pedestrian/ cycle connection would be provided on the northern boundary of the site, connecting with Mell Road further to the east than the main access. The applicant is willing to provide a dropped kerb crossing with tactile paving to the east of the proposed pedestrian/ cycle connection to aid
23 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
pedestrian movements to the local amenities located to the east of the village which are mentioned in more detail in Section 5.
4.3.2 Tactile paving is also proposed at the existing dropped kerb crossing at The Mount, to aid pedestrian movements to the village centre as shown in drawing P19022-001D,
4.3.3 Provision of such accesses will enhance the site’s permeability and connectivity by sustainable modes of travel. They will also help the site to integrate with the surrounding areas and is therefore compliant with the various Themes and Objectives outlined within the LTP document.
4.4 Parking
4.4.1 Parking provision within the site will be the subject of a Reserved Matters application once the final housing mix is known. This Reserved Matters application will be fully compliant with ECC’s parking standards as contained in the document Parking Standards Design and Good Practice (September March 2009) which is still current, being referenced in the 2018 version of the Essex Design Guide. Table 4.1 below, is an extract from the local parking standards document.
Table 4.1: Extract from ECC’s Parking Standards Design and Good Practice (September 2009)
Powered Two Use Vehicle (Minimum) Disabled Wheeler N/A if parking is in 1 space per curtilage of dwelling, 1 Bedroom N/A dwelling* otherwise as Visitor/unallocated N/A if parking is in 2+ 2 spaces per curtilage of dwelling,
bedroom dwelling* otherwise as Visitor/unallocated If no garage or secure area 1 space, + 1 per 20 200 vehicle bays or is provided within curtilage car spaces (for 1st 100 less = 3 bays or 6% of of dwelling then 1 covered car total capacity, Visitor/ and secure space per spaces), then 1 space whichever is greater, unallocated dwelling in a communal per 30 car spaces Over 200 vehicle bays area for residents plus 1 (over = 4 bays plus 4% of space per 8 dwellings for 100 car spaces) total capacity visitors *Excluding garage if less than 7m x 3m internal dimension
4.5 Summary
4.5.1 As described in this section, the development proposals, particularly the vehicular, pedestrian and pedestrian/cycle only access would conform to national and local policy guidance in terms of accessibility. The design of the access road as described above complies with the standards set out in the Essex Design Guide, ECC’s Development Management Policies and MfS. As such the design will also conform to and complement several local and national policies.
24 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
4.5.2 The design reflects the MfS principles of inclusive design, shifting from focusing on designing for motor vehicles to designing streets around the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users, controlling speeds, not overdesigning and creating permeable streets. These principles in turn help the site to conform to NPPF guidance including paragraph 108 in terms of giving priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, ‘safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.’
25 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
This page has been left intentionally blank
26 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
5 ACCESS BY SUSTAINABLE MODES
5.1 Introduction to Sustainable Modes of Transport
5.1.1 National and local transport planning policy centres on the importance of sustainable development, meaning that new developments should be located in areas where there is access to sustainable modes of travel, or where sustainable modes of travel can be introduced. These sustainable modes include walking, cycling, public transport, car sharing and use of low emission vehicles (electric/hybrid).
5.1.2 Walking, cycling and public transport are commonly regarded to be the most sustainable modes of transportation. This section of the report will describe how accessible the site is by these modes.
5.2 Access on Foot
5.2.1 The site is located adjacent to existing residential areas and close to the centre of Tollesbury. The existing footways adjacent to the site frontage are proposed to adjoin with the development site’s footways on either side of the vehicle access point. This footway provides a continuous route which is complemented by street lighting to the various facilities that exist to the east/west of the site. An additional pedestrian access is proposed for the site, circa 100m to the east of the main site access.
5.2.2 Research has indicated that acceptable walking distances depend on a number of factors, including the quality of the development, the type of amenity offered, the surrounding area, and other local facilities. The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) document entitled Providing for Journeys on Foot (2000) suggests walking distances which are relevant to this application. These distances are shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Suggested Acceptable Walking Distances
Commuting/School/ Elsewhere/Local Criteria Town Centres (m) Sightseeing (m) Services (m) Desirable 200 500 400 Acceptable 400 1000 800 Preferred Maximum 800 2000 1200 Source: CIHT Document ’Providing for Journeys on Foot’ (2000)
5.2.3 In order to highlight the site’s accessibility on foot, an indicative walking isochrone has been produced using the Geographic Information System (GIS) software Visography TRACC. Figure 2 in Appendix B, represents the site’s walking catchment with the CIHT’s ‘Preferred Maximum’ distances of 1200m and 2000m for local service and commuting/school trips illustrated.
5.2.4 In order to provide an accurate representation of the future highway and PRoW network, the site’s proposed vehicular and pedestrian only access have been manually added to the network used to
27 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
generate the isochrone. The accessibility distance is based on an origin/destination point in the approximate centre of the developed portion of the site.
5.2.5 Table 5.2 below summarises the distance and the typical time it would take to walk from the centre of the site to the local amenities and centres of employment and education identified in Figure 2 of Appendix B via the road and/or PRoW network. It provides a comparison against those distances recommended in the CIHT’s Providing for Journeys on Foot. The time it takes is based on a walking speed of 4.8kph which corresponds with the TRACC default, which itself is based on advice in the DfT document Transport Connectivity Travel Time Indicators: Guidance Notes.
Table 5.2: Distance and Walking Time Taken from Site to Local Amenities
Distance Preferred Max Walk Employment/ Education/ from Site Walk Distance Time Amenity (m) (m) (mm:ss)
Fred's Store 241 1200 03:02 Butcher and Fishmonger 324 1200 04:07 The Masonic Hall 371 1200 04:40 Tollesbury School 439 2000 05:31 Pharmacy 509 1200 06:23 Salon 562 1200 07:02 Newsagents/Post Office 643 1200 08:06 The Kings Head Public House 676 1200 08:30 Congregation Church 679 1200 08:31 St Mary's C of E Church 713 1200 08:58 Tollesbury FC 762 1200 09:32 Oyster Business Centre 911 2000 11:25 Petrol Station/Car garage 953 1200 11:57 Monometer Business Park 959 2000 12:01 Tollesbury Cafe 992 1200 12:26 The Loft cafe 1051 1200 13:10 Tollesbury Cruising Club 1180 1200 14:45 The Harbour View 1233 1200 15:25 Tollesbury Wick 1257 1200 15:43 Bus Stop opp The Square 619 400 07:45 adj The Square 641 400 08:02
5.2.6 The results in Table 5.2 show that many amenities fall within the 1200m ‘preferred maximum’ walking distance for local services and 2000m ‘preferred maximum’ walking distance for commuting. Tollesbury provides an array of facilities/amenities, which given its relatively small size, results in the vast majority being within a short walking distance.
5.2.7 Within an approximate 5-minute walk of the development site, a general convenience store (Fred’s Store), a butcher/fishmongers and local school can all be accessed. The village Masonic Hall can also be accessed within this distance and time. In addition to these, a pharmacy, salon, newsagents/post
28 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
office, public house and two churches can be accessed, as well as the playing fields for Tollesbury FC, all within an approximate 10-minute walk. The Loft Café and Tollesbury Cafe can be walked to within circa 13 minutes. Tollesbury Cruising Club and The Harbour View act as a social hub for the village, with tennis courts and swimming facilities provided. Both of these amenities can be walked to in approximately 15 minutes. Tollesbury Wick, a popular nature reserve, can be walked to from the site in approximately 15 minutes.
5.2.8 The industrial estate, found to the east of village, comprises of Monometer Business Park and Oyster Business Centre, both of which can be easily commuted to on foot within an approximate 1000m walking distance.
5.2.9 Given the evidence presented in Figure 2 of Appendix B and Table 5.2, walking can be considered to be a realistic and viable method of travel indicating that the site’s location is accessible via this sustainable mode.
5.3 Access by Cycle
5.3.1 It is widely recognised that cycling can offer an attractive alternative to short car trips, particularly those under 5km, but also as part of longer journeys by public transport.
5.3.2 The DfT’s Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design states that:
‘The road is the most basic (and important) cycling facility available, and the preferred way of providing for cyclists is to create conditions on the carriageway where cyclists are content to use it, particularly in urban areas.’
5.3.3 A cycling isochrone showing the site’s catchment has also been produced using TRACC and is shown as Figure 3 in Appendix B. The figure illustrates 2000m and 5000m catchment ranges which equate to 10 minute and 25-minute journey times respectively which are based on the somewhat conservative or leisurely cycle speed of 12kph. Anecdotally, commuting cyclists are generally thought to travel at speeds between 15-20kph so a greater catchment may be more realistic.
5.3.4 The cycling distances and times to a selection of key local centres of education, employment and amenities, as well as a neighbouring settlement, are shown in Table 5.3. The cycle times detailed in the table are based on a cycling speed of 16kph which corresponds with the TRACC default, which the software developer has based on DfT advice. It should be noted that some of the cycle distances differ from the walking distances as cycling along a PRoW is typically not allowed unless designated as cycleways, bridleways or byways.
29 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Table 5.3: Distance and Cycling Time Taken from Site to Local Centres of Employment, Education, Amenities and Neighbouring Settlements
Distance Cycle Employment/ Education/ Amenity/ from Time Settlement Site (m) (mm:ss)
Fred's Store 241 01:02 Butcher and Fishmonger 324 01:28 The Masonic Hall 371 01:34 Tollesbury School 439 01:45 Pharmacy 509 01:59 Salon 562 02:11 Newsagents/Post Office 643 02:41 The Kings Head Public House 676 02:46 Congregation Church 679 02:43 St Mary's C of E Church 713 02:50 Tollesbury FC 762 02:53 Oyster Business Centre 945 03:41 Petrol Station/Car garage 953 03:45 Monometer Business Park 994 03:50 Tollesbury Cafe 1026 04:00 The Loft cafe 1086 04:10 Tollesbury Cruising Club 1214 04:42 The Harbour View 1268 05:22 Tollesbury Wick 1406 09:35 St Nicholas C of E Primary/Pre School 4041 15:11 Tolleshunt D'Arcy 4104 15:26
5.3.5 Figure 3 in Appendix B and Table 5.3 above illustrate that all of the local amenities and centres of employment/education mentioned in the Access on Foot section above are within a 10-minute cycle time. It can be seen that the neighbouring settlement of Tolleshunt D’Arcy, along with St Nicholas C of E Primary/Pre School, can be cycled to within an approximate 15-minute journey. This neighbouring settlement allows for the additional amenities of a restaurant, public house and local store to be accessed.
5.3.6 The catchment plan and Table 5.3 suggest that cycling will be a viable mode of travel for access to a number of local amenities, employment and educational opportunities.
5.3.7 Clearly the site location and the surrounding infrastructure will mean that travel on foot and by cycle will be realistic and convenient modes of travel for some future residents of the site. The potential numbers of walking and cycling trips that the site will generate will be discussed in Section 7 of this report, but the scale of the site is not such that it will present a disadvantage to existing pedestrians and cyclists.
30 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
5.3.8 The proposed site access point and dedicated pedestrian/cycle only access would complement the existing infrastructure and provide convenient routes that follow natural desire lines for future residents of the site.
5.4 Access by Bus
5.4.1 The nearest frequently served bus stops to the site are located at the Church Street/ High Street junction, locally known as ‘adj/opp The Square’, circa 650m from the site. It is noted that these bus stops fall outside of the recommended 400m walking distance. However, as discussed previously within Section 3, the route towards these bus stops consist of a continuous footway, with appropriate street lighting provided. Minimal junctions are required to be crossed along this route, with dropped kerbs and tactile paving provided to assist in pedestrian movements. The above contributes towards a conducive walking environment, which in conjunction with the circa 8-minute walking time to the bus stops, can be considered a reasonable distance.
5.4.2 These stops are served by a variety of services including the 50/50A, 91, 92, 95/95A. A well-sheltered hut exists in the centre of the junction with a bench provided within the covered area. A notice board and bus timetable are provided on the exterior of this shelter.
5.4.3 Tables 5.4 below summarise the services that can be accessed by those buses stopping at the location identified above. Timetabling information has been obtained from ‘Traveline’ with the timetables reference at the time of writing this report available on request. ( https://www.traveline.info/).
Table 5.4: Summary of Bus Services
Weekday Frequency Weekend Frequency Service Route Monday - Friday Saturday Sunday Layer-de-la- 2 services per day (North Haye – Bound) 50 2 service per day No Service Colchester 1 service per day (South Town Centre Bound) Tollesbury – 1 service per day (North 50A Colchester 2 service per day No service Bound only) Town Centre Witham - 91 1 service per every 1/2 hours 6 services per day No service Tollesbury Tollesbury – 92 Colchester 1 service per every 1/2 hours 3 services per day No service Town Centre Tollesbury - 95 4 services per day 4 services per day No service Maldon Tollesbury - 95A 1 service per day (School Bus) No service No service Maldon
31 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
5.4.4 The 91 service provides a link from The Square within Tollesbury village towards Witham. This route provides access to transport links such as Kelvedon Railway Station and Witham Railway Station, with these destinations taking circa 30 to 40 minutes respectively. From these train stations, destinations such as Colchester, Ipswich and London Liverpool Street can be accessed in an approximate 13 minutes, 34 minutes and 51 minutes respectively. Services begin from Tollesbury at approximately 07:00 and finish at circa 19:30.
5.4.5 The 92 and 50/50A services offer access to Colchester in a journey time of circa 30/40 minutes. Services begin at approximately 07:45 and continue until approximately 17:45. The Saturday service runs the same route offering a slightly less frequent service. A greater range of destinations are available from the terminating stop within Colchester, with approximately 28 additional bus services being available from this road (Head Street, Colchester).
5.4.6 The 95 service provides access towards Maldon, commencing operation at approximately 09:30 and ceasing around 17:30. The 95A operates an earlier school service, commencing at circa 07:30, with a return journey arriving back in Tollesbury at around 16:00.
5.4.7 The NPPF, at paragraph 110, states that developments should ‘so far as possible’, facilitate ‘access to high quality public transport’. The NPPF also acknowledges, at paragraph 103, that the opportunities to do so will vary between urban and rural locations. It is our opinion that the existing bus service provision in Tollesbury is appropriate and reasonable for the size of development proposed. The development, by taking advantage of the existing footway connections to the above-mentioned bus stops, does provide ‘appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes’ (paragraph 108 NPPF).
5.5 Summary
5.5.1 This section of the report has demonstrated that the site is in a sustainable location where a range of local amenities and centres of employment and education are within nationally recognised acceptable walking and cycling distances.
5.5.2 The local bus services provide connections to the surrounding settlements of Colchester, Witham and Maldon, and in doing so also allow for access to Kelvedon Railway Station and Witham Railway Station. The connections allow for a multitude of other destinations, including London, to be accessed by both alternative bus routes and train travel.
5.5.3 A key theme of national and local transport planning policy is that development should be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. As detailed in Section 2 of this report, the NPPF states that ‘significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes’, as well as providing ‘safe and suitable’ access for all.
32 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
5.5.4 It is therefore felt that, in relation to Paragraph 108 of the NPPF, ‘appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up’. It has also been demonstrated that the site location, which forms a natural extension to the existing southern boundary of the village, helps to conform to the Development Management Policy DM9.
33 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
This page has been left intentionally blank
34 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
6 ENCOURAGING THE USE OF SUSTAINABLE MODES
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 From consideration of national and local transport policy it is clear that the sustainable travel modes have an important role in reducing congestion, minimising the environmental impact of travel and in supporting healthy living.
6.1.2 As such, and as mentioned above, Development Management Policies DM10 states that ‘all new residential dwellings will require the provision of a Residential Travel Information Pack’ (RTIP).
6.1.3 It is difficult at this stage of the planning process to provide the full details of the content of the RTIP as there will be a time lag between the development receiving outline planning approval and the scheme being occupied. During this time public transport services may have changed and alterations may have been made to the pedestrian/cycle infrastructure in the area. Additional facilities for local residents may have also been provided in and around the Tollesbury area which may in turn provide additional destinations for residents of the scheme.
6.1.4 As such Gladman is prepared to accept a suitably worded condition on any outline planning permission for this scheme that will require a full RTIP to be provided as part of a Reserved Matters application that will be submitted by the preferred housebuilder. This commitment will form part of any contractual obligations that the preferred housing developer will need to sign up to in any purchase of the site.
6.1.5 Dealing with provision of a RTIP by way of a planning condition on the Reserved Matter application will allow for the development of a bespoke Travel Pack that reflects the transportation infrastructure and facilities that exist in Tollesbury at the time of such an application.
6.1.6 Whilst the above indicates Gladman’s commitment to the provision of a RTIP, the following provides an indication as to what such a document will contain and highlights measures that could be considered to encourage the use of a variety of sustainable modes of transport.
6.2 Reducing the Need to Travel
6.2.1 Section 5 has described how the site is well-located in terms of being within walking and cycling distance to local amenities. It also demonstrates how walking and cycling may provide viable and convenient modes of travel for a range of journey types. Furthermore, the site’s access strategy, particularly with regards to its permeability for pedestrians and cyclists, maximises the potential for the attractiveness of travel via sustainable modes by providing convenient connections along natural desire lines.
35 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
6.2.2 Sections 4 and 5 have stated that the local highway network is conducive to walking and cycling trips, with established, well-lit footways in places and crossing facilities for pedestrians and the local road network being relatively lightly trafficked for cyclists.
6.2.3 Development of the site could also see an increase in working from home, given improvements in home telecommunications such as broadband and video calling, and in information technology including cloud computing and the increase in ‘.com’ industries. The house builder behind any future Reserved Matters application may incorporate home working facilities into the properties. Anecdotally, more employers, often through adoption of Travel Plans, are allowing increasing numbers of staff to work from home.
6.3 Residential Travel Information Pack
6.3.1 RTIP’s would be provided for each new residence upon first occupation and will be produced by the house builder with input from the ECC Development Planning team. These packs would be essential to educating and informing future residents of both the sustainable transport modes available to them and the benefits they can have for them and their families including time and cost savings, supporting a healthy lifestyle and minimising their carbon footprint. Typically, the content of such RTIP’s include:
Introduction to the concept of using sustainable modes of transport and outlining the objectives and benefits; Educational literature on the health benefits of walking and cycling and the environmental benefits of sustainable modes of transport; Maps highlighting local walking and cycling routes and catchment plans indicating typical walking and cycling times to key destinations; Public transport route maps and timetables; and Details of a Travel Plan co-ordinator for the area, should there be one.
6.4 Other Methods of Awareness Raising and Marketing
6.4.1 Aside from RTIP’s, there are other effective ways to raise the awareness of and market the benefits of sustainable travel including:
Personalised travel planning for families and individuals, often arranged by a Travel Plan co-ordinator; Establishment of local sustainable transport forums or groups where issues can be shared and solutions discussed. This could be at physical meeting or by using social media with website such as Twitter, Facebook and Streetlife having mass appeal and membership, yet having localised content and discussion groups; and Set-up of travel notice boards in communal areas displaying information such as lists of sustainable travel websites, local taxi services and car clubs.
36 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
6.4.2 Promotion of events such as National Bike Week and Living Street’s series of walking events including Walk to Work Week and Walk to School Week.
6.5 Measures to Encourage Walking
6.5.1 Walking is considered to be the most sustainable and accessible mode of travel. It also has the benefit of zero carbon emissions and significant health benefits, with doctors recommending 150 minutes of activity per week to keep your body healthy and prevent illness including heart disease, cancer and diabetes (www.nhs.uk). The 150 minutes could be achieved by walking for 30 minutes per day, five days a week (www.walkingforhealth.org.uk). Furthermore, recent research from the University of Cambridge has discovered that just a brisk 20 minute walk each day, burning between 90 and 110 calories, could reduce the risk of premature death by between 16-30% for inactive individuals (http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/lack-of-exercise-responsible-for-twice-as-many-deaths-as- obesity).
6.5.2 Potential measures to encourage walking include the following:
Raise awareness of the health benefits of walking for all ages of people of fair health, emphasising how it is a cost-effective alternative to other exercise methods such as gym membership and does not involve a considerable change to people’s day-to-day lifestyles; Promote the local walking routes available (through RTIP’s and notice boards) including off- road PRoWs; Ensure the clear signage of pedestrian routes within and adjacent to the site; Provision of personal safety alarms to enhance safety; and Promotion of a ‘walking buddy’ scheme (through RTIP’s, notice boards and social media).
6.6 Measures to Promote Cycling
6.6.1 Like walking, cycling is sustainable and accessible. It has the benefits of zero carbon emissions and has significant health benefits. The website http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/Cycling.aspx outlines the health benefits of cycling stating that ‘the best way to build your cardiovascular fitness on the bike is to ride for at least 150 minutes every week’ which like walking could be broken down into 30 minutes five days a week. The website also states that cycling is the third most popular recreational activity in the UK and makes the pertinent point that it has broad appeal with young and old, the able-bodied and people with disabilities who can all enjoy cycling with the right equipment. It is expected that the house builder will include provision for cycle storage for each dwelling. Potential measures to encourage cycling include the following:
Raise awareness of the health benefits of cycling for all ages of people with fair health, again emphasising how it is a cost-effective alternative to other exercise methods and promoting the ‘fun’ element of cycling;
37 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Promote the local cycling routes available and cycle storage facilities at key destinations/hubs such as in town centres and at train stations (through RTIP’s and notice boards); Promotion of events such as National Bike Week (www.bikeweek.org.uk); and Promotion of a Bicycle User Group (BUG) (through RTIP’s, notice boards and social media) which could include cycle proficiency courses.
6.7 Measures to Encourage Public Transport
6.7.1 Public transport use and accessibility is an important element of sustainable travel. Bus and rail transport can often be effective options for many trip types, particularly mid to long distance journeys. Section 5 of this report has demonstrated that bus in particular should be suitable and convenient mode of transport for some residents of the site.
6.7.2 The key measure to promote bus use will be through the provision of route, stop location and timetable information in RTIP’s, on notice boards and at the stops/stations themselves. Discount tickets or other fare incentives could be provided in RTIP’s for a period of time.
6.8 Measures to Reduce Single Occupancy Car Trips
6.8.1 Car/lift sharing can be an effective way to reduce single occupancy car trips. These trips can often be arranged between friends and neighbours or by using lift sharing websites including the following:
BlaBlaCar (www.blablacar.com); Liftshare (https://liftshare.com/uk); and GoCarShare (http://gocarshare.com).
6.8.2 The Liftshare websites enable users to register and search for lifts in their area. Users typically have to be over 18 years of age but do not always have to have driving licences (as passengers). ECC manages its own scheme called ‘EssexCarShare.com’ (also found at https://essex.liftshare.com) which is free to join. Websites such as these can be promoted through RTIP’s, notice boards and social media.
6.8.3 Residents could also manage their own lift sharing as there are likely to be a number of residents travelling to popular destinations such as Chelmsford, Colchester or Braintree. This could be managed through a residents’ committee should there be one, or informally otherwise.
38 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 This section of the report details the methodology used to predict the demand associated with the proposed development. It then provides an assessment of the impact that it is likely to have on the highway network, including an assessment of the proposed site access and discusses whether any mitigation measures are required to accommodate the additional trips generated by the development. This methodology was agreed with ECC Highways as part of the scoping exercise included as Appendix A.
7.2 Traffic Growth
7.2.1 In accordance with GTA the forecast year of assessment is 2024, which represents the year of application (2019) plus five years. It is expected that the site will be fully built-out and occupied by this forecast year.
7.2.2 The 2019 observed traffic flows, shown in Traffic Flow Diagrams 1 and 2, were factored to the assessment year using the DfT software TEMPro (Trip End Model Presentation Program) version 7.2. This package allows access to data used in the National Trip End Model (NTEM) and can be used to ‘provide summaries of traffic growth using data from the National Transport Model (NTM)’ (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tempro).
7.2.3 In order to derive local traffic growth factors, the ‘Maldon 001 (E02004555)’ Mid Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) was selected. Trip end growth factors for car drivers were derived and adjusted by NTM dataset AF15 for ‘rural’ area types and ‘principal’ road types.
7.2.4 Before applying the traffic growth factors derived from the above methods, the trips from local committed development have been considered.
7.3 Committed Development
7.3.1 Prime are aware of the following committed development:
14/01202/OUT – Proposed Residential Development on Land to the North of Woodrolfe Road, Tollesbury: 24 dwellings.
7.3.2 As TEMPro includes government derived planning forecasts, it is usually necessary to manually adjust the planning assumptions within the database software to remove the number of dwellings associated with the committed developments, which would otherwise result in double counting. However, in order to provide a robust assessment, and given the modest quantum of the committed development, the planning assumptions have not been adjusted.
7.3.3 The resulting TEMPro growth factors are shown in Table 7.1 below.
39 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Table 7.1: Traffic Growth Factors 2019-2024
Local Growth Figure Level Area AM PM E02004555 Maldon 001 1.0680 1.0700
7.3.4 The growth rates shown in Table 7.1 above have been applied to the 2019 Observed flows resulting in the 2024 Base flows and are shown in Traffic Flow Diagrams 3 and 4.
7.3.5 The trips associated with the committed development site are shown in Traffic Flow Diagrams 5 and 6, which have been added to the 2024 Base flows to form the 2024 Without Development flows, which are shown in Traffic Flow Diagrams 7 and 8. All traffic flow diagrams are provided in Appendix C.
7.4 Vehicular Trip Generation
7.4.1 Local trip rates have been derived from the turning count at the Mell Road/Woodrolfe Farm Lane junction. Woodrolfe Farm Lane is a cul-de-sac which, according to the Royal Mail database, serves 93 dwellings. It is reasonable to assume that the cul-de-sac will share similar characteristics to the proposed development both in terms of housing mix, trip generation and distribution.
7.4.2 Local trip rates have been established by dividing the peak hour trips recorded by the turning count by the 93 dwellings served by Woodrolfe Farm Lane. It should be noted that this assessment has been based on 99 dwellings but the proposed quantum has reduced to 90 dwellings since the assessment was undertaken, due to on-site constraints. The assessment should therefore be considered to be overly robust. A summary of these figures and the resultant trip generation applied to 99 dwellings is shown in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Local Trip Rates and Resultant Trip Generation
Actual Trips Trip Rates Trip Gen Peak Arrivals Departures Totals Arrivals Departures Totals Arrivals Departures Totals AM 10 13 23 0.108 0.140 0.247 11 14 24 PM 30 20 50 0.323 0.215 0.538 32 21 53
7.4.3 Using the locally derived trip rates, the site is forecast to generate 24 two-way trips in the AM peak hour and 53 two-way trips in the PM peak hour. An exercise has been undertaken to compare these locally derived trip rates to those that would be derived using TRICS, an industry-standard database that contains traffic generation surveys of numerous sites of various land use types across the UK and Eire.
7.4.4 A summary of the key selections applied in order to derive the sample is as follows:
Land use category - houses privately owned;
40 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Regions excluded - London, Northern Ireland and Eire; No. dwelling range selection - 40 to 200 units (40 to 197 actual); Date range - 21/11/08 to 20/11/18; Weekend surveys excluded; Selected locations - suburban areas & edge of town; and Location subcategories - residential zone & no subcategory.
7.4.5 The above selections returned a sample of 23 sites. This sample was then interrogated by undertaking a correlation exercise based on total trip rates for the hours of 08:00-09:00 and 17:00-18;:00. Two of the sites were manually removed from the survey sample as they deviated notably below the line of best fit. This poor correlation would have skewed the trip rates. Full reports of the TRICS data and selection process are included in Appendix E.
7.4.6 The likely 12-hour trip generation of the site is shown in Table 7.3, with the AM and PM peak hours highlighted in bold font.
Table 7.3: Locally Derived Average Trip Rates and Trip Generation
Average Trip Rates Average Trip Generation Time Arrivals Departures Totals Arrivals Departures Totals 07:00-08:00 0.064 0.271 0.335 6 27 33 08:00-09:00 0.120 0.352 0.472 12 35 47 09:00-10:00 0.154 0.175 0.329 15 17 33 10:00-11:00 0.134 0.171 0.305 13 17 30 11:00-12:00 0.140 0.147 0.287 14 15 28 12:00-13:00 0.170 0.147 0.317 17 15 31 13:00-14:00 0.182 0.172 0.354 18 17 35 14:00-15:00 0.144 0.183 0.327 14 18 32 15:00-16:00 0.237 0.159 0.396 23 16 39 16:00-17:00 0.261 0.158 0.419 26 16 41 17:00-18:00 0.321 0.160 0.481 32 16 48 18:00-19:00 0.235 0.160 0.395 23 16 39 Daily (12hr) 2.162 2.255 4.417 214 223 437
7.4.7 As the above table shows, according to TRICS, the site is likely to generate in the region of 47 two- way trips in the AM peak hour and 48 two-way trips in the PM peak hour.
7.4.8 As agreed with ECC Highways during scoping discussions (Appendix A) and in order to provide a robust assessment, a hybrid of both sets of trip rates and trip generations has been formed, taking the higher of the rates for their respective periods. The TRICS trip rates have been used for the AM peak hour, while the local trip rates have been used for the PM peak hour, with all shown in Table 7.4, along with the resulting trip generation.
41 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Table 7.4: Hybrid Trip Rates and Trip Generation
Trip Rates Trip Generation Time Arrivals Departures Totals Arrivals Departures Totals AM 0.120 0.352 0.472 12 35 47 PM 0.323 0.215 0.538 32 21 53
7.5 Person Trip Rates
7.5.1 The number of non-car trips likely to be generated by the site has been forecast using 2011 Census Method of Travel to Work (MTW) data. The two lower layer super output areas (LSOA) Maldon 001A (E01021908) and Maldon 001C (E01021910) have been selected as they are the most local output areas that include the site location and Tollesbury in its entirety, with the trip ends for each method of travel downloaded from Nomis (http://www.nomisweb.co.uk).
7.5.2 Several of the transport mode categories have been manually removed from the data for reasons including the observed census trips being very low or zero (e.g. taxi and underground), or they will not generate a trip (i.e. not in employment and working from home).
7.5.3 As the vehicular trips were calculated using local trip rates, factors have been derived between them and the census car driver trips (1,147). The factors equate to 4.1% for the AM peak and 4.6% for the PM peak. They have then been applied to the other census modes to forecast the likely number of multimodal trips generated by the site. A summary of these multimodal trips is shown in Table 7.5.
Table 7.5: Forecast Multimodal Person Trips
Total Census AM PM AM PM Method of Travel to Work Trips Trips Trips Mode % Mode % Train 83 3 4 4.9% 5.5% Bus, minibus or coach 34 1 2 1.6% 2.8% Motorcycle/scooter 11 0 1 0.0% 1.4% Driving a car or van 1,147 47 53 77.0% 73.7% Passenger in a car or van 71 3 3 4.9% 4.2% Bicycle 54 2 3 3.3% 4.2% On foot 120 5 6 8.2% 8.3% All Modes 1,520 61 72 100.0% 100.0% Factors 4.1% 4.6% - -
7.5.4 Based on the results in Table 7.5, the site is forecast to generate 61 and 72 total people trips in the AM and PM peaks respectively. Following driving a car being the most frequent method of travel likely to be used by residents of the site, walking is likely to be the second most popular mode, generating circa 5 trips (8.2%) in the AM peak and 6 trips (8.3%) in the PM peak, followed by train journeys which will account for 3 trips (4.9%) in the AM peak and 4 trips (5.5%) in the PM peak. Car passenger journeys will account for 3 trips in each peak (AM 4.9%/PM 4.2%), while cycling will account for 2 trips (3.3%) in the AM peak and 3 trips (4.2%) in the PM peak. The remaining trips will be made up of bus
42 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
passengers and motorcyclists. It should be acknowledged that the train passengers will also use another mode of transport as part of the home to station leg of their journey, and vice versa. Promotion of the TP measures should hopefully result in a gradual reduction in private car trips and an increase in the other more sustainable modes.
7.6 Trip Distribution
7.6.1 Traffic generated by the development proposal has been distributed on to the highway network based on 2011 Census Method of Travel to Work (MTW) data for car drivers using the ‘Maldon 001 (E02004555)’ MSOA, which includes the whole of Tollesbury. Origin-destination pairs containing three trips or less were removed from the data, accounting for less than 16% of the total trips, to make the data more manageable and to eliminate less common and generally longer distance trips from the dataset.
7.6.2 The main commuter destinations/origins (urban areas, industrial estates, business parks etc.) within each workplace MSOA were identified and the most likely route from/to the site, referred to as the primary route, was derived using web-based route planning software (Google Maps). Whilst some destinations may have more than one suitable route available, the most efficient routes (based on travel time and distance) have been chosen in order to concentrate the traffic on these routes within the exercise, forming a worst-case assessment.
7.6.3 Three routes through the study area have been identified and are shown in Table 7.6 with a summary of the percentage of development trips that will be distributed along each also shown.
Table 7.6: Distribution Summary
Ref Route Typical Destination Total % Mell Road, B1023, Church Street 1 Braintree, Witham, Brentwood 63% (Tolleshunt D’Arcy) Chelmsford, Basildon, Maldon, Tollesbury 2 Mell Road, B1023, South Street D’Arcy (also destinations shown in above 7% route) 3 Mell Road, North Road Colchester, Mersea Island 30%
7.6.4 As can be seen from Table 7.6, the majority of trips are assumed to travel to/from the site via Church Street (Tolleshunt D’Arcy), while 30% of trips are assumed to travel to/from the site via North Road. The remaining 7% of trips are assumed to travel to/from the site via South Street.
7.6.5 The distribution is shown diagrammatically in Traffic Flow Diagram 9 with details of the distribution calculation and data provided in Appendix F. The distributed development traffic is shown in Traffic Flow Diagrams 10 and 11.
43 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
7.6.6 These development trips have then been added to the 2024 Without Development traffic flows and are shown in Traffic Flow Diagrams 12 and 13. These flows represent the ‘2024 With Development’ scenario.
7.7 Impact Assessment
7.7.1 Having derived estimated traffic flows for the forecast year in the Without and With Development scenarios it is possible to compare expected traffic flows within the study area.
7.7.2 Table 7.7 below provides a comparison of flows in the forecast year for the Without and With Development scenarios summarising the difference. This exercise has been carried out for both off- site junctions surveyed.
Table 7.7: Comparison of Two-way Traffic Flows through Study Area Junctions Without and With Development
2024 AM Peak 2024 PM Peak
Junction Without With Abs Without With Abs % Diff % Diff Dev Dev Diff Dev Dev Diff
1. North Road/High Street/Elysian 486 533 47 9.7% 488 541 53 10.9% Gardens/West Street 2. South Street/Tollesbury 662 709 47 7.1% 687 740 53 7.7% Road/Church Street
7.7.3 Based on the flow differences in Table 7.7, both junctions are expected to experience an increase of 47 two-way trips in the AM peak and 53 two-way trips in the PM peak.
7.7.4 GTA suggests that 30 two-way trips is a useful point of reference regarding traffic impact at junctions, implying that any increase in trips less than this figure is unlikely to cause a detrimental impact. Given the increase in trips at both junctions exceeds the threshold and as suggested in the scoping report, capacity assessments have been undertaken at both junctions.
7.8 Junction Capacity Assessments
7.8.1 As both off site junctions and the site access junction are either priority-controlled or staggered crossroads, the capacity assessment has been undertaken using the industry standard software Junctions 9, developed by TRL Software. This software includes the PICADY module, which is used to model said junctions.
7.8.2 When interpreting the results, the capacity of each arm or movement is calculated as the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) with 0.85 representing the practical capacity threshold of the arm and 1.00 representing the theoretical capacity threshold. It is above the practical capacity threshold where
44 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
capacity problems begin to occur while exceeding the theoretical capacity means that arms are over capacity.
7.8.3 Modelled queues are shown in passenger car units (PCUs), this being equivalent to a distance of 5.75m which is the length of road space (car length plus gap length) that a typical car will occupy when queuing. In order to convert the traffic flows into PCUs, which is the requisite input flow unit required in the modelling software, a factor of 2.0 has been applied to the heavy vehicle user class, while cars effectively have a factor of 1.0.
7.8.4 Junction geometry has been coded into the models based on a mixture of OS mapping and aerial photography.
7.8.5 All traffic flows have been input based on the ‘ONE HOUR’ (ODTAB) option which synthesises a ‘peak within a peak’ at the middle of the time period modelled and as such is considered the worst-case form of assessment in terms of impact.
7.8.6 All model report outputs are included in Appendix G.
7.8.7 The results of the capacity assessment for both off-site junctions are described below. The site access has been assessed for the With Development scenario only.
North Road/High Street/Elysian Gardens/West Street
7.8.8 The results of the capacity assessment are shown in Table 7.8.
Table 7.8: Junction Capacity Assessment Results
AM PM Arm RFC Q (PCU) RFC Q (PCU) 2019 Observed Elysian Gardens 0.08 0.1 0.07 0.1 High Street 0.14 0.2 0.09 0.1 North Road 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.2 West Street 0.03 0.0 0.05 0.1 2024 Without Development Elysian Gardens 0.09 0.1 0.08 0.1 High Street 0.15 0.2 0.09 0.1 North Road 0.16 0.2 0.16 0.2 West Street 0.04 0.1 0.06 0.1 2024 Without Development Elysian Gardens 0.09 0.1 0.08 0.1 High Street 0.15 0.3 0.10 0.1 North Road 0.16 0.2 0.16 0.2 West Street 0.04 0.1 0.06 0.1
45 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
7.8.9 The results indicate that the junction will continue to operate with a considerable level of spare capacity in the 2024 With Development scenario, with the highest RFC being 0.16 on High Street in both peaks.
South Street/Tollesbury Road/Church Street
7.8.10 The results of the capacity assessment are shown in Table 7.9.
Table 7.9: Junction Capacity Assessment Results
AM PM Arm RFC Q (PCU) RFC Q (PCU) 2019 Observed Tollesbury Road 0.49 1.0 0.32 0.5 Church Street 0.11 0.1 0.21 0.3 2024 Without Development Tollesbury Road 0.55 1.2 0.35 0.6 Church Street 0.12 0.1 0.24 0.3 2024 With Development Tollesbury Road 0.63 1.7 0.41 0.7 Church Street 0.14 0.2 0.28 0.4
7.8.11 Table 7.9 demonstrates that this junction will also continue to operate with ample spare capacity in the 2024 With Development scenario, with the highest RFC being 0.63 on Tollesbury Road in the AM peak.
Proposed Site Access/Mell Road
7.8.12 The results of the capacity assessment for the proposed site access on Mell Road are shown in Table 7.10.
Table 7.10: Junction Capacity Assessment Results
AM PM Arm RFC Q (PCU) RFC Q (PCU) 2024 With Development Proposed Site Access 0.06 0.1 0.04 0.0 Mell Road (Western Arm) 0.02 0.0 0.06 0.1
7.8.13 The capacity assessment results for the site access junction show no operational problems, with a maximum RFC of 0.06.
46 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
7.9 Summary
7.9.1 This section has explained the traffic forecasting methodology and capacity assessment used to determine the suitability of the proposed site access and the surrounding highway network to accommodate the development proposal.
7.9.2 It has been demonstrated that both assessed off-site junctions, as well as the proposed site access, will operate with spare capacity in the with-development scenario.
7.9.3 The development proposals are unlikely to result in an ‘unacceptable impact on highway safety’ and the cumulative impact of the development can certainly not be considered ‘severe’ meaning that according to paragraph 109 of the NPPF, as described in Section 2 of this report, the development should not be refused on transport grounds.
47 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
This page has been left intentionally blank
48 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
8 HIGHWAY SAFETY
8.1 Accident Data
8.1.1 Personal injury accident data has been obtained from ECC to cover the five-year period of 1st January 2014 to 31st December 2018. This study area covers the villages of Tollesbury and Tolleshunt D’Arcy to the west, including the B1023 and North Road/ Back Road /Chapel Road between the two settlements. The accident study area was agreed with ECC during the scoping process and can be seen in Figure 1 in Appendix B.
8.1.2 In total there were 10 accidents within the study area, 7 of which were slight injury accidents, 2 of which were serious and 1 fatal. The annual breakdown is shown in Table 8.1 below.
Table 8.1: Summary of Reported Personal Injury Accidents
Severity Year Slight Serious Fatal Total 2014 1 1 1 3 2015 2 - - 2 2016 2 1 - 3 2017 2 - - 2 2018 - - - - Total 7 2 1 10 Severity % 70% 20% 10% 100%
8.1.3 The singular fatal accident occurred October 2014 along Woodrolfe Road, approximately 370 metres east of East Street, at night-time, under wet and damp conditions. The accident occurred when a vehicle travelling east down Woodrolfe Road, left the carriageway nearside and collided with a tree, causing 1 ‘fatal’ casualty and 1 ‘slight causality. There is no information to suggest that this accident occurred as a result of deficiencies in the design of the highway, and it is likely that only occasional traffic from this site will be using this stretch of highway.
8.1.4 The first ‘serious’ accident happened in April 2014 along East Street outside Tollesbury Pharmacy, during daylight hours, under fine and dry conditions. The accident occurred when a young pedal cyclist lost control and fell off the footpath into the road and was then run over by the rear wheels of a goods lorry. The report suggests that the factor relating to this incident is down to loss of control from the cyclist with no information to suggest that this accident occurred as a result of deficiencies in the design of the highway.
8.1.5 The second ‘serious’ accident occurred September 2016 along Station Road outside of the settlement to the north of Tolleshunt D‘Arcy, approximately 470 meters north of the Chapel Road junction, in daylight hours, under fine and dry conditions. The accident happened when a goods vehicle overtook a group of pedal cyclists travelling two a breast, of which one of the members fell into the path of a goods vehicle, causing one ‘serious’ casualty. The report suggests that the factor relating to this
49 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
incident is down to loss of control from the cyclist of which there is no information to suggest that this accident occurred as a result of deficiencies in the design of the highway.
8.1.6 All remaining accidents were slight, with a further 3 accidents involving a cyclist, and only 1 accident involved a motorcycle (<50cc). All the remaining accident details state no information to suggest that they occurred as a result of deficiencies in the design of the highway, with none of the slight accidents occurring in wet and damp/frost and ice conditions.
8.2 Road Safety Audit
8.2.1 As part of the scoping exercise a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) was requested by highway officers at ECC as it is a policy requirement. Prime therefore commissioned the independent consultant six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd to undertake this report. The RSA was undertaken by two Society of Road Safety Auditors qualified professionals who undertook a site visit as part of the RSA on 29th April 2019. The RSA was carried out based on the DMRB document GG119 – Road Safety Audit and in accordance with ECC’s Development Management Policy DM14.
8.2.2 The RSA was based on an earlier version of the proposed access design and junction improvement shown in Drawing P19022-001B, an extract of which is provided in Appendix Three of the RSA. The abovementioned 5-year personal injury collision data obtained from ECC was also sent to the auditors. A copy of the RSA is provided in Appendix H.
8.2.3 No problems were identified relating to ‘local alignment’ road safety issues or ‘road signs, carriageway markings and lighting’. The RSA did identify four ‘problems’, relating to ‘general’ road safety issues, ‘junctions’ and ‘non-motorised user provision’ respectively. These are detailed below along with a Designers’ Response provided to each:
RSA Comment 6.1.1
Location: Potential emergency/cycle/pedestrian access
Problem
Summary: Risk of unauthorised motorised vehicles using the emergency access
It was observed during the site visit that a gate is located across the potential emergency/cycle/pedestrian access to the development. It is assumed that this gate will be replaced to allow cycle/pedestrian access, however, no details have been provided at this stage. If appropriate means to restrict the use of the emergency access by unauthorised motorised vehicles is not provided there may be an increased risk of collisions between pedestrians/cyclists and motorised vehicles. (Photo 10.1)
50 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Recommendation
Appropriate means to restrict the use of the emergency/cycle/pedestrian access by unauthorised motorised vehicles should be included within the detailed design of the proposed scheme.
Designers’ Response to Comment 6.1.1
8.2.4 This is noted, and if considered necessary by ECC an appropriate restrictive barrier (such as a ‘K’ barrier) will be provided. The access is no longer proposed to be an emergency access however details of necessary restrictive measures at the pedestrian/ cycle connection can be discussed and provided at the detailed design stage if required.
RSA Comment 6.3.1
Location: Proposed access junction with Mell Road
Problem
Summary: Risk of larger vehicles encroaching into opposing traffic lanes when negotiating the junction
The location of the proposed junction on the outside of a bend may result in larger vehicles encroaching into the opposing traffic lane of Mell Road when turning left out of the access road. It is noted that swept path analysis drawings have not been provided to the audit team. If vehicles encroach into opposing traffic lanes when negotiating the junction, there may be an increased risk of head-on or side to side collisions.
Recommendation
The swept path analysis for all manoeuvres through the proposed junction should be checked and amendments made to the design if required to ensure vehicles do not encroach into opposing traffic lanes.
Designers’ Response to 6.3.1
8.2.5 Drawing P19022-002A in Appendix D shows the swept path of refuse vehicles when manoeuvring into and out of the site access from Mell Road. As in most residential areas, there is a small encroachment into the opposing lanes by the refuse collection vehicle when making the manoeuvre into/out of the site access junction. The encroachment is within the limits of what is considered normal, and drivers are used to making the manoeuvres without incident. The positioning of the access road means that it intersects Mell Road on the outside of the bend, as referenced in the RSA comment. To the east, the angle is 90 degrees to Mell Road, to the west, the angle is less than 90 degrees which aids manoeuvres by reducing the area swept by the body of the vehicle.
51 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
RSA Comment 6.4.1
Location: Mell Road southwestern footway to north of proposed access
Problem
Summary: Telegraph pole remains within footway on pedestrian desire line
The telegraph pole on the southwestern footway of Mell Road to the north of the proposed access remains within the footway on the pedestrian desire line. Whilst it is noted that this length of footway is to be widened, at the location of the telegraph pole pedestrians would have to veer off the desire line of the footway in order to avoid the telegraph pole. If the telegraph pole remains within its current location there may be an increased risk of pedestrians, especially those with visual impairments, colliding with the telegraph pole. (Photo 10.2)
Recommendation
The telegraph pole should be relocated away from the pedestrian desire line on the southwestern footway of Mell Road.
Designers’ Response to 6.4.1
8.2.6 This is noted. Drawing P19022-001D provides a modified layout which suggests the potential relocation of the telegraph pole to the rear of the footway, which can be discussed with ECC and provided at the detailed design stage of the off-site highway works.
RSA Comment 6.4.2
Location: Potential emergency/cycle/pedestrian access
Problem
Summary: Reduced width of access may result in collisions between pedestrians and cyclists
It was observed during the site visit that the potential emergency/cycle/pedestrian access to the proposed development reduces in width approximately 20m from Mell Road. The audit team is unaware of land ownership at this location, however, it appears that house No. 18 appears to own/use part of this area of land. If an inadequate width of footway/cycleway is provided at this location there may be an increased risk of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists using the access. (Photo 10.1)
Recommendation
The land ownership at this location should be checked to ensure adequate width can be provided for both pedestrians and cyclists using the access.
52 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
Designers’ Response to 6.4.2
8.2.7 This is noted. Following the scoping exercise it was decided that the potential access should be restricted to a pedestrian/ cycle connection only, with reference to an emergency access having been removed from Drawing P19022-001D. The area referred to in comment 6.4.2, that would appear to be used by No.18 Mell Road, is within the site boundary and under the applicant’s control, and should therefore not inhibit the delivery of a pedestrian/ cycle access. Should any third party parties wish to continue using the area of land adjacent to No.18, this would have to be in agreement with the landowner.
8.3 Summary
8.3.1 The data shows that the number of traffic accidents that have occurred in and between the two settlements of Tollesbury and Tolleshunt D’Arcy in the last 5-year period is low, with less than three incidents per year. All accidents appear to have been a result of driver, cyclist or other road user error.
8.3.2 There is no evidence of any accident black-spots or any highway safety issues that could be exacerbated by the development proposals.
8.3.3 An independent Road Safety Audit of a previous version of the proposed access arrangement has been undertaken by qualified professionals who raised four issues. Many of these issues have been addressed by the revised proposed access arrangement and junction improvement drawing. The remaining issues can be best addressed at the detailed design stage.
8.3.4 The above would suggest that there do not appear to be any significant road safety issues on the highway network in the vicinity of the proposed development which are likely to be exacerbated by traffic generated by development proposal.
53 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
This page has been left intentionally blank
54 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
9.1 Summary
9.1.1 This Transport Assessment (TA) accompanies the proposal for a residential development comprising up to 90 dwellings located on land off Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex.
9.1.2 Access is proposed to be provided via a new priority controlled junction, the geometry for which being compliant with the Essex Design Guide and MfS. Visibility splays which exceed the MfS2 stopping sight distance formula, based on recorded 85th percentile speeds measured on Mell Road, are achievable from the access arm. The junction has been examined in a Road Safety Audit, which found minor issues, each of which has been addressed through further assessment or minor modification to the design.
9.1.3 The main site access is to be supplemented by additional pedestrian/ cycle connections onto Mell Road from the northern boundary of the site.
9.1.4 It is noted that on-street parking occurs through the village. This parking helps to naturally traffic calm by creating side friction and providing chicane effects. The applicant and Prime are however willing to work with ECC to create a more formal parking scheme to enhance the existing chicane effects and improve the existing situation.
9.1.5 This TA also provides a commitment to the provision of a Residential Travel Information Pack for all residents of the development that would highlight the options available for travel by non-car modes.
9.1.6 The location of the site has been shown to be sustainable when considering access to and from the site by modes of travel other than the private car, particularly walking, cycling and public transport. It has been demonstrated that the local primary school and other local amenities are within nationally acceptable walking and cycling distances.
9.1.7 The bus stops in the vicinity of the site provide connections to Colchester and Maldon where connections can be made to access destinations further afield. This would make bus travel a viable option for some of the residents of the site. The access strategy maximises access via sustainable modes and the proposal includes measures to encourage travel by non-car modes.
9.1.8 An assessment of the capacity of the proposed site access has been undertaken based on 99 dwellings however the proposed quantum has reduced to 90 dwellings since the assessment was undertaken, due to on-site constraints. The capacity assessment confirms that the access will have ample capacity to accommodate the predicted traffic flows in 2024 with the development in place. The development also has minimal impact on the capacity of the adjoining highway network.
9.1.9 A review of personal injury accidents that have occurred on the local highway network has been undertaken for the most recent five-year period that the data was available for. An analysis of those
55 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
accidents showed that there does not appear to be a proliferation of accidents at any one location suggesting that highway safety is not an issue that would preclude the development of the site.
9.2 Conclusion
9.2.1 It is concluded that the proposed development would not have a severe impact on the operation of the highway network both in terms of safety and capacity.
9.2.2 As the proposal complies with local and national planning policy and guidance with respect to sustainable accessibility, safety and impact on the highway network, there are no highways or transportation related reasons why planning permission should not be granted. Should the highway authority have any concerns, we are happy to consult further with them.
56 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
APPENDIX A
SCOPING CORRESPONDENCE
This page has been left intentionally blank
SCOPING CHECKLIST FOR: Up to 99 dwellings on land at Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: Essex County Council (ECC) DATE PREPARED: 11.03.19
Ref Item Intention LHA Comments 1 Level of planning approval sought? Outline with all matters reserved except for access Noted e.g. outline, full. 2 Size and description of development Up to 99 dwellings – See in inset on access drawing P19022-001A. Noted proposals (Please note that the southern extent of the red line is subject to change however this won’t affect the proposed access strategy.) 3 Description of existing land uses, Agricultural land – no existing trips assumed Noted existing trip distribution 4 Does the development involve the No Noted relocation of an existing use? 5 What transport based supporting Transport Assessment incorporating a Travel Plan chapter Noted – please note that ECC documents will be produced? does not require a TP for residential developments under 250 dwellings. Travel Packs with bus vouchers would be sought per dwelling secured through condition. 6 Are traffic surveys of the existing ECC to advise Discussed already. conditions available or required? 7 Are further traffic surveys required? Suggest surveys at the following locations: Already agreed with Vanessa. 1. High Street/North Road/Elysian Gardens 2. B1023 Tollesbury Road/B1026 Church Street 3. ATC survey at approximate location of the site access on Mell Road Any others please advise 8 Details of any other developments to Please advise if there are any committed developments that need to be taken account of. Very little that we know of but be taken into account. would advise checking with Maldon District Council. 9 Details of any adjacent highway Please advise if there are any highway improvement schemes that need to be taken N/A improvement proposals by others account of.
1 of 4
SCOPING CHECKLIST FOR: Up to 99 dwellings on land at Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: Essex County Council (ECC) DATE PREPARED: 11.03.19
10 When are the critical periods for Weekday AM and PM to be derived from surveys mentioned above (07:00-10:00 and Agreed assessments? 15:30-18:30 to be surveyed) 11 When would the site be fully 2024 – (Assumed) Noted operational? 12 What are the assessment years? 2019 – Observed flows only Agreed 2024 – 5 years post submission – with and w/out development 13 Traffic growth factors? TEMPRO growth for local zone manually adjusted with any committed development Agreed removed from planning assumptions to remove double counting. NTM adjustment applied.
14 How will vehicular trip generation be Average trip rates have been derived from the TRICS 7.5.4 database, which are as This has been discussed with derived for the proposal? follows: Vanessa. Average Trip Rates - Private Dwellings Trip Rates Trip Generation Time Arrivals Departures Totals Arrivals Departures Totals 08:00-09:00 0.12 0.352 0.472 12 35 47 17:00-18:00 0.321 0.16 0.481 32 16 48
Please confirm acceptance of the above trip rates for the purposes of the assessment.
15 How will non-car mode trip TRICS for all modes. The full TRICS output has been provided with this scoping checklist. Noted generation be derived for the proposal? 16 Would traffic from adjacent sites be 100% newly generated trips. Agreed attracted to the site? Pass-by traffic? 17 What is the extent of the accident See attachment showing the extent of the accident study area. Agreed study area to be considered? 18 Capacity tests required for the Formal capacity assessment of proposed site access and at the junctions mentioned in 7 Agreed proposed and following existing above. junctions
2 of 4
SCOPING CHECKLIST FOR: Up to 99 dwellings on land at Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: Essex County Council (ECC) DATE PREPARED: 11.03.19
19 Is a new or modified highway access A single priority controlled access is proposed on Mell Road to the north of the site by Access arrangements appear to likely? utilising land from property No.6. be ok. Any planning submission Drawing P19022-001A shows the suggested access strategy. should be accompanied by a Stage1 Road Safety Audit with Footway (2m), carriageway (5.5m) and radii (6m) dimensions to be provided in Designers Response. accordance with ECC guidance.
Potential emergency/pedestrian/cycle access from gated agricultural access to the east of the vehicular access. If it is not necessary to provide an emergency access this would Comments welcome on suggested access arrangements at an early stage. be preferable. Ped/cycle access 3.5m wide. 20 What are the visibility requirements? Indicative visibility splays of 2.4m x 59m in accordance with ECC guide for 37mph have Vis splays should be informed been shown on Drawing P19022-001A. from collected speed data. Please show forward visibility to right turning vehicles into the site - especially with regard to vehicles approaching right turners from behind. 21 What level of car parking is required? To be agreed at Reserved Matters stage however please advise on most current local Please refer to Maldon District guidance such that reference can be made in the Transport Assessment. Councils Parking Standards. 22 Are special provisions required for To be reviewed as part of Transport Assessment Noted cyclists, pedestrians, those with a disability or public transport? 24 What planning policy should the • NPPF; ECC Development Management development comply with? • MfS/MfS2; Policies 2011. • Essex Transport Strategy: The Local Transport Plan 2011-2026; • Maldon District Local Development Plan 2014-2029; and • The Essex Design Guide ECC to advise on any others
3 of 4
SCOPING CHECKLIST FOR: Up to 99 dwellings on land at Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex HIGHWAY AUTHORITY: Essex County Council (ECC) DATE PREPARED: 11.03.19
25 Are there any other special Please advise No. circumstances relevant to this proposal?
4 of 4 Vanessa Blackburn
From: Matthew Lane, Strategic Development Engineer
Vanessa
That sounds ideal.
Matt
Matthew Lane Strategic Development Engineer Transportation and Smarter Travel
Essex County Council | telephone: 03330 130591 | mobile: 07747 486164 | email: [email protected] Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
The Highway Authority is now charging for all pre-planning application advice, full details can be found here – Pre- App Charging
From: Vanessa Blackburn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25 March 2019 09:55 To: Matthew Lane, Strategic Development Engineer Subject: RE: Scoping - Transport Assessment, Mell Road, Tollesbury - 26446
Morning Matthew,
Thank you very much for your email on Friday and confirmation of the pre-app cost and survey locations - happy to progress on that basis.
With regards to the trip rates, we have identified a cul-de-sac to the east of Mell Road which appears to serve between 50 – 100 dwellings from the Mell Road/ Woodrolfe Farm Lane junction. It offers a reasonable housing mix and has similar geographical characteristics to our site. Could you please confirm if this would be a suitable junction to include in our surveys to derive a local trip rate?
Kind regards,
Vanessa
Vanessa Blackburn Traffic Technician Prime Transport Planning
DD: +44 (0)151 728 1861 TAKE A LOOK AT OUR NEW WEBSITE
www.primetp.co.uk 1
From: Matthew Lane, Strategic Development Engineer
Dear Vanessa
Thank you for your email below which my colleague Elliott has forwarded to me.
Firstly, I can confirm that the pre-app cost at this stage would be £300 - if you are happy with this I will progress it on that basis.
Secondly, I can confirm that the survey locations are acceptable as per your scoping note.
Lastly I would just add, at this time, that the trip rates seem a little low given the remote rural location of Tollesbury. In our experience TRICS does not contain appropriate data for rural villages. It would be prudent, given your traffic surveys, to derive your own trip rate from collected traffic data. This can then be used as a sensitivity test or as the definitive trip rate for Tollesbury.
I hope that the above comments are helpful but please do not hesitate to contact me if you require anything further.
Kind regards
Matthew Lane Strategic Development Engineer Transportation and Smarter Travel
Essex County Council | telephone: 03330 130591 | mobile: 07747 486164 | email: [email protected] Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
The Highway Authority is now charging for all pre-planning application advice, full details can be found here – Pre- App Charging
From: Development Enquiries Sent: 21 March 2019 09:48 To: Matthew Lane, Strategic Development Engineer Subject: FW: Scoping - Transport Assessment, Mell Road, Tollesbury - 26446
Good morning Matt,
Please see below and attached, as sent to the Development Enquiries inbox.
Best wishes,
Elliott Moore
Infrastructure Planning Officer Planning Service Economy, Localities & Public Health
2 Essex County Council
Telephone: 0333 013 9446 | E-mail: [email protected]
Please note that Essex County Council has introduced charges for pre-planning application advice. Details can be found on our web page
From: Vanessa Blackburn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 March 2019 14:10 To: Development Enquiries Cc: David Schumacher Subject: RE: Scoping - Transport Assessment, Mell Road, Tollesbury
Hi Elliot,
Following our conversation earlier, please find attached the Highways and Transportation form for the scoping of a Transport Assessment. The proposed development is a residential scheme of (up to) 99 dwellings on land south of Mell Road, Tollesbury, in the district of Maldon.
Please also find attached: scoping checklist; Drawing P19022-001A showing the site plan and proposed access strategy; A plan showing the extent of the accident study area; and TRICS output
As discussed, we’re unsure of the costings so have estimated £600 for the scope of the TA but I wasn’t sure if it was just £300. If we could have confirmation of the cost it would be greatly appreciated?
I note that a response can take up to 20 days, however would it be possible for Highways to confirm if the suggested survey locations are appropriate in advance of the rest of the scoping response? We’d like to commission the surveys next week to avoid Easter holidays and bank holidays so would welcome an early response on this if possible.
Kind regards,
Vanessa
Vanessa Blackburn Traffic Technician Prime Transport Planning
DD: +44 (0)151 728 1861 TAKE A LOOK AT OUR NEW WEBSITE
www.primetp.co.uk
From: Development Enquiries
Good morning Vanessa,
Thank you for your e-mail – I can confirm that there is a charge for the service you require. Further information on this can be found via the link below:
3 https://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Development-in-Essex/Pages/Developer- information.aspx
Best wishes,
Elliott Moore
Infrastructure Planning Officer Planning Service Economy, Localities & Public Health Essex County Council
Telephone: 0333 013 9446 | E-mail: [email protected]
Please note that Essex County Council has introduced charges for pre-planning application advice. Details can be found on our web page
From: Vanessa Blackburn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 March 2019 09:57 To: Development Enquiries Subject: Scoping - Transport Assessment, Mell Road, Tollesbury
Hi,
I’d like to request for scoping of a Transport Assessment for (up to) 99 dwellings scheme at Mell Road, Tollesbury.
We understand that the applicant has formerly approached the planning authority for pre-application advice, however we require Highways advice for the scheme.
We intend to provide you with a brief scoping note and access strategy drawing for highways comments.
Could you please confirm if there is a charge for this?
Kind regards,
Vanessa
Vanessa Blackburn Traffic Technician
DD: +44 (0)151 728 1861 9 Hurricane Court, Liverpool International Business Park
Estuary Boulevard, Liverpool, L24 8RL
TAKE A LOOK AT OUR NEW WEBSITE
4 www.primetp.co.uk
Notice of Confidentiality This communication and the information it contains: (a) is intended solely for the person(s) or Organisation(s) named above and for no other persons or organisations and, (b) may be confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful. If you receive this communication in error, please notify us immediately, destroy any copies and delete it from your computer system.
This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any other person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named recipient, please contact the sender and delete the email from your system. The contact details of the sender and recipients constitute personal data. These along with any other personal data in the email (including any attachments) must be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to check for software viruses. This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any other person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named recipient, please contact the sender and delete the email from your system. The contact details of the sender and recipients constitute personal data. These along with any other personal data in the email (including any attachments) must be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to check for software viruses. This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any other person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named recipient, please contact the sender and delete the email from your system. The contact details of the sender and recipients constitute personal data. These along with any other personal data in the email (including any attachments) must be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to check for software viruses.
5 Vanessa Blackburn
From: Matthew Lane, Strategic Development Engineer
Hi Vanessa
Please find attached scoping checklist completed.
I hope that the above comments are helpful but please do not hesitate to contact me if you require anything further.
Kind regards
Matt
Matthew Lane Strategic Development Engineer Transportation and Smarter Travel
Essex County Council | telephone: 03330 130591 | mobile: 07747 486164 | email: [email protected] Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
The Highway Authority is now charging for all pre-planning application advice, full details can be found here – Pre- App Charging
This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any other person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named recipient, please contact the sender and delete the email from your system. The contact details of the sender and recipients constitute personal data. These along with any other personal data in the email (including any attachments) must be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to check for software viruses.
1 Vanessa Blackburn
From: Matthew Lane, Strategic Development Engineer
Hi Vanessa
I would agree with your approach below.
Kind regards
Matt
From: Vanessa Blackburn
Hi Matt,
Thank you for sending through the scoping response last week.
As discussed, we surveyed the Mell Road/ Woodrolfe Farm Lane junction to derive local trip rates for the area.
The derived peak hour local trip rates were as follows:
Actual Trips Trip Rates Trip Gen Peak Arrivals Departures Totals Arrivals Departures Totals Arrivals Departures Totals AM 10 13 23 0.108 0.140 0.247 11 14 24 PM 30 20 50 0.323 0.215 0.538 32 21 53
The TRICS output we originally provided was:
Average Trip Rates - Private Dwellings Trip Rates Trip Generation Time Arrivals Departures Totals Arrivals Departures Totals 08:00-09:00 0.12 0.352 0.472 12 35 47 17:00-18:00 0.321 0.16 0.481 32 16 48
As you can see from the tables above the AM peak trip rate is lower than TRICS and the PM peak is higher.
Therefore we are suggesting to use the TRICS output for the AM peak and the local derived trip rate for the PM peak to provide the most robust assessment for the TA.
Could you please confirm if you’re happy for us to continue with the assessment on this basis?
Kind regards,
Vanessa
Vanessa Blackburn 1 Transport Planner Prime Transport Planning
DD: +44 (0)151 728 1861 www.primetp.co.uk
From: Matthew Lane, Strategic Development Engineer
Hi Vanessa
Please find attached scoping checklist completed.
I hope that the above comments are helpful but please do not hesitate to contact me if you require anything further.
Kind regards
Matt
Matthew Lane Strategic Development Engineer Transportation and Smarter Travel
Essex County Council | telephone: 03330 130591 | mobile: 07747 486164 | email: [email protected] Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
The Highway Authority is now charging for all pre-planning application advice, full details can be found here – Pre- App Charging
This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any other person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named recipient, please contact the sender and delete the email from your system. The contact details of the sender and recipients constitute personal data. These along with any other personal data in the email (including any attachments) must be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to check for software viruses. This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any other person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named recipient, please contact the sender and delete the email from your system. The contact details of the sender and recipients constitute personal data. These along with any other personal data in the email (including any attachments) must be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to check for software viruses.
2 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
APPENDIX B
FIGURES
This page has been left intentionally blank SITE LOCATION
SITE LOCATION
Key
SITE LOCATION
LOCATION OF TURNING COUNT AND QUEUE LENGTH SURVEYS LOCATION OF ATC COUNT Contains Ordnance Survey data (C) Crown copyright and database right (2019) ACCIDENT STUDY AREA http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf
Project Drawn by Issue date VB 23 MAY 2019 MELL ROAD, TOLLESBURY, ESSEX Scale(s) NTS
Title SITE AND TRAFFIC SURVEY LOCATION Drawing No AND ACCIDENT STUDY AREA PLAN FIGURE 1
This page has been left intentionally blank Contains Ordnance Survey data (C) Crown copyright and database right (2019) http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf
Project Drawn by Issue date VB 23 MAY 2019
* * * * MELL ROAD, TOLLESBURY, ESSEX Scale(s) Rev Date By Revision notes NTS Status Title Drawing No
FINAL PEDESTRIAN ISOCHRONE FIGURE 2
This page has been left intentionally blank Contains Ordnance Survey data (C) Crown copyright and database right (2019) http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf
Project Drawn by Issue date VB 23 MAY 2019
* * * * MELL ROAD, TOLLESBURY, ESSEX Scale(s) Rev Date By Revision notes NTS
Status Title Drawing No
FINAL CYCLING ISOCHRONE FIGURE 3
This page has been left intentionally blank Contains Ordnance Survey data (C) Crown copyright and database right (2019) http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf
Project Drawn by Issue date VB 23 MAY 2019
* * * * MELL ROAD, TOLLESBURY, ESSEX Scale(s) Rev Date By Revision notes NTS Status Title Drawing No
FINAL BUS CATCHMENT PLAN FIGURE 4
This page has been left intentionally blank P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
APPENDIX C
TRAFFIC FLOW DIAGRAMS
This page has been left intentionally blank Traffic Flow Diagrams Reference Scenario Derivation 1 Traffic Flow Diagram 1 ‐ 2019 Observed Flows AM (0730‐0830) 2 Traffic Flow Diagram 2 ‐ 2019 Observed Flows PM (1615‐1715) 3 Traffic Flow Diagram 3 ‐ 2024 Base Flows AM (0730‐0830) 4 Traffic Flow Diagram 4 ‐ 2024 Base Flows PM (1615‐1715) 5 Traffic Flow Diagram 5 ‐ Committed Development Flows (14/01202/OUT) ‐ 24 dwellings) AM (0730‐0830) 6 Traffic Flow Diagram 6 ‐ Committed Development Flows (14/01202/OUT) ‐ 24 dwellings) PM (1615‐1715) 7 Traffic Flow Diagram 7 ‐ 2024 Without Development Flows AM (0730‐0830) 8 Traffic Flow Diagram 8 ‐ 2024 Without Development Flows PM (1615‐1715) 9 Traffic Flow Diagram 9 ‐ Development Traffic Distribution Both 10 Traffic Flow Diagram 10 ‐ Development Traffic Flows AM (0730‐0830) 11 Traffic Flow Diagram 11 ‐ Development Traffic Flows PM (1615‐1715) 12 Traffic Flow Diagram 12 ‐ 2024 With Development Flows AM (0730‐0830) 13 Traffic Flow Diagram 13 ‐ 2024 With Development Flows PM (1615‐1715) Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 1 - 2019 Observed Flows Peak: AM (0730-0830) Notes: All flows are in vehicles Light Vehicles (cars & LGVs) in black Heavy Vehicles (HGVs & buses) in red Observed queues in blue B1026 0
23
171 52
Tollesbury Road
97 4 North Road North 2 Woodrolfe Road 110 53Church Street 108 4 0 1
33 0 4 001 11
0 0 6 79 8 2 61 3 76 52 1 0 1 14 0 45
B1023 High Street 1
46
65 0 3 0
Elysian Gardens Elysian 0 22 2 13 154 5 0 79 0
000 10 0
0
82
0 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 2 - 2019 Observed Flows Peak: PM (1615-1715) Notes: All flows are in vehicles Light Vehicles (cars & LGVs) in black Heavy Vehicles (HGVs & buses) in red Observed queues in blue B1026 0
11
127 106
Tollesbury Road
56 4 North Road North 2 Woodrolfe Road 147 113Church Street 74 1 1 1
10 0 12 000 00
0 0 3 142 4 4 65 0 47 79 4 0 0 25 0 89
B1023 High Street 0
93
41 0 5 0
Elysian Gardens Elysian 0 18 2 12 100 2 0 50 0
000 14 0
0
55
0 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 3 - 2024 Base Flows Peak: AM (0730-0830) Notes: All flows are in vehicles Light Vehicles (cars & LGVs) in black Heavy Vehicles (HGVs & buses) in red B1026
23
183 56
Tollesbury Road
104 4 North Road North Woodrolfe Road
117 57Church Street 115 4
33 0 4 001 11
6 84 9 2 65 3 81 56 1
1 15 0 48
B1023 High Street 01
049
69 0 3 0 Elysian Gardens Elysian 23 2 14 164 5 84 0
000 11 0 0 0
0 0
088
00 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 4 - 2024 Base Flows Peak: PM (1615-1715) Notes: All flows are in vehicles Light Vehicles (cars & LGVs) in black Heavy Vehicles (HGVs & buses) in red B1026
11
136 113
Tollesbury Road
60 4 North Road North Woodrolfe Road
157 121Church Street 79 1
10 0 13 000 00
3 152 4 4 70 0 50 85 4
0 27 0 95
B1023 High Street 00
0 100
44 0 5 0 Elysian Gardens Elysian 19 2 13 107 2 54 0
000 15 0 0 0
0 0
059
00 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 5 - Committed Development Flows (14/01202/OUT) - 24 dwellings) Peak: AM (0730-0830) Notes: All flows are in vehicles
Arrivals 3
Departures 8 Traffic distributed in accordance with distribution set out in Traffic Flow Diagram 9 B1026
1
Tollesbury Road
3 North Road North Woodrolfe Road
2 Church Street 5
338
B1023 High Street Elysian Gardens Elysian 8 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 6 - Committed Development Flows (14/01202/OUT) - 24 dwellings) Peak: PM (1615-1715) Notes: All flows are in vehicles
Arrivals 8
Departures 5 Traffic distributed in accordance with distribution set out in Traffic Flow Diagram 9 Differences = 1 due to rounding B1026
3
Tollesbury Road
2 North Road North Woodrolfe Road
5 Church Street 3
885
B1023 High Street Elysian Gardens Elysian 5 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 7 - 2024 Without Development Flows Peak: AM (0730-0830) Notes: All flows are in vehicles Light Vehicles (cars & LGVs) in black Heavy Vehicles (HGVs & buses) in red B1026
23
183 57
Tollesbury Road
107 4 North Road North Woodrolfe Road
117 59Church Street 120 4
33 0 4 001 11
6 87 9 2 65 3 84 64 1
1 15 0 48
B1023 High Street 01
049
69 0 3 0 Elysian Gardens Elysian 23 2 14 172 5 84 0
000 11 0 0 0
0 0
088
00 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 8 - 2024 Without Development Flows Peak: PM (1615-1715) Notes: All flows are in vehicles Light Vehicles (cars & LGVs) in black Heavy Vehicles (HGVs & buses) in red B1026
11
136 116
Tollesbury Road
62 4 North Road North Woodrolfe Road
157 126Church Street 82 1
10 0 13 000 00
3 160 4 4 70 0 58 90 4
0 27 0 95
B1023 High Street 00
0 100
44 0 5 0 Elysian Gardens Elysian 19 2 13 112 2 54 0
000 15 0 0 0
0 0
059
00 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 9 - Development Traffic Distribution Peak: Both Notes: Assumed that residents will walk to industrial estate on Woodrolfe Road Arrivals in red Departures in blue Notes: Assumed all traffic uses B1023 Tollesbury Road B1026
37%
Tollesbury Road
37% North Road North Woodrolfe Road
63% Church Street 63%
####
100%
B1023 High Street
100% Elysian Gardens Elysian 100% 100%
100% Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 10 - Development Traffic Flows Peak: AM (0730-0830) Notes: Assumed that residents will walk to industrial estate on Woodrolfe Road
Arrivals 12
Departures 35 Differences = 1 due to rounding B1026
4
Tollesbury Road
13 North Road North Woodrolfe Road
8 Church Street 22
12
12
B1023 High Street
12 Elysian Gardens Elysian 35 35
35 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 11 - Development Traffic Flows Peak: PM (1615-1715) Notes: Assumed that residents will walk to industrial estate on Woodrolfe Road
Arrivals 32
Departures 21 Differences = 1 due to rounding B1026
12
Tollesbury Road
8 North Road North Woodrolfe Road
20 Church Street 13
32
32
B1023 High Street
32 Elysian Gardens Elysian 21 21
21 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 12 - 2024 With Development Flows Peak: AM (0730-0830) Notes: All flows are in vehicles Light Vehicles (cars & LGVs) in black Heavy Vehicles (HGVs & buses) in red B1026
23
183 61
Tollesbury Road
120 4 North Road North Woodrolfe Road
117 67Church Street 142 4
33 0 4 001 11
6 99 9 2 65 3 84 64 1
1 15 0 60
B1023 High Street 01
12 49
69 0 3 0 Elysian Gardens Elysian 23 2 14 207 5 119 0
000 11 0 0 35
0 0
088
00 Project: Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 13 - 2024 With Development Flows Peak: PM (1615-1715) Notes: All flows are in vehicles Light Vehicles (cars & LGVs) in black Heavy Vehicles (HGVs & buses) in red B1026
11
136 128
Tollesbury Road
70 4 North Road North Woodrolfe Road
157 146Church Street 95 1
10 0 13 000 00
3 192 4 4 70 0 58 90 4
0 27 0 127
B1023 High Street 00
32 100
44 0 5 0 Elysian Gardens Elysian 19 2 13 133 2 75 0
000 15 0 0 21
0 0
059
00 P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
APPENDIX D
TECHNICAL DRAWINGS
This page has been left intentionally blank NEW ROAD NEW
Four
27 37 2 23 20
29 Winds 53 Vicarage
31 35 23 17 25 Hall
19 41 51 13 23
23.4m 9 8
Hill 6 EAST STREET 55 17.5m 12 9 69 14 Proposed dropped kerb
67 71 73 1 19
1 5
20.7m 2a
38
40 87
2
1 E A S T S T R E E T ( B 1 0 2 3 )
1.8m 18
8 10 B 1023 W O O D R O L F E R O A D 16
12
19.3m 13 2
42 22 pedestrian crossing
48 Hill
House 20 1.8m 1 KINGS WALK 48 House CRESCENT ROAD
HALL ROAD 17
ORCHARD CLOSE 1
8 3 2
2 6
7 with tactile paving
11 4
8 11 5
1.6m
11a 11
(Primary) LB 6a
11b
15 10
Tollesbury School 6
M E L L R O A D 15 4b 25
Oak Shamrock IV House Playing Field 14 19.5m 25 14 Tree Tops 27a 4a
THE MOUNT No.6 No.8 10
Churchacre 2 27
29 15 Ramsholt 1
36
8 14 2 37
HYACINTH CLOSE
No.16
2a
2 3a 1
18 2 3 53
Crescent Lodge
Gransden No.18
22 4 18.9m No.22 C R E S C E N T R O A D The Mole End Gables 55 Old Darnet 20 Police House 22
House 31
24 1 ESS
67 36 DARNET ROAD
12
Proposed 27
5 73 17
73a
M E L L R O A D 75 10 site access 3a 75a
Proposed cycle/ 3 77
MELL ROAD
1a
54
11a 4 1 pedestrian link 2 11 5a 19.6m LANE
1 Greenbank 12a
WOODROLFE FARM 12
89
8b
1 8
Path (um) 8a 2
W O O D R O L F E F A R M L A N E 2a 2 5
66 HERON MEWS
11 91 5
TCB 1.6m
Propose relocation of telegraph pole 11a Path (um) 82 9 19.4m
into adopted verge and away from Wickers LB Trees 103
84 the pedestrian desire line, subject to 3 3a Bohuns Hall 7 W Y C K E L A N E 21
discussions with ECC 11b 94 2
24 107 10 28 98
Marchwoods
Pytchky
M E L L R O A D Path (um) 20a
108 30
113 September No.110 19.2m Elms INSET: NOT TO SCALE London
House Mill 113a
18 Creek
M E L L R O A D 15 Propose footways to tie into Playing Field existing provision on Mell Road 19.5m 25 27a
No.6 No.8 10
27 29
KEY Access Dimensions
SITE BOUNDARY VISIBILITY SPLAY 2.4m x 43m 5.5m 14 (BASED ON TEDG @ 30mph) 6m radius carriageway 43m FORWARD VISIBILITY (BASED ON TEDG @ 30mph) 2m HISTORICAL PUBLICLY MAINTAINABLE HIGHWAY footway ProposeNo.16 cycle/ OWNED BY ECC & INCORPORATED INTO PUBLIC HIGHWAY pedestrian link
DEDICATED AS PUBLIC HIGHWAY 18
Project Drawn by Issue date D 15.07.19 VB PED CROSSINGS VB 11 MAR 2019 C 03.05.19 VB CHANGES MADE FOLLOWING ECC SCOPING & SIX:TEN RSA RESPONSES B 02.04.19 VB PROPERTY TOPO ADDED TO DRAWING A 19.03.19 VB UPDATED FOR SCOPING MELL ROAD, TOLLESBURY Scale(s)
Rev Date By Revision notes 1:500 @A3
Status Title Drawing No
FINAL PROPOSED SITE ACCESS P19022-001D
This page has been left intentionally blank
4 4
11 11
11a 11a LB LB 11b 11b
M E L L R O A D M E L L R O A D 15 15
19.5m 19.5m
No.6 No.6
10
No.8 10 No.8
4 4
11 11
11a 11a LB LB 11b 11b
M E L L R O A D M E L L R O A D VEHICLE PROFILE 15 10.22 15
1.665 3.9 1.35 Phoenix 2-17N (with Elite 2 6x2 RS chassis) Overall Length 10.220m Overall Width 2.250m 19.5m Overall Body19.5m Height 3.707m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.260m Track Width 2.250m Lock to Lock Time 4.00s
No.6 No.6 Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 7.900m
10 No.8 Project No.8 10 Drawn by Issue date VB 03 MAY 2019
A 15.07.19 VB AMENDMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH P19022-001D MELL ROAD, TOLLESBURY Scale(s) Rev Date By Revision notes 1:500 @A3
Status Title SITE ACCESS SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS Drawing No INFORMATION - ALL MOVEMENTS P19022-002A
This page has been left intentionally blank P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
APPENDIX E
TRICS TRIP GENERATION OUTPUT
This page has been left intentionally blank TRICS 7.5.4 030219 B18.58 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2019. All rights reserved Wednesday 20/03/19 Average Trip Rates Page 1 PRIME Transport Planning’ Hurricane Court Liverpool Licence No: 753001
Calculation Reference: AUDIT-753001-190320-0340 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS:
Land Use : 03 - RESIDENTIAL Category : A - HOUSES PRIVATELY OWNED MULTI-MODAL VEHICLES
Selected regions and areas: 02 SOUTH EAST ES EAST SUSSEX 1 days HC HAMPSHIRE 1 days KC KENT 2 days SC SURREY 1 days WS WEST SUSSEX 4 days 03 SOUTH WEST DV DEVON 2 days 04 EAST ANGLIA NF NORFOLK 1 days 06 WEST MIDLANDS SH SHROPSHIRE 2 days 07 YORKSHIRE & NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE NY NORTH YORKSHIRE 3 days SY SOUTH YORKSHIRE 1 days 09 NORTH CB CUMBRIA 1 days 11 SCOTLAND FA FALKIRK 1 days HI HIGHLAND 1 days
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Secondary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: Number of dwellings Actual Range: 40 to 197 (units: ) Range Selected by User: 40 to 200 (units: )
Parking Spaces Range: Selected: 12 to 1726 Actual: 12 to 1726
Percentage of dwellings privately owned: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 21/11/08 to 20/11/18
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Monday 3 days Tuesday 2 days Wednesday 4 days Thursday 7 days Friday 5 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types: Manual count 21 days Directional ATC Count 0 days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Selected Locations: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) 12 Edge of Town 9
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories: Residential Zone 18 No Sub Category 3 TRICS 7.5.4 030219 B18.58 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2019. All rights reserved Wednesday 20/03/19 Average Trip Rates Page 2 PRIME Transport Planning’ Hurricane Court Liverpool Licence No: 753001
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: C 3 21 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order 2005 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 1 mile: 1,000 or Less 1 days 1,001 to 5,000 2 days 5,001 to 10,000 5 days 10,001 to 15,000 5 days 15,001 to 20,000 4 days 20,001 to 25,000 4 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles: 5,001 to 25,000 4 days 25,001 to 50,000 3 days 50,001 to 75,000 1 days 75,001 to 100,000 5 days 100,001 to 125,000 2 days 125,001 to 250,000 5 days 250,001 to 500,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles: 0.6 to 1.0 3 days 1.1 to 1.5 18 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan: Yes 5 days No 16 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating: No PTAL Present 21 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings. TRICS 7.5.4 030219 B18.58 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2019. All rights reserved Wednesday 20/03/19 Average Trip Rates Page 3 PRIME Transport Planning’ Hurricane Court Liverpool Licence No: 753001
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
1 CB-03-A-04 SEMI DETACHED CUMBRIA MOORCLOSE ROAD WORKINGTON SALTERBACK Edge of Town No Sub Category Total Number of dwellings: 8 2 Survey date: FRIDAY 24/04/09 Survey Type: MANUAL 2 DV-03-A-02 HOUSES & BUNGALOWS DEVON MILLHEAD ROAD HONITON
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 1 1 6 Survey date: FRIDAY 25/09/15 Survey Type: MANUAL 3 DV-03-A-03 TERRACED & SEMI DETACHED DEVON LOWER BRAND LANE HONITON
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 7 0 Survey date: MONDAY 28/09/15 Survey Type: MANUAL 4 ES-03-A-04 MIXED HOUSES & FLATS EAST SUSSEX NEW LYDD ROAD CAMBER
Edge of Town Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 1 3 4 Survey date: FRIDAY 15/07/16 Survey Type: MANUAL 5 FA-03-A-02 MIXED HOUSES FALKIRK ROSEBANK AVENUE & SPRINGFIELD DRIVE FALKIRK
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 1 6 1 Survey date: WEDNESDAY 29/05/13 Survey Type: MANUAL 6 HC-03-A-20 HOUSES & FLATS HAMPSHIRE CANADA WAY LIPHOOK
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 6 2 Survey date: TUESDAY 20/11/18 Survey Type: MANUAL 7 HI-03-A-14 SEMI-DETACHED & TERRACED HIGHLAND KING BRUDE ROAD INVERNESS SCORGUIE Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 4 0 Survey date: WEDNESDAY 23/03/16 Survey Type: MANUAL 8 KC-03-A-03 MIXED HOUSES & FLATS KENT HYTHE ROAD ASHFORD WILLESBOROUGH Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 5 1 Survey date: THURSDAY 14/07/16 Survey Type: MANUAL TRICS 7.5.4 030219 B18.58 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2019. All rights reserved Wednesday 20/03/19 Average Trip Rates Page 4 PRIME Transport Planning’ Hurricane Court Liverpool Licence No: 753001
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters (Cont.)
9 KC-03-A-04 SEMI-DETACHED & TERRACED KENT KILN BARN ROAD AYLESFORD DITTON Edge of Town Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 1 1 0 Survey date: FRIDAY 22/09/17 Survey Type: MANUAL 10 NF-03-A-02 HOUSES & FLATS NORFOLK DEREHAM ROAD NORWICH
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 9 8 Survey date: MONDAY 22/10/12 Survey Type: MANUAL 11 NY-03-A-06 BUNGALOWS & SEMI DET. NORTH YORKSHIRE HORSEFAIR BOROUGHBRIDGE
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 1 1 5 Survey date: FRIDAY 14/10/11 Survey Type: MANUAL 12 NY-03-A-09 MIXED HOUSING NORTH YORKSHIRE GRAMMAR SCHOOL LANE NORTHALLERTON
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 5 2 Survey date: MONDAY 16/09/13 Survey Type: MANUAL 13 NY-03-A-10 HOUSES AND FLATS NORTH YORKSHIRE BOROUGHBRIDGE ROAD RIPON
Edge of Town No Sub Category Total Number of dwellings: 7 1 Survey date: TUESDAY 17/09/13 Survey Type: MANUAL 14 SC-03-A-04 DETACHED & TERRACED SURREY HIGH ROAD BYFLEET
Edge of Town Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 7 1 Survey date: THURSDAY 23/01/14 Survey Type: MANUAL 15 SH-03-A-04 TERRACED SHROPSHIRE ST MICHAEL'S STREET SHREWSBURY
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) No Sub Category Total Number of dwellings: 1 0 8 Survey date: THURSDAY 11/06/09 Survey Type: MANUAL 16 SH-03-A-05 SEMI-DETACHED/TERRACED SHROPSHIRE SANDCROFT TELFORD SUTTON HILL Edge of Town Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 5 4 Survey date: THURSDAY 24/10/13 Survey Type: MANUAL TRICS 7.5.4 030219 B18.58 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2019. All rights reserved Wednesday 20/03/19 Average Trip Rates Page 5 PRIME Transport Planning’ Hurricane Court Liverpool Licence No: 753001
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters (Cont.)
17 SY-03-A-01 SEMI DETACHED HOUSES SOUTH YORKSHIRE A19 BENTLEY ROAD DONCASTER BENTLEY RISE Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 5 4 Survey date: WEDNESDAY 18/09/13 Survey Type: MANUAL 18 WS-03-A-04 MIXED HOUSES WEST SUSSEX HILLS FARM LANE HORSHAM BROADBRIDGE HEATH Edge of Town Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 1 5 1 Survey date: THURSDAY 11/12/14 Survey Type: MANUAL 19 WS-03-A-05 TERRACED & FLATS WEST SUSSEX UPPER SHOREHAM ROAD SHOREHAM BY SEA
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 4 8 Survey date: WEDNESDAY 18/04/12 Survey Type: MANUAL 20 WS-03-A-08 MIXED HOUSES WEST SUSSEX ROUNDSTONE LANE ANGMERING
Edge of Town Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 1 8 0 Survey date: THURSDAY 19/04/18 Survey Type: MANUAL 21 WS-03-A-09 MIXED HOUSES & FLATS WEST SUSSEX LITTLEHAMPTON ROAD WORTHING WEST DURRINGTON Edge of Town Residential Zone Total Number of dwellings: 1 9 7 Survey date: THURSDAY 05/07/18 Survey Type: MANUAL
This section provides a list of all survey sites and days in the selected set. For each individual survey site, it displays a unique site reference code and site address, the selected trip rate calculation parameter and its value, the day of the week and date of each survey, and whether the survey was a manual classified count or an ATC count.
MANUALLY DESELECTED SITES
Site Ref Reason for Deselection DH-03-A-01 Low trip rates SH-03-A-02 Low trip rates TRICS 7.5.4 030219 B18.58 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2019. All rights reserved Wednesday 20/03/19 Average Trip Rates Page 6 PRIME Transport Planning’ Hurricane Court Liverpool Licence No: 753001
TRIP RATE for Land Use 03 - RESIDENTIAL/A - HOUSES PRIVATELY OWNED MULTI-MODAL VEHICLES Calculation factor: 1 DWELLS BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period
ARRIVALS DEPARTURES TOTALS No. Ave. Trip No. Ave. Trip No. Ave. Trip Time Range Days DWELLS Rate Days DWELLS Rate Days DWELLS Rate 00:00 - 01:00 01:00 - 02:00 02:00 - 03:00 03:00 - 04:00 04:00 - 05:00 05:00 - 06:00 06:00 - 07:00 07:00 - 08:00 21 96 0.064 21 96 0.271 21 96 0.335 08:00 - 09:00 21 96 0.120 21 96 0.352 21 96 0.472 09:00 - 10:00 21 96 0.154 21 96 0.175 21 96 0.329 10:00 - 11:00 21 96 0.134 21 96 0.171 21 96 0.305 11:00 - 12:00 21 96 0.140 21 96 0.147 21 96 0.287 12:00 - 13:00 21 96 0.170 21 96 0.147 21 96 0.317 13:00 - 14:00 21 96 0.182 21 96 0.172 21 96 0.354 14:00 - 15:00 21 96 0.144 21 96 0.183 21 96 0.327 15:00 - 16:00 21 96 0.237 21 96 0.159 21 96 0.396 16:00 - 17:00 21 96 0.261 21 96 0.158 21 96 0.419 17:00 - 18:00 21 96 0.321 21 96 0.160 21 96 0.481 18:00 - 19:00 21 96 0.235 21 96 0.160 21 96 0.395 19:00 - 20:00 20:00 - 21:00 21:00 - 22:00 22:00 - 23:00 23:00 - 24:00 Total Rates: 2.162 2.255 4.417
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places. TRICS 7.5.4 030219 B18.58 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2019. All rights reserved Wednesday 20/03/19 Average Trip Rates Page 7 PRIME Transport Planning’ Hurricane Court Liverpool Licence No: 753001
The survey data, graphs and all associated supporting information, contained within the TRICS Database are published by TRICS Consortium Limited ("the Company") and the Company claims copyright and database rights in this published work. The Company authorises those who possess a current TRICS licence to access the TRICS Database and copy the data contained within the TRICS Database for the licence holders' use only. Any resulting copy must retain all copyrights and other proprietary notices, and any disclaimer contained thereon.
The Company accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from reliance on data contained in the TRICS Database. [No warranty of any kind, express or implied, is made as to the data contained in the TRICS Database.]
Parameter summary
Trip rate parameter range selected: 40 - 197 (units: ) Survey date date range: 21/11/08 - 20/11/18 Number of weekdays (Monday-Friday): 21 Number of Saturdays: 0 Number of Sundays: 0 Surveys automatically removed from selection: 2 Surveys manually removed from selection: 2
This section displays a quick summary of some of the data filtering selections made by the TRICS® user. The trip rate calculation parameter range of all selected surveys is displayed first, followed by the range of minimum and maximum survey dates selected by the user. Then, the total number of selected weekdays and weekend days in the selected set of surveys are show. Finally, the number of survey days that have been manually removed from the selected set outside of the standard filtering procedure are displayed.
This page has been left intentionally blank P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
APPENDIX F
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION CALCULATION
This page has been left intentionally blank Area of workplace (MSOA) Trips (Driving a car or van) MSOA Name LAD Region Local Area Pri Route Pri % Sec Route Sec % Notes Ref. Junction AB C E02004427 4 Basildon 004 Basildon East of England SW Billericay 1A,2B,3A 0.28% 1 Site Access (3-arm priority) Left Right E02004430 4 Basildon 007 Basildon East of England East Wickford 1A,2B,3A 0.28% 2 Elysian Gardens/B1023/North Road/High Street (4-arm staggered) Left Ahead Right E02004435 11 Basildon 012 Basildon East of England Central Basildon 1A,2B,3A 0.77% 3 Tollesbury Road/Church Street/B1026 (3-arm priority) Left Right E02004437 9 Basildon 014 Basildon East of England Ford Dunton Technical Centre 1A,2B,3A 0.63% E02004438 8 Basildon 015 Basildon East of England Central Basildon, New Holland Tractor Factory, Pipps Hill Industrial Estate, De La Salle School, Festival Leisure Park 1A,2B,3A 0.56% E02004451 4 Braintree 006 Braintree East of England E Halstead, Colne Engaine, Earls Colne, White Colne 1A,2B,3A 0.14% 1A,2B,3B 0.14% E02004453 6 Braintree 008 Braintree East of England N & NW Braintree, John Bunyan Primary School, Tabor Science College, Braintree College 1A,2B,3A 0.21% 1A,2B,3B 0.21% Route Summary E02004454 8 Braintree 009 Braintree East of England Central Braintree 1A,2B,3A 0.28% 1A,2B,3B 0.28% Ref Pri % Sec % Total E02004455 4 Braintree 010 Braintree East of England West Braintree 1A,2B,3A 0.14% 1A,2B,3B 0.14% 1A,2B,3A 62.87% 0.00% 63% E02004457 6 Braintree 012 Braintree East of England Stisted, Pattiswick, Bradwell, Cressing, Silver End 1A,2B,3A 0.21% 1A,2B,3B 0.21% 1A,2B,3B 0.00% 7.13% 7% E02004459 33 Braintree 014 Braintree East of England Coggeshall, Kelvedon, Feering 1A,2B,3A 1.15% 1A,2B,3B 1.15% 1A,2C 29.99% 0.00% 30% E02004460 13 Braintree 015 Braintree East of England NW Witham, Rivenhall, Rivenhall End 1A,2B,3A 0.45% 1A,2B,3B 0.45% 92.87% 7.13% 100.00% E02004462 83 Braintree 017 Braintree East of England Witham 1A,2B,3A 2.89% 1A,2B,3B 2.89% E02004463 12 Braintree 018 Braintree East of England S Witham, Hatfield Peverel, Fairstead, White Notley, Faulkbourne, Terling 1A,2B,3A 0.42% 1A,2B,3B 0.42% E02004465 6 Brentwood 002 Brentwood East of England Ingatestone 1A,2B,3A 0.21% 1A,2B,3B 0.21% E02004468 8 Brentwood 005 Brentwood East of England NE Brentwood, Shenfield Train Station, Bishops Hill Adult Community Learning Centre 1A,2B,3A 0.28% 1A,2B,3B 0.28% E02004470 6 Brentwood 007 Brentwood East of England Central & S Brentwood 1A,2B,3A 0.21% 1A,2B,3B 0.21% E02004485 6 Chelmsford 001 Chelmsford East of England Little Waltham, Great Waltham, Ford End, North End, Great Leighs 1A,2B,3A 0.21% 1A,2B,3B 0.21% E02004486 18 Chelmsford 002 Chelmsford East of England N Chelmsford 1A,2B,3A 1.25% E02004489 23 Chelmsford 005 Chelmsford East of England Boreham, Little Baddow 1A,2B,3A 1.60% E02004492 20 Chelmsford 008 Chelmsford East of England East Chelmsford (Sewage Works, Dukes Park Industrial Estate) 1A,2B,3A 1.39% E02004493 17 Chelmsford 009 Chelmsford East of England West Chelmsford (Widford Industrial Estate) 1A,2B,3A 1.18% E02004494 63 Chelmsford 010 Chelmsford East of England Central Chelmsford 1A,2B,3A 4.38% E02004495 8 Chelmsford 011 Chelmsford East of England W Chelmsford, Writtle, Highwood 1A,2B,3A 0.56% E02004496 4 Chelmsford 012 Chelmsford East of England S Chelmsford (Tesco) 1A,2B,3A 0.28% E02004497 8 Chelmsford 013 Chelmsford East of England SE Chelmsford, Sandon, Howe Green 1A,2B,3A 0.56% E02004498 9 Chelmsford 014 Chelmsford East of England S Chelmsford (BAE Systems Adavanced Technology Centre) 1A,2B,3A 0.63% E02004500 11 Chelmsford 016 Chelmsford East of England Danbury, Danbury Quarry, East Hanningfield, Bicknacre, Woodham Ferrers 1A,2B,3A 0.77% E02004502 12 Chelmsford 018 Chelmsford East of England Margaretting, Stock, West Hanningfield, South Hanningfield, Ramsden Heath, Downham 1A,2B,3A 0.84% E02004503 19 Chelmsford 019 Chelmsford East of England South Woodham Ferrers 1A,2B,3A 1.32% E02004505 10 Chelmsford 021 Chelmsford East of England Rettondon, Rettondon Common, Coalhill, Runwell 1A,2B,3A 0.70% E02000001 5 City of London 001 City of London London / 1A,2B,3A 0.35% E02004507 34 Colchester 002 Colchester East of England Colchester Business Park, The Gilberd School 1A,2C 2.37% E02004509 21 Colchester 004 Colchester East of England N Colchester 1A,2C 1.46% E02004512 74 Colchester 007 Colchester East of England Central Colchester 1A,2C 5.15% E02004513 4 Colchester 008 Colchester East of England SE Colchester (Tesco) 1A,2C 0.28% E02004514 10 Colchester 009 Colchester East of England W Colchester 1A,2C 0.70% E02004515 23 Colchester 010 Colchester East of England Wakes Colne, Great Tey, Aldham, Copford, Marks Tey 1A,2C 1.60% E02004516 14 Colchester 011 Colchester East of England S Colchester 1A,2C 0.97% E02004517 21 Colchester 012 Colchester East of England SW Colchester 1A,2C 1.46% E02004518 6 Colchester 013 Colchester East of England SW Colchester 1A,2C 0.42% E02004519 9 Colchester 014 Colchester East of England SW Colchester 1A,2C 0.63% E02004520 7 Colchester 015 Colchester East of England SW Colchester 1A,2C 0.49% E02004521 13 Colchester 016 Colchester East of England S Colchester 1A,2C 0.90% E02004522 8 Colchester 017 Colchester East of England SE Colchester 1A,2C 0.56% E02004523 4 Colchester 018 Colchester East of England S Colchester 1A,2C 0.28% E02004524 41 Colchester 019 Colchester East of England Aberton, Great Wigborough, Layer Marney 1A,2C 2.85% E02004525 103 Colchester 020 Colchester East of England Tiptree 1A,2C 7.17% E02004526 19 Colchester 021 Colchester East of England Mersea Island 1A,2C 1.32% E02006922 4 Colchester 022 Colchester East of England NE Colchester 1A,2C 0.28% E02000476 5 Havering 013 Havering London / 1A,2B,3A 0.35% E02004555 189 Maldon 001 Maldon East of England Tollesbury, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Goldhanger, Tolleshunt Major 1A,2B,3A 13.15% Everybody who works in Tollesbury expected to walk E02004556 47 Maldon 002 Maldon East of England Woodham Mortimer, Woodham Walter, Wickham Bishops 1A,2B,3A 3.27% E02004557 45 Maldon 003 Maldon East of England Heybridge, Heybridge Basin, Osea Island 1A,2B,3A 3.13% E02004558 163 Maldon 004 Maldon East of England Maldon 1A,2B,3A 11.34% E02004559 20 Maldon 005 Maldon East of England S Maldon 1A,2B,3A 1.39% E02004560 15 Maldon 006 Maldon East of England Southwick, Southminster, Steeple, St Lawrence, Tillingham, Bradwell on Sea 1A,2B,3A 1.04% E02004561 18 Maldon 007 Maldon East of England Mayland, Maylandsea, Latchingdon, Cold Norton, Mundon, Purleigh, Althorne 1A,2B,3A 1.25% E02004562 8 Maldon 008 Maldon East of England Burnham on Crouch 1A,2B,3A 0.56% E02004565 4 Rochford 003 Rochford East of England Hockley, Hackwell 1A,2B,3A 0.28% E02004569 5 Rochford 007 Rochford East of England Rochford, London Southend Airport 1A,2B,3A 0.35% E02004570 6 Rochford 008 Rochford East of England Rayleigh 1A,2B,3A 0.42% E02004577 6 Tendring 005 Tendring East of England Ardleigh, Little Bromley, Great Bromley, Elmstead Market 1A,2C 0.42% E02004579 4 Tendring 007 Tendring East of England Weeley, Weeley Heath, Little Clacton, Thorpe-le-Soken, Landermere, Beaumont-cum-Moze 1A,2C 0.28% E02004581 6 Tendring 009 Tendring East of England Great Bentley, Aingers Green, Thorrington, Alresford, Frating 1A,2C 0.42% E02003296 4 Thurrock 001 Thurrock East of England DP London Gateway, Coryton, Fobbing 1A,2B,3A 0.28% E02003310 9 Thurrock 015 Thurrock East of England West Thurrock (Lakeside Shopping Centre, Lakeside Retail Park, The Junction Retail Park, Oil Deport, West Thurrock Marshes) 1A,2B,3A 0.63% E02004597 10 Uttlesford 007 Uttlesford East of England Great Dunmow 1A,2B,3A 0.35% 1A,2B,3B 0.35%
This page has been left intentionally blank P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
APPENDIX G
JUNCTION CAPACITY MODEL OUTPUT
This page has been left intentionally blank Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Analysis Set Details ID Name Network flow scaling factor (%) Junctions 9 A1 (Default Analysis Set) 100.000 PICADY 9 - Priority Intersection Module Version: 9.5.0.6896 © Copyright TRL Limited, 2018 For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL: +44 (0)1344 379777 [email protected] www.trlsoftware.co.uk The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution
Filename: J1 - North-High-Elysian-West.j9 Path: N:\Projects 2019\P19022 - Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex (2018-119)\6.Technical\Models Report generation date: 28/05/2019 15:44:43
»(Default Analysis Set) - 1 Observed 2019, AM »(Default Analysis Set) - 1 Observed 2019, PM »(Default Analysis Set) - 2 Without Development 2024, AM »(Default Analysis Set) - 2 Without Development 2024, PM »(Default Analysis Set) - 3 With Development 2024, AM »(Default Analysis Set) - 3 With Development 2024, PM
File summary
File Description
Title North Road/High Street/Elysian Gardens/West Street Location Tollesbury Site number 1 Date 14/05/2019 Version Status Final Identifier Client Gladman Jobnumber P19022 Enumerator B.Gaze Description Checked by D.Stoddart
Units Distance units Speed units Traffic units input Traffic units results Flow units Average delay units Total delay units Rate of delay units m kph PCU PCU perHour s -Min perMin
Analysis Options Calculate Queue Percentiles Calculate residual capacity RFC Threshold Average Delay threshold (s) Queue threshold (PCU) 0.85 36.00 20.00
Demand Set Summary ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D1 1 Observed 2019 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15 D2 1 Observed 2019 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15 D3 2 Without Development 2024 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15 D4 2 Without Development 2024 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15 D5 3 With Development 2024 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15 D6 3 With Development 2024 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15
1 2 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Traffic Demand (Default Analysis Set) - 1 Observed 2019, AM Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Data Errors and Warnings D1 1 Observed 2019 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15 No errors or warnings
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) Junction Network HV Percentages 2.00 Demand overview (Traffic) Junctions Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) Major road Use circulating Junction Delay Junction Junction Name Junction type A - High Street 239 100.000 direction lanes (s) LOS 37 100.000 North Road/High Street/Elysian Gardens/West Right-Left B - Elysian Gardens 1 Two-way 3.25 A Street Stagger C - West Street 111 100.000 D - North Road 73 100.000 Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To Arms A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road A - High Street 0 10 164 65 Arms From B - Elysian Gardens 13 0 22 2 Arm Name Description Arm type C - West Street 91 16 0 4 A High Street Major D - North Road 63 2 8 0 B Elysian Gardens Minor C West Street Major D North Road Minor Vehicle Mix
Major Arm Geometry Heavy Vehicle Percentages To Arm Width of carriageway (m) Has kerbed central reserve Has right turn bay Visibility for right turn (m) Blocks? Blocking queue (PCU) A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road A - High Street 6.00 60.0 0.00 A - High Street 0 0 3 0 C - West Street 6.00 50.0 0.00 From B - Elysian Gardens 0 0 0 0 Geometries for Arm C are measured opposite Arm B. Geometries for Arm A (if relevant) are measured opposite Arm D. C - West Street 7 7 0 0 D - North Road 2 0 0 0 Minor Arm Geometry Arm Minor arm type Lane width (m) Visibility to left (m) Visibility to right (m) B - Elysian Gardens One lane 2.75 15 20 D - North Road One lane 2.50 12 15 Results
Slope / Intercept / Capacity Results Summary for whole modelled period Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS Priority Intersection Slopes and Intercepts B-ACD 0.08 7.88 0.1 A Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope Slope A-BCD 0.14 5.93 0.2 A Intercept Junction Stream for for for for for for for for for for (PCU/hr) A- B A- B A- C A- D B-A B-D C-A C-B C-D D-B D-C A- C 1 A-D 609 - - - 0.236 0.236 0.236 - 0.236 - - D-ABC 0.15 7.94 0.2 A 1 B-AD 480 0.087 0.221 - - - 0.139 0.316 0.139 0.087 0.221 C-ABD 0.03 6.34 0.0 A 1 B-C 621 0.095 0.240 ------0.095 0.240 C-D 1 C-B 603 0.234 0.234 ------0.234 0.234 C-A 1 D-A 602 - - - 0.233 0.092 0.233 - 0.092 - - 1 D-BC 464 0.135 0.135 0.305 0.214 0.085 0.214 - 0.085 - -
The slopes and intercepts shown above do NOT include any corrections or adjustments. Streams may be combined, in which case capacity will be adjusted. Values are shown for the first time segment only; they may differ for subsequent time segments.
3 4 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
(Default Analysis Set) - 1 Observed 2019, PM Results
Data Errors and Warnings Results Summary for whole modelled period No errors or warnings Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS B-ACD 0.07 7.74 0.1 A A-BCD 0.09 6.06 0.1 A Junction Network A- B A- C Junctions D-ABC 0.15 7.92 0.2 A Major road Use circulating Junction Delay Junction Junction Name Junction type C-ABD 0.05 5.65 0.1 A direction lanes (s) LOS C-D North Road/High Street/Elysian Gardens/West Right-Left 1 Two-way 2.91 A Street Stagger C-A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D2 1 Observed 2019 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - High Street 159 100.000 B - Elysian Gardens 32 100.000 C - West Street 185 100.000 D - North Road 73 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road A - High Street 0 14 104 41 From B - Elysian Gardens 12 0 18 2 C - West Street 148 25 0 12 D - North Road 65 4 4 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road A - High Street 0 0 2 0 From B - Elysian Gardens 0 0 0 0 C - West Street 2 0 0 0 D - North Road 0 0 0 0
5 6 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Heavy Vehicle Percentages (Default Analysis Set) - 2 Without Development To A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road 2024, AM A - High Street 0 0 3 0 From B - Elysian Gardens 0 0 0 0 C - West Street 6 6 0 0 Data Errors and Warnings D - North Road 2 0 0 0 No errors or warnings
Results Junction Network Results Summary for whole modelled period Junctions Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS Major road Use circulating Junction Delay Junction 0.09 8.03 0.1 A Junction Name Junction type B-ACD direction lanes (s) LOS A-BCD 0.15 5.91 0.2 A North Road/High Street/Elysian Gardens/West Right-Left 1 Two-way 3.25 A Street Stagger A- B A- C Junction Network Options D-ABC 0.16 8.11 0.2 A C-ABD 0.04 6.32 0.1 A Driving side Lighting C-D Left Normal/unknown C-A
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D3 2 Without Development 2024 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - High Street 262 100.000 B - Elysian Gardens 39 100.000 C - West Street 120 100.000 D - North Road 78 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road A - High Street 0 11 182 69 From B - Elysian Gardens 14 0 23 2 C - West Street 99 17 0 4 D - North Road 67 2 9 0
Vehicle Mix
7 8 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Heavy Vehicle Percentages (Default Analysis Set) - 2 Without Development To A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road 2024, PM A - High Street 0 0 2 0 From B - Elysian Gardens 0 0 0 0 C - West Street 2 0 0 0 Data Errors and Warnings D - North Road 0 0 0 0 No errors or warnings
Results Junction Network Results Summary for whole modelled period Junctions Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS Major road Use circulating Junction Delay Junction 0.08 7.88 0.1 A Junction Name Junction type B-ACD direction lanes (s) LOS A-BCD 0.09 6.07 0.1 A North Road/High Street/Elysian Gardens/West Right-Left 1 Two-way 2.90 A Street Stagger A- B A- C Junction Network Options D-ABC 0.16 8.10 0.2 A C-ABD 0.06 5.61 0.1 A Driving side Lighting C-D Left Normal/unknown C-A
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D4 2 Without Development 2024 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - High Street 175 100.000 B - Elysian Gardens 34 100.000 C - West Street 206 100.000 D - North Road 78 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road A - High Street 0 15 116 44 From B - Elysian Gardens 13 0 19 2 C - West Street 166 27 0 13 D - North Road 70 4 4 0
Vehicle Mix
9 10 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Heavy Vehicle Percentages (Default Analysis Set) - 3 With Development 2024, To A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road AM A - High Street 0 0 2 0 From B - Elysian Gardens 0 0 0 0 C - West Street 6 6 0 0 Data Errors and Warnings D - North Road 2 0 0 0 No errors or warnings
Results Junction Network Results Summary for whole modelled period Junctions Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS Major road Use circulating Junction Delay Junction 0.09 8.22 0.1 A Junction Name Junction type B-ACD direction lanes (s) LOS A-BCD 0.15 5.76 0.3 A North Road/High Street/Elysian Gardens/West Right-Left 1 Two-way 3.03 A Street Stagger A- B A- C Junction Network Options D-ABC 0.16 8.19 0.2 A C-ABD 0.04 6.31 0.1 A Driving side Lighting C-D Left Normal/unknown C-A
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D5 3 With Development 2024 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - High Street 297 100.000 B - Elysian Gardens 39 100.000 C - West Street 132 100.000 D - North Road 78 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road A - High Street 0 11 217 69 From B - Elysian Gardens 14 0 23 2 C - West Street 111 17 0 4 D - North Road 67 2 9 0
Vehicle Mix
11 12 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:53 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Heavy Vehicle Percentages (Default Analysis Set) - 3 With Development 2024, To A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road PM A - High Street 0 0 1 0 From B - Elysian Gardens 0 0 0 0 C - West Street 2 0 0 0 Data Errors and Warnings D - North Road 0 0 0 0 No errors or warnings
Results Junction Network Results Summary for whole modelled period Junctions Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS Major road Use circulating Junction Delay Junction 0.08 8.03 0.1 A Junction Name Junction type B-ACD direction lanes (s) LOS A-BCD 0.10 6.01 0.1 A North Road/High Street/Elysian Gardens/West Right-Left 1 Two-way 2.68 A Street Stagger A- B A- C Junction Network Options D-ABC 0.16 8.26 0.2 A C-ABD 0.06 5.51 0.1 A Driving side Lighting C-D Left Normal/unknown C-A
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D6 3 With Development 2024 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - High Street 196 100.000 B - Elysian Gardens 34 100.000 C - West Street 238 100.000 D - North Road 78 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - High Street B - Elysian Gardens C - West Street D - North Road A - High Street 0 15 137 44 From B - Elysian Gardens 13 0 19 2 C - West Street 198 27 0 13 D - North Road 70 4 4 0
Vehicle Mix
13 14 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Analysis Set Details ID Name Network flow scaling factor (%) Junctions 9 A1 (Default Analysis Set) 100.000 PICADY 9 - Priority Intersection Module Version: 9.5.0.6896 © Copyright TRL Limited, 2018 For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL: +44 (0)1344 379777 [email protected] www.trlsoftware.co.uk The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution
Filename: J2 - South-Toll-Church.j9 Path: N:\Projects 2019\P19022 - Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex (2018-119)\6.Technical\Models Report generation date: 28/05/2019 15:44:04
»(Default Analysis Set) - 1 Observed 2019, AM »(Default Analysis Set) - 1 Observed 2019, PM »(Default Analysis Set) - 2 Without Development 2024, AM »(Default Analysis Set) - 2 Without Development 2024, PM »(Default Analysis Set) - 3 With Development 2024, AM »(Default Analysis Set) - 3 With Development 2024, PM
File summary
File Description
Title South Street/Tollesbury Road/Church Street Location Tollesbury Site number 2 Date 14/05/2019 Version Status Final Identifier Client Gladman Jobnumber P19022 Enumerator B.Gaze Description Checked by D.Stoddart
Units Distance units Speed units Traffic units input Traffic units results Flow units Average delay units Total delay units Rate of delay units m kph PCU PCU perHour s -Min perMin
Analysis Options Calculate Queue Percentiles Calculate residual capacity RFC Threshold Average Delay threshold (s) Queue threshold (PCU) 0.85 36.00 20.00
Demand Set Summary ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D1 1 Observed 2019 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15 D2 1 Observed 2019 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15 D3 2 Without Development 2024 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15 D4 2 Without Development 2024 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15 D5 3 With Development 2024 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15 D6 3 With Development 2024 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15
1 2 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) (Default Analysis Set) - 1 Observed 2019, AM HV Percentages 2.00 Demand overview (Traffic) Data Errors and Warnings Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) No errors or warnings A - South Street 233 100.000 B - Tollesbury Road 221 100.000 C - Church Street 175 100.000 Junction Network
Junctions Origin-Destination Data Junction Name Junction type Major road direction Use circulating lanes Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS Demand (PCU/hr) South Street/Tollesbury Road/Church Street T-Junction Two-way 5.94 A 1 To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street Junction Network Options A - South Street 0 58 175 From Driving side Lighting B - Tollesbury Road 105 0 116 Left Normal/unknown C - Church Street 116 59 0
Arms Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages Arms To Arm Name Description Arm type A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A South Street Major A - South Street 0 5 1 B Tollesbury Road Minor From B - Tollesbury Road 4 0 4 C Church Street Major C - Church Street 3 5 0
Major Arm Geometry Width of carriageway Has kerbed central Has right turn Width for right Visibility for right Blocking queue Arm Blocks? (m) reserve bay turn (m) turn (m) (PCU) Results C - Church Street 6.00 3.00 50.0 3.00 Geometries for Arm C are measured opposite Arm B. Geometries for Arm A (if relevant) are measured opposite Arm D. Results Summary for whole modelled period Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS Minor Arm Geometry B-AC 0.49 14.97 1.0 B Arm Minor arm type Lane width (m) Visibility to left (m) Visibility to right (m) C-AB 0.11 7.22 0.1 A B - Tollesbury Road One lane 3.00 80 20 C-A A- B Slope / Intercept / Capacity A- C
Priority Intersection Slopes and Intercepts Slope Slope Slope Slope Intercept Junction Stream for for for for (PCU/hr) A- B A- C C-A C-B 1 B-A 513 0.093 0.236 0.149 0.338 1 B-C 637 0.098 0.247 - - 1 C-B 655 0.254 0.254 - -
The slopes and intercepts shown above do NOT include any corrections or adjustments. Streams may be combined, in which case capacity will be adjusted. Values are shown for the first time segment only; they may differ for subsequent time segments.
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D1 1 Observed 2019 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15
3 4 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Results (Default Analysis Set) - 1 Observed 2019, PM Results Summary for whole modelled period Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS Data Errors and Warnings B-AC 0.32 11.25 0.5 B No errors or warnings C-AB 0.21 7.73 0.3 A C-A A- B Junction Network A- C
Junctions Junction Name Junction type Major road direction Use circulating lanes Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 South Street/Tollesbury Road/Church Street T-Junction Two-way 3.83 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D2 1 Observed 2019 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - South Street 237 100.000 B - Tollesbury Road 140 100.000 C - Church Street 262 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A - South Street 0 108 129 From B - Tollesbury Road 64 0 76 C - Church Street 149 113 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A - South Street 0 1 1 From B - Tollesbury Road 7 0 1 C - Church Street 1 0 0
5 6 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Results (Default Analysis Set) - 2 Without Development Results Summary for whole modelled period 2024, AM Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS B-AC 0.55 16.95 1.2 C C-AB 0.12 7.34 0.1 A Data Errors and Warnings C-A No errors or warnings A- B A- C Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction type Major road direction Use circulating lanes Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 South Street/Tollesbury Road/Church Street T-Junction Two-way 6.75 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D3 2 Without Development 2024 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - South Street 250 100.000 B - Tollesbury Road 243 100.000 C - Church Street 188 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A - South Street 0 63 187 From B - Tollesbury Road 115 0 128 C - Church Street 123 65 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A - South Street 0 5 1 From B - Tollesbury Road 4 0 3 C - Church Street 3 5 0
7 8 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Results (Default Analysis Set) - 2 Without Development Results Summary for whole modelled period 2024, PM Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS B-AC 0.35 12.04 0.6 B C-AB 0.24 8.05 0.3 A Data Errors and Warnings C-A No errors or warnings A- B A- C Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction type Major road direction Use circulating lanes Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 South Street/Tollesbury Road/Church Street T-Junction Two-way 4.13 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D4 2 Without Development 2024 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - South Street 256 100.000 B - Tollesbury Road 154 100.000 C - Church Street 285 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A - South Street 0 118 138 From B - Tollesbury Road 70 0 84 C - Church Street 159 126 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A - South Street 0 1 1 From B - Tollesbury Road 6 0 1 C - Church Street 1 0 0
9 10 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Results (Default Analysis Set) - 3 With Development 2024, Results Summary for whole modelled period AM Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS B-AC 0.63 20.46 1.7 C C-AB 0.14 7.44 0.2 A Data Errors and Warnings C-A No errors or warnings A- B A- C Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction type Major road direction Use circulating lanes Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 South Street/Tollesbury Road/Church Street T-Junction Two-way 8.56 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D5 3 With Development 2024 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - South Street 254 100.000 B - Tollesbury Road 278 100.000 C - Church Street 196 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A - South Street 0 67 187 From B - Tollesbury Road 128 0 150 C - Church Street 123 73 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A - South Street 0 5 1 From B - Tollesbury Road 3 0 3 C - Church Street 3 4 0
11 12 Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 28/05/2019 15:44:12 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Results (Default Analysis Set) - 3 With Development 2024, Results Summary for whole modelled period PM Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS B-AC 0.41 13.18 0.7 B C-AB 0.28 8.52 0.4 A Data Errors and Warnings C-A No errors or warnings A- B A- C Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction type Major road direction Use circulating lanes Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 South Street/Tollesbury Road/Church Street T-Junction Two-way 4.75 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D6 3 With Development 2024 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - South Street 268 100.000 B - Tollesbury Road 175 100.000 C - Church Street 305 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A - South Street 0 130 138 From B - Tollesbury Road 78 0 97 C - Church Street 159 146 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A - South Street B - Tollesbury Road C - Church Street A - South Street 0 1 1 From B - Tollesbury Road 5 0 1 C - Church Street 1 0 0
13 14 Generated on 26/07/2019 13:01:49 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 26/07/2019 13:01:49 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Junctions 9 (Default Analysis Set) - 1 With Development 2024, PICADY 9 - Priority Intersection Module AM Version: 9.5.0.6896 © Copyright TRL Limited, 2018 For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL: Data Errors and Warnings +44 (0)1344 379777 [email protected] www.trlsoftware.co.uk No errors or warnings The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution
Filename: J3 - Mell-SA.j9 Junction Network Path: N:\Projects 2019\P19022 - Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex (2018-119)\6.Technical\Models Report generation date: 26/07/2019 13:01:32 Junctions Junction Name Junction type Major road direction Use circulating lanes Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 Mell Road/Site Access T-Junction Two-way 1.64 A
»(Default Analysis Set) - 1 With Development 2024, AM Junction Network Options »(Default Analysis Set) - 1 With Development 2024, PM Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown File summary
File Description Arms Title Mell Road/Site Access Location Tollesbury Arms Site number 3 Date 14/05/2019 Arm Name Description Arm type Mell Road (Eastern Arm) Major Version A Site Access Minor Status Final B Mell Road (Western Arm) Major Identifier C Client Gladman Jobnumber P19022 Major Arm Geometry Enumerator B.Gaze Width of carriageway Has kerbed central Has right turn Visibility for right turn Blocking queue Arm Blocks? (m) reserve bay (m) (PCU) Description Checked by D.Stoddart C - Mell Road (Western Arm) 6.00 50.0 0.00 Geometries for Arm C are measured opposite Arm B. Geometries for Arm A (if relevant) are measured opposite Arm D. Units Distance units Speed units Traffic units input Traffic units results Flow units Average delay units Total delay units Rate of delay units Minor Arm Geometry m kph PCU PCU perHour s -Min perMin Arm Minor arm type Lane width (m) Visibility to left (m) Visibility to right (m) B - Site Access One lane 2.75 15 15 Analysis Options Calculate Queue Percentiles Calculate residual capacity RFC Threshold Average Delay threshold (s) Queue threshold (PCU) Slope / Intercept / Capacity 0.85 36.00 20.00 Priority Intersection Slopes and Intercepts Slope Slope Slope Slope Demand Set Summary Intercept Junction Stream for for for for (PCU/hr) ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) A- B A- C C-A C-B D1 1 With Development 2024 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15 1 B-A 478 0.087 0.220 0.138 0.314 D2 1 With Development 2024 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15 1 B-C 618 0.095 0.239 - - 1 C-B 603 0.234 0.234 - - Analysis Set Details The slopes and intercepts shown above do NOT include any corrections or adjustments. Streams may be combined, in which case capacity will be adjusted. ID Name Network flow scaling factor (%) Values are shown for the first time segment only; they may differ for subsequent time segments. A1 (Default Analysis Set) 100.000
1 2 Generated on 26/07/2019 13:01:49 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896) Generated on 26/07/2019 13:01:49 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Traffic Demand (Default Analysis Set) - 1 With Development 2024, Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) PM D1 1 With Development 2024 AM ONE HOUR 07:15 08:45 15
Data Errors and Warnings Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00 Severity Area Item Description HV% is zero for all movements / time segments. Vehicle Mix matrix should be completed whether working in Warning Vehicle Mix PCUs or Vehs. If HV% at the junction is genuinely zero, please ignore this warning. Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - Mell Road (Eastern Arm) 88 100.000 Junction Network B - Site Access 35 100.000 C - Mell Road (Western Arm) 63 100.000 Junctions Junction Name Junction type Major road direction Use circulating lanes Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS Origin-Destination Data 1 Mell Road/Site Access T-Junction Two-way 1.65 A Demand (PCU/hr) Junction Network Options To Driving side Lighting A - Mell Road (Eastern Arm) B - Site Access C - Mell Road (Western Arm) Left Normal/unknown A - Mell Road (Eastern Arm) 0 0 88 From B - Site Access 0 0 35 C - Mell Road (Western Arm) 51 12 0 Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details Vehicle Mix ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Heavy Vehicle Percentages D2 1 With Development 2024 PM ONE HOUR 16:00 17:30 15 To A - Mell Road (Eastern Arm) B - Site Access C - Mell Road (Western Arm) Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) A - Mell Road (Eastern Arm) 0 0 0 HV Percentages 2.00 From B - Site Access 0 0 0 C - Mell Road (Western Arm) 2 0 0 Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - Mell Road (Eastern Arm) 59 100.000 Results B - Site Access 21 100.000 C - Mell Road (Western Arm) 132 100.000
Results Summary for whole modelled period Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS Origin-Destination Data B-AC 0.06 6.48 0.1 A C-AB 0.02 5.97 0.0 A Demand (PCU/hr) C-A To A- B A - Mell Road (Eastern Arm) B - Site Access C - Mell Road (Western Arm) A- C A - Mell Road (Eastern Arm) 0 0 59 From B - Site Access 0 0 21 C - Mell Road (Western Arm) 100 32 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A - Mell Road (Eastern Arm) B - Site Access C - Mell Road (Western Arm) A - Mell Road (Eastern Arm) 0 0 0 From B - Site Access 0 0 0 C - Mell Road (Western Arm) 0 0 0
3 4 Generated on 26/07/2019 13:01:49 using Junctions 9 (9.5.0.6896)
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Stream Max RFC Max Delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS B-AC 0.04 6.22 0.0 A C-AB 0.06 5.85 0.1 A C-A A- B A- C
5
This page has been left intentionally blank P19022 – Mell Road, Tollesbury, Essex Transport Assessment
APPENDIX H
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
This page has been left intentionally blank
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
MELL ROAD, TOLLESBURY PROPOSED SITE ACCESS
STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
610/2019/120/01
30 April 2019
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd Unit 17 Lea Green Business Park Eurolink, St Helens Merseyside WA9 4TR t 0151 510 2937 m 07985 283074 e [email protected] www.610traffic.co.uk
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
REV ISSUE STATUS PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED BY/DATE BY/DATE BY/DATE 0 DRAFT Jon Preston Lisa Allen 30 April 2019 30 April 2019 1 FINAL Jon Preston Lisa Allen Jon Preston 30 April 2019 30 April 2019 30 April 2019
Disclaimer note
The client has confirmed that it is entering into the agreement under which this report is being prepared on its own behalf and not on behalf of, or for the benefit of any other party and has agreed that in any event of any claim arising out of or in connection with that agreement and/or the report itself it shall be entitled to recover from six:TEN Highways & Traffic Limited only the losses, if any, it has itself suffered.
This report therefore is for the private and confidential use of the client for whom it was prepared solely for the purposes requested by the client. It should not be reproduced in whole or in part or relied upon by any third party for any use whatsoever without the express written authority of six:TEN Highways & Traffic Limited.
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
Mell Road, Tollesbury Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
2.0 PROPOSALS 2
3.0 PERSONAL INJURY COLLISION HISTORY 3
4.0 TRAFFIC FLOW DATA 3
5.0 DEPARTURES FROM STANDARD 3
AUDITOR’S EVALUATION
6.0 MATTERS ARISING FROM THIS STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 4
APPENDICES
APPENDIX ONE
7.0 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT 6
APPENDIX TWO
8.0 LIST OF DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE AUDIT TEAM 7
APPENDIX THREE
9.0 PROBLEM LOCATION PLAN 8
APPENDIX FOUR
10.0 PHOTOGRAPHS 9
APPENDIX FIVE
11.0 PERSONAL INJURY COLLISION LOCATION PLAN 10
1
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
Mell Road, Tollesbury Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report is a preliminary design Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) carried out on the proposed site access at Mell Road, Tollesbury, at the request of Prime Transport Planning, who are Project Sponsor and have approved the audit team. The local highway authority is Essex County Council.
1.2 The RSA team, staff members from six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd, present at the RSA were:
Jon Preston MCIHT MSoRSA Audit Team Leader
Lisa Allen MCIHT MSoRSA EU RSA Cert of Competence Audit Team Member
We confirm that no member of the Audit Team has been involved with the design process.
1.3 A site visit was carried out on 29 April 2019 between 13:00 and 13:30hrs. The weather during the site visit was clear with a dry carriageway surface.
1.4 The RSA brief issued to the team comprised various elements listed at Appendix Two.
1.5 The terms of reference of the RSA are as described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges GG119 – Road Safety Audit. This standard has been used for guidance only. The RSA team has examined and reported only the road safety issues of the scheme as presented and has not examined or verified the compliance of the design to any other criteria.
1.6 All of the problems described in this report are considered by the RSA team to require action in order to improve the safety of the scheme and minimise collision occurrence. However, if any of the problems or recommendations within this Road Safety Audit report are not accepted, a copy of the signed exception report from the Overseeing Organisation should be sent to the Road Safety Audit Team Leader.
1.7 A plan showing the location of road safety problems raised in this report is included in Appendix Three.
2.0 PROPOSALS
The scheme involves the following highway works:
• Provision of a major/minor priority junction on Mell Road to provide access to a proposed residential development; • Dropped crossings with tactile paving on the proposed access road near to its junction with Mell Road; • Widening of the southwestern footway of Mell Road from the proposed access across the frontage of No. 6 Mell Road and; • Potential emergency/cycle/pedestrian link to the proposed development from Mell Road between Nos. 18 and 20.
2
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
Mell Road, Tollesbury Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
3.0 PERSONAL INJURY COLLISION HISTORY
3.1 Personal injury collision data was obtained for the five-year period 2013 to 2017 from crashmap.co.uk. The location plan is shown in Appendix Five.
3.2 There have been no recorded personal injury collisions on Mell Road in the vicinity of the proposed access during the five-year period.
4.0 TRAFFIC FLOW AND SPEED DATA
4.1 Traffic flow and speed data was not provided to the audit team, however, during the site visit it was observed that the traffic flow was very light and vehicles speeds were low.
5.0 DEPARTURES FROM STANDARD
5.1 No Departures from Standard have been highlighted to the RSA team.
3
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
Mell Road, Tollesbury Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
6.0 MATTERS ARISING FROM THIS UPDATED (STAGE 1) ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
6.1 General
6.1.1 Location: Potential emergency/cycle/pedestrian access
Problem
Summary: Risk of unauthorised motorised vehicles using the emergency access It was observed during the site visit that a gate is located across the potential emergency/cycle/pedestrian access to the development. It is assumed that this gate will be replaced to allow cycle/pedestrian access, however, no details have been provided at this stage. If appropriate means to restrict the use of the emergency access by unauthorised motorised vehicles is not provided there may be an increased risk of collisions between pedestrians/cyclists and motorised vehicles. (Photo 10.1)
Recommendation Appropriate means to restrict the use of the emergency/cycle/pedestrian access by unauthorised motorised vehicles should be included within the detailed design of the proposed scheme.
6.2 Local Alignment
No road safety issues identified at this stage.
6.3 Junctions
6.3.1 Location: Proposed access junction with Mell Road
Problem
Summary: Risk of larger vehicles encroaching into opposing traffic lanes when negotiating the junction The location of the proposed junction on the outside of a bend may result in larger vehicles encroaching into the opposing traffic lane of Mell Road when turning left out of the access road. It is noted that swept path analysis drawings have not been provided to the audit team. If vehicles encroach into opposing traffic lanes when negotiating the junction, there may be an increased risk of head-on or side to side collisions.
Recommendation The swept path analysis for all manoeuvres through the proposed junction should be checked and amendments made to the design if required to ensure vehicles do not encroach into opposing traffic lanes.
4
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
Mell Road, Tollesbury Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
6.4 Non-motorised user provision
6.4.1 Location: Mell Road southwestern footway to north of proposed access
Problem
Summary: Telegraph pole remains within footway on pedestrian desire line The telegraph pole on the southwestern footway of Mell Road to the north of the proposed access remains within the footway on the pedestrian desire line. Whilst it is noted that this length of footway is to be widened, at the location of the telegraph pole pedestrians would have to veer off the desire line of the footway in order to avoid the telegraph pole. If the telegraph pole remains within its current location there may be an increased risk of pedestrians, especially those with visual impairments, colliding with the telegraph pole. (Photo 10.2)
Recommendation The telegraph pole should be relocated away from the pedestrian desire line on the southwestern footway of Mell Road.
6.4.2 Location: Potential emergency/cycle/pedestrian access
Problem
Summary: Reduced width of access may result in collisions between pedestrians and cyclists It was observed during the site visit that the potential emergency/cycle/pedestrian access to the proposed development reduces in width approximately 20m from Mell Road. The audit team is unaware of land ownership at this location, however, it appears that house No. 18 appears to own/use part of this area of land. If an inadequate width of footway/cycleway is provided at this location there may be an increased risk of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists using the access. (Photo 10.1)
Recommendation The land ownership at this location should be checked to ensure adequate width can be provided for both pedestrians and cyclists using the access.
6.5 Road Signs, Carriageway Markings and Lighting
No road safety issues identified at this stage.
5
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
Mell Road, Tollesbury Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
APPENDIX ONE
7.0 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT
We certify that the audit has been carried out generally in accordance with the requirements set out in GG119. The problems identified have been noted in this report together with associated safety improvement suggestions which we recommend should be studied for implementation.
AUDIT TEAM LEADER
Jon Preston MCIHT MSoRSA Signed: Director six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd Date: 30 April 2019
AUDIT TEAM MEMBER
Lisa Allen MCIHT MSoRSA EU RSA Cert of Comp. Signed: Traffic & Road Safety Engineer six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd Date: 30 April 2019
6
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
Mell Road, Tollesbury Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
APPENDIX TWO
8.0 LIST OF DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE AUDIT TEAM
• P19022-001B Proposed Site Access • Five Year Personal Injury Collision Data (2013 – 2017)
7
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
Mell Road, Tollesbury Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
APPENDIX THREE
9.0 PROBLEM LOCATION PLAN
6.4.1 6.3.1
6.1.1
6.4.2
8
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
Mell Road, Tollesbury Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
APPENDIX FOUR
10.0 PHOTOGRAPHS
10.1 Existing gate and possible narrow width of proposed emergency/cycle/pedestrian access
10.2 Telegraph pole on pedestrian desire line within Mell Road footway 9
six:TEN Highways & Traffic Ltd
Mell Road, Tollesbury Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
APPENDIX FIVE
11.0 PERSONAL INJURY COLLISION LOCATION PLAN
Proposed Access
10