Using the Above Image)

Summer Road Action Group

Winter 2018 Existing street-scene looking north on Hampton Court Way Same as Viewpoint 9 in the HTVI (Note the illegal right turning red car)

August 2019 SRAG Visualisation of Current Proposal (using the above image)

SRAG OBJECTION TO APPLICATION 2019/2005 UNITS 1 & 2 HAMPTON COURT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SUMMER ROAD, THAMES DITTON

1. SUMMARY This proposal is unacceptable to SRAG on the grounds that: - 1.1. Loss of employment use – The existing uses have not proved to be a bad neighbour to the local community; they provide local jobs that offer sustainable lifestyles; they should be relocated; and we see no community benefit to offset the loss, as required by adopted Local Plan policy; 1.2. Cumulative impact of proposed nearby residential sites – this site should be part of a comprehensive development of Units 1,2 & 3; the likely negative impact on the infrastructure and particularly on the highway network of residential development of this site, with Unit 3, plus the other nearby Housing Options sites at the north of Leaf Close and at 67 Summer Rd EM, and the current proposal at H C Station should be assessed as the commitment in the Housing Options Consultation documents and the proposal is premature until such time. 1.3. Excessive density – the proposal is for a density of 120+ dwelling unit/hectare which is excessive in comparison to the prevailing densities in the area that are likely to be around the borough average of 40 dwellings/hectare. Together with a commercial unit on the site which increases the true density, this indicates to us a significant harm to the character of the area. 1.4. Limited and unidentified affordable Housing – the offer of 10% affordable housing equating 8 units, has been made as an afterthought, whereas it should be provided at 40% to accord with policy and pre-app advice, and the location and size of each unit should be identified and subject to public consultation. The viability assessment and independent review is flawed as set out in our critique. If the development is unviable this application should not have been submitted; 1.5. An inappropriate site for a commercial use – the commercial unit, located at the entrance to the site, should be removed from any scheme for this site, as it creates internal urban design and vehicle movement conflicts, and a likely negative impact on the local highway network;

1.6. Negative impact of using the existing site access alone and lack of connectivity – the use of the existing access from Summer Road TD as the sole access to residential and commercial uses at Units 1,2 & 3 is unacceptable to SRAG by virtue of the likely negative highway impact on the level crossing and junction of the HC Way and Summer Road/s. A single access used by commercial, industrial or storage vehicles will bring serious safety and amenity hazards within the site for the residential occupiers. SRAG favours the new second access off the HC Way between Units 2 & 3 agreed by SCC CHA, associated with downgrading or closing the existing access, but unfortunately this does not form part of the application; 1.7. High probability of increased trip generation – the assertion that there will be no increase in trips generated from the existing uses operated Mon - Fri only is not based on actual survey information and likely to be flawed and unrealistic. The site currently has 40 car park spaces and following the development will have 85. Doubling the number of parking spaces and more than doubling the number of people on the site 7 days a week is bound to lead to an increase. The Elmbridge norm of between 47-63% of commuters travelling to work by car is likely to apply to this site, as the walking distances have not taken into consideration the distance travelled south before travelling north to the train and bus destinations. The future trip generation of Unit 3 is unknown and cannot be limited by planning legislation within the existing use rights. Unit 3 is likely to be redeveloped for residential, as established in the Housing Options report, which will further increase the trips generated from the existing access, and thus the proposal is premature until Unit 3 comes forward in a comprehensive development scheme.; 1.8. Highway safety concerns of increase trip generation – the HC Way/Summer Rds junction is currently congested and dangerous to use for all pedestrians and drivers, and the residents of Summer Road EM enclave are at risk on a daily basis as they must use this access. An increase in trips generated in the immediate vicinity will result in an increase in the prohibited movements at this junction, and an increase in the occurrence of tail backs onto the main carriageway when the level crossing is down, resulting in a probability of increased traffic incidents; 1.9. Parking overspill outside the site – the car parking space allocation plan has not been illustrated even though it is a requirement of EBC and SCC. Flats that have 2 or more cars will be forced to park offsite competing with local residents and creating a potential danger to highway movements. Two visitors parking spaces for 78 flats is an under provision. This is not such a sustainable location that car ownership levels will be low;

1.10. Lack of understanding of the townscape character of the area – the documents demonstrate a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the character of the immediate area. It is important that the strength of the surrounding mature landscape is retained to separate the two adjoining villages and maintain the Green Corridor policy, as the existing warehouses achieve, and are not dominated by new built form. The visualisations of the proposal are limited, unrealistic, often inaccurate, based on summer tree cover prior to recent felling, and do not fool the local community; 1.11. Excessive heights and massing – the 3 apartment slab blocks have huge footprints compared to the scale of nearby built forms, and are predominantly four full storeys at 15.24m high, in an area where the buildings are predominantly 2 storey and between 8-8.6m high. The building line is brought nearer the HC Way which will increase the visual impact through and above the tree canopy; 1.12. Weak and unsympathetic built forms – the design includes a clumsy entrance block comprising the commercial unit that does not create an inviting sense of arrival; the roof forms are top heavy and create an extended continuous domineering roofscape; the ground floors elevations and internal layouts are soulless and comprise poor design endangering personal safety and anti-social activity; all to the detriment of the visual and functional character of the area 1.13. Lack of understanding of the landscape character of the area and site – there is an exaggerated and unrealistic emphasis on the capacity of the dry ditch tree strip to provide a solid screen to obscure the impact of these vast built forms. The tree planting within the site at the boundaries does not include indigenous species, and trees and structures on the two flat roofs will be visually jarring to the character of the area; 1.14. Unacceptable increase in pollutants in an areas of poor air quality - the site is adjacent to a designated AQMA which exceeds current limits, a railway line and a level crossing making the pollution levels a high risk to the occupants of new dwellings, plus the residential and commercial users will generate vehicle movements to worsen the existing pollutant levels to the detriment of the surrounding residents. If this development is approved a condition and a S106 agreement should secure an extension to the existing AQMA.

2. BACKGROUND 2.1. SRAG stands for Summer Road Action Group which was set up in March 2019 following receipt of the community consultation. We represent 100 plus houses in Summer Road, Summer Gardens and Summer Avenue, East Molesey and comprise a formal committee of 8; 2.2. Our pre-app submission, made to the applicant, setting out SRAG concerns 23rd April 2019, attached in Appendix 1 2.3. One meeting held with the applicant’s developer’s team on 15th May 2019. Agreed Minutes of meeting in Appendix 2; 2.4. A meeting scheduled for 23rd July cancelled by developer’s team; 2.5. Ongoing email communication has set out our serious highway concerns in detail; 2.6. SRAG members has a long-term concern with the highway network and specifically the Summer Roads/Hampton Court Way (HCW) junction layout and has made representations to SCC Highway Authority who have agreed modifications to road signage and markings based on the existing traffic conditions, subject to funding availability; 2.7. A meeting with the applicant’s team to solely discuss highway issues has been requested; 2.8. A meeting with SCC to discuss highway issues has been requested but has been refused; 2.9. Abbreviations used in this report are: - SRAG Summer Road Action Group (Committee & our members) CHA – County Highway Authority HCW – Hampton Court Way SCC - Surrey County Council HRP – Historic Royal Palaces EM – East Molesey TA – Transport Assessment TD – Thames Ditton KGS – Kingston Grammar School AQMA – Air Quality Monitoring Area

3. LOSS OF EXISTING BUILDINGS & EMPLOYMENT USES 3.1. No objection to the loss of the built fabric on the site which is considered neutral in its contribution to the local character. However, we are mindful of the townscape contribution of the existing building which should set the context for replacement building (see Sections 14-16 below); 3.2. The community is mindful of the loss of several employment uses as this will impact on employment choices and travel to work modes of the local community. However, the Council’s Employment policies CS 23 & DM11 are noted and the applicant’s assessment of location suitability and demand should be reviewed carefully; 3.3. The documents do not identify the number of existing jobs on the site. Question 19 on the application form has left the number of existing and proposed employees blank. The Planning Statement does not address the loss of employment and should be updated to include it. The existing employment uses should be offered assistance with relocation; 3.4. We observe that that the vacancy rate has been low over many years and only one unit is currently vacant; 3.5. The uses on the site have not caused an environmental or highway nuisance to our knowledge; 3.6. The uses are mainly operated Monday to Friday and do not generate traffic at the weekends; 3.7. There is no evidence that this proposal will offer benefit to the existing nearby community to offset the loss of employment uses as required by policies CS23 & DM11. The offer to contribute to the housing targets set nationally are premature, see below, and the quality of the publicly accessible amenity space is unattractive next to a road used by HGV vehicles, an adjacent railway track and an area of high air pollution (AQMA see below);

4. PRINCIPLE OF RESIDENTIAL USE 4.1. Residential use is characteristic of the surrounding area and acceptable in principle; 4.2. Residential use of Units 1 & 2 is unacceptable adjacent to the retained storage or industrial use at Unit 3 which has been under the management of Historic Royal Palaces (HRP) as their archive store since 2014, and its future is unknown. They require access through the site for all forms of commercial vehicles including HGV’s. A future occupier of this unit may operate a higher volume of HGV’s which cannot be controlled by the local planning authority or applicant; 4.3. Part residential and part commercial use of Units 1& 2 & 3 will have a serious impact on the quality of the residential accommodation provided, and the traffic generated by both uses will affect both the character of the area and the use of the highway network; 4.4. This site, with the wider site of Units 1 & 2 & 3, are not allocated in the adopted Local Plan Core Strategy as housing sites. The Local Plan Options Consultation July 2019 is out to consultation in which Units 1 & 2 & 3 are allocated in all five Options (US 269). On page 6 there is a clear statement that “At this stage, these are not housing allocations and do not guarantee that planning permission will be granted in the future”. It appears to us that consideration of this site is premature until the Options consultation has closed and the preferred option is moved forward, possibly until the new Local Plan is adopted if there are serious objections. The Interactive Map and Appendix 8 Background Sites List contain information on the anticipated capacity on this site stating either 186 homes for Option 1 or 93 homes for Options 2, 3, 4 or 5. It is acknowledged that this planned capacity is needed to contribute to the 623 homes/year and 9,345 homes/15 years targets set by central government in 2019. 4.5. The site will contribute low quality housing stock due to the adjacent noise and pollution site constraints recognised in the designated AQMA (see below) and thus the local community are concerned that it will make a limited contribution; 4.6. Any additional residential use in the area will place further stress on local services including schools, GP’s and the highway network which we understand may be addressed in a Community Infrastructure Levy but there is no evidence that the necessary improvements will be implemented concurrently.

5. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY & MIX 5.1. 78 units are proposed at 67% (52) 1 beds and 29% (23) 2 beds and 4% (3) 3 beds with a total capacity of 208 people. This is a very high density of 120 dwelling units/hectares. There is no evidence presented by the applicant of the prevailing density in the locality. The policy target is 40 dwellings/hectare. This development is of excessive density. The Local Plan Options Consultation July 2019 (page 12) states that for Option 1 involving intensifying the urban areas that high densities of 85 dwellings/hectare will need to be achieved which is over double the current average density. The proposed density is unacceptable to the local community; 5.2. The prevailing density in the vicinity is much lower and nearer the policy targets of 30-40 dwellings/hectare; 5.3. The housing mix and type does not reflect the area to the west which is 2-5 bed houses with gardens. The area to the immediate east is 1 & 2 bed flats at Summer Crossing and Warwick Gardens but these are set on more spacious communal grounds. This is contrary to policies CS19 & DM10; 5.4. The previous owner of the site presented pre-application proposals for a 55- unit scheme on which the Council expressed concern for the scale and density; 5.5. The community are concerned the density and mix of units will result in high car ownership levels impacting the highway network (see below), and provide low quality accommodation and communal space leading to a transient population; 5.6. The density will determine the contribution to the Borough’s housing targets. Consideration is premature until the Local Plan Options Consultation is complete. The site of Units 1 & 2 & 3 is identified as site reference US269 and the interactive map suggests a capacity (confirmed defined as homes or units) for this site as either 186 units in the Intensify the Urban Area (Option 1) or 93 units in the Appendix 8 Summary of Sites List, which has been confirmed to relate to the Optimise Urban Areas Options 2, 3 4 & 5. 186 homes on a site of 0.86 hectares is a density of 216 units/hectare whereas the Options report suggests a density of 85 units/hectare will need to be achieved in the Intensification Option 1. Units 1 & 2 are stated in the application document to be 0.64 hectare. This suggests the Unit 3 site is 0.22 hectares. If the 78 units proposed in this application are approved that leaves a 108 units capacity at Units 3 in Option 1 or a 15-unit capacity in all other Options, both of which are clearly unrealistic. This must on data grounds alone be a serious enough justification for considering these sites together as a comprehensive development opportunity;

5.7. The preferred density for this site needs to be considered in the context of the two nearby sites that are identified for residential development. Site US 20 is opposite the application site and site US272 is off Summer Road east/EM and both are identified to have a capacity of 40 and 24 respectively in Option 1 Intensify the Urban Areas;

6. AFFORDABLE HOUSING & VIABILITY 6.1. The national and local policy (CS21) for 40% affordable housing is well established and was known at the time the applicants acquired the site and prepared the proposal. It is not transparent to present an application stating the level of affordable housing is subject to ongoing negotiations, meaning the public cannot comment at consultation stage; 6.2. The Local Plan Options Consultation July 2019 (page 10) states that small 1, 2 & 3 bed units need to be delivered and 70% need to be affordable. We do not understand how a proposal can be considered without an affordable housing contribution; 6.3. The cover letter suggests that the initial offer is 8 affordable units amounting to 10% which have not been identified in location or unit size or type; 6.4. The applicant is being mindful of the precedent set in the proposal for the adjoining site at Hampton Court Station which offers only 10% affordable housing but has not yet been determined. The site considerations are similar but different and a 75% reduction in policy on these two large sites sets a dangerous precedent; 6.5. The Viability Report is weak, contains errors, and an inflated Benchmarking Value as set out in the SRAG critic below; 6.6. The Estimated Rental Values for the existing properties on the site appear to be inflated. The values chosen appear to be the higher of either the likely market rental value or the current rent, with no explanation as to why the higher value has been taken in each case. 6.7. The conclusions regarding likely ERVs in paragraph 6 of section 6 of the Report are not supported by the evidence provided immediately above, and then are in any event ignored in the final calculation of the ERVs. 6.8. Similarly, the calculation of the estimated yield of 5% is, at the very least, at the high end of the yield estimated to have been achieved elsewhere. 6.9. The consequence of this is that the Existing Use Value is unrealistically high. 6.10. The 30% Landowners’ Premium applied to the Existing Use Value also appears to be excessive. In our view too much weight has been given to the perception of value to be released by the development, bearing in mind that the property does not have planning permission for redevelopment, is in an area of low-density residential property, and is in an area known to have strong local opposition to inappropriate and disproportionate redevelopment. In addition, the points made in paragraph 14 fail to take into consideration the cooling of the property market since 2016 and the ongoing uncertainty due to Brexit that has flattened, and will continue to flatten, property prices across the residential and commercial property sectors. Indeed, several of the assumptions underpinning the calculation of the Landowners’ Premium are subsequently directly contradicted in section 7.

6.11. The cumulative effect of the above points is that the Total Benchmark Land Value proposed of £6,305,000 is clearly excessive and unjustifiably high. It is important to note that the property was in fact purchased in April 2018 for £5.25m, a price that was itself inflated due to positive input from the Council regarding the prospect of planning consent being granted for a residential development. 6.12. The estimated sale values set out in paragraph 5 of section 7 all appear to be significantly lower than comparable properties currently on the market in the area. These include: 2 bed flat (918 sq ft) on Bridge Road, East Molesey on sale for £650,000; 3 bed flat (1186 sq ft) in Queen’s Reach, East Molesey on sale for £745,000; 2 bed flat (859 sq ft) in Queen’s Reach, East Molesey on sale for £595,000; 2 bed flat (615 sq ft) in Queen’s Reach, East Molesey on sale for £469,950; 2 bed flat (638 sq ft) on Hampton Court Road, East Molesey on sale for £500,000; 1 bed flat (735 sq ft) in Queen’s Reach, East Molesey on sale for £459,950. 6.13. Whilst these properties may not suffer in value from the proximity of the railway line in the way that the properties at the site will likely suffer, it is significant to note that the estimated price ranges proposed are significantly lower than the sale prices of the comparable new build development at Pavilion Park on Hurst Road, which is located much further away from local amenities and transport links than this site. 6.14. The result of the above is that the Gross Development Value appears to be significantly lower than is realistically likely to be the case. 6.15. In keeping with the above, the Estimated Rental Value for the Commercial Development is lower than any of the examples cited in paragraph 10 of section 7, with no explanation provided as to why a new-build, newly fitted out commercial unit in a prime location such as this should attract a lower Estimated Rental Value than a unit constructed in the 1970s and located in a significantly less attractive part of town (which is one of the examples cited). 6.16. The calculations of the likely construction cost appear to be very high level to the extent that even basic considerations, such as the allocation of design responsibility and the risk profile to be adopted by the developer and contractor, have not been considered. These considerations will be fundamental to the actual construction costs incurred by the Developer. In addition, there is no evidence of any consideration of the flattening of the construction sector due to Brexit uncertainty and the benefits that this should have for the Developer in terms of securing lower prices.

6.17. The assumptions underpinning the very high GDV percentage proposed in paragraphs 22 to 24 of section 7 were plainly not taken into account in the calculation of the Total Benchmark Land Value, and are in any event not sufficient to justify the GDV percentage proposed. The implication is that a Developer would not consider the scheme in its present form to be viable, notwithstanding the fact that even on the very cynical figures set out in the report the Developer stands to achieve a return of over £4m and nearly 14% against his investment. 6.18. Consequently, we disagree that the Viability Assessment carried out has been prepared on an independent and impartial basis. Rather, it is plainly apparent from the Report that Messrs Montagu Evans have taken a very selective approach to the assessment to give the false impression that the development is unviable and that affordable housing does not, as a consequence, need to be provided. A properly independent assessment needs to be carried out before any decisions on viability can be taken. 6.19. We maintain that 8% affordable units has not been justified, and that the number of affordable units should be increased and identified in a smaller scale development. 6.20. The Sandown Park (2019/0551) outline application including 5 residential sites was refused in October including a reason base on insufficient affordable housing provision. The policy should be applied equally to this site.

7. COMMERCIAL USE 7.1. The commercial unit located in Block A at the entrance to the development presents as the entry feature to the site and is provided with a limit of 5 parking spaces; 7.2. The premise of the provision of a commercial B1 office unit is to offset the loss of employment uses on the site. It appears to be accepted that a B2 or B8 storage or industrial use would not be compatible with the residential use and that the best position for a non-residential use is at the front of the site to separate the users and their vehicles. This same argument relates to the relationship of Unit 3, a large storage or industrial unit, and one which uses many commercial vehicles. An office use could potentially cause a bad neighbour nuisance to the residential units.; 7.3. The nature of a B1 use is unknown and the associated trip generation, vehicle type and parking requirement is unknown. The plans do not present a management proposal for prohibiting the use of residential spaces or the overspill onto the public highway which already suffers from daytime commuter parking on a busy road bend and other busy streets; 7.4. The demand for small office uses has not been demonstrated in the documentation. There is a known supply of vacant small offices in the Bridge Road and wider Molesey and Thames Ditton areas; 7.5. There is likely to be pressure to change the use of this unit to another incompatible use that would impact the local community; 7.6. The type of use that is likely to be attracted to this unit could be a child care/nursery provider, a fitness studio, or an alternative health provided, all of which would generate multiple vehicle trips per day and be unacceptable to the existing community; 7.7. The unit is not designed to enhance the arrival feature of the building incorporating a faceless shop window style elevation, and has the potential to have ill-conceived advertisements attached to the fabric; 7.8. The nearby recent residential development by Cala Homes at Orchard Lane, Esher involved reuse of a larger industrial site and does not appear have retained a commercial element, and indeed the scale, density and design of the built forms and landscape respect the local character; 7.9. In association with both the internal site conflicts and the external highway impacts the community would prefer the commercial unit to be removed and a wholly residential scheme to be presented for Units 1& 2 & 3 as a comprehensive lower density residential scheme;

8. OVER VIEW ON TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC ISSUES 8.1. The above concerns regarding the density and mix of residential, commercial and industrial/storage uses on the sites of Units 1 , 2 and 3, using the existing single point of access off Summer Road, Thames Ditton are relevant in respect of both the environmental conditions within the site, and the impact on the surrounding highway network and in particular the HCW/Summer Road/s junction and the wider HCW from Imber Court roundabout to HC Bridge. 8.2. Many residents in Summer Road, East Molesey have made representations over several years to officers and Councillors at Surrey County Council’s Highways Authority (CHA) regarding our personal and public safety concerns for the use and abuse of the junction configuration at HCW/Summer Road. The junction has three prohibited right turns which are broken daily both intentionally and unintentionally. The intentional movements are due to the volume of traffic and frustrations of travelling an extra half a mile down to Imber Court roundabout and another half mile back in crawling traffic when the objective is to turn right into Summer Road west/EM whilst travelling south and right from Summer Road east/TD when travelling north. Similarly, an extra half a mile to Hampton Court Green roundabout, usually in crawling traffic, and another half mile back needs to be travelled if the desire is to turn right into Summer Road east/TD when travelling north. The poor road layout facilitates most of these movements without any physical barrier. The unintentional movements are due to the poor signing and the unclear road layout. There has been no survey or monitoring of the prohibited movements by SCC; 8.3. Councillors and officers have been in communication with a group of Summer Road residents since August 2018 and, without the knowledge of this proposal, had agreed the problem needed to be addressed but that due to restricted funding only a minor package of interim works could be discussed with a view to seeking funding. This dialogue followed a serious accident involving serious injury of a motor cyclist colliding with a vehicle making a prohibited right turn, which involved an air ambulance. Our communication, including a note of meeting and the agreed list for which a cost is still awaited is contained in Appendix 3. We are told that these requests are being addressed as part of this application but there is no evidence in the application documents.

8.4. We have seen the SCC CHA response dated 6/9/19 to this application and note the content and the suggestion that the applicant has agreed to enter an agreement to contribute £10,000 towards highway junction works. We have attempted to communicate with the SCC & EBC Officers on this matter with limited response. We were told the works are unspecified and do not form part of this application, but recently see that the applicant’s agent has confirmed this is an offer that can be secured in a Section 106 agreement. SRAG has made a separate Interim Objection response on this matter. The offer of £10,000 is not a request that SRAG has asked for and does NOT satisfy our concerns for the negative impact on the highway network. Until we see a package of works that can be funded from this limited budget, we have nothing to comment on. The sum is unlikely to be sufficient to fund the works agreed in Appendix 3 which comprises interim works to address the existing problems, and before the impact of this current development was known to us. The offer is considered to be tokenism and unlikely to address our concerns; 8.5. There are two informal pedestrian crossing facilities with central reservations on HCW, north and south of Summer Road. These are difficult to cross when traffic is moving at 40mph, made worse by vehicles waiting to turn into HCW north and south, conflicting with crossing pedestrians. The southern refuge suffers from use by small cars and motorbikes crossing it to do the prohibited right turn from Summer Road east/TD; 8.6. The result is that the residents of approximately 100 houses in Summer Road/Gardens & Avenue, amounting to around 500 pedestrians and 2-300 drivers are put at risk without any alternative option than to traverse the Summer Road junction on a daily basis. Sitting in a car in the centre of the junction with 40mph traffic speeding past on both carriageways and meeting head on with a driver making one of three prohibited movements, is not a pleasant experience; 8.7. Of course, this junction is used by many other members of the public including vehicles and pedestrians associated with the nearby school playing fields at Kingston Grammar School and Tiffin School and Old Tiffinians Sports Association which generate large volumes of traffic including private vehicles, minibuses and coaches; 8.8. The last formal highway consultation with residents was in 1994 as part of the Thames Ditton Traffic Calming Scheme. We were presented with options and most residents voted for a roundabout or a traffic signalled junction but we were told the funds did not allow such a solution and ended up with the three prohibited right turns and a central reservation which was then extended to Leaf Close in 2000.

8.9. At the time the central reservation was trialled in 2000, assurances were given to residents that if this layout was adopted, traffic movements at the junction would be reviewed and vehicles travelling south wanting to turn right into Summer Road, EM would be accommodated. Repeated requests to fulfil this promise have been ignored; 8.10. Dozens of U turn signs appeared on HCW between Summer Road and Imber Court roundabout in 2018 which must have responded to a recognised problem but did nothing to resolve the issues at the Summer Road junction; 8.11. The above background illustrates that there has been a long-term problem with highway safety on the HC Way and at the Summer Road junction which has become extreme with the increase in volumes of traffic over the last ten years.

9. SINGLE ACCESS POINT CONCERNS 9.1. There is documentary evidence that both the previous land owner in 2016, and subsequently the applicant, Landhold, believed that the success of any scheme for Units 1 & 2 was dependant on obtaining a second access into the site and appear to have convince SCC Highways of the desirability of an alternative entrance/exit to the site off Hampton Court Way. Appendix 4 contains the applicants transport consultant’s Access Appraisal report dated October 2018 (not submitted with the current application) containing detailed designs for 3 alternative configurations for a new access point off the Hampton Court Way into Unit 3. All three options appear to be technically acceptable and have been through Road Safety Audits. The SCC dialogue seems to have had a change of officer between 2016 and 2018, but even as late as August 2018 the SCC Officer states in his email of 1/8/18 that “mixing industrial traffic with residential traffic can cause problems…”. The Transport consultant in his email of 14/8/18 replies that “my client is interested in understanding the potential for this (the new access) to come forward in the future. The reasoning for providing an additional access at this location is that it will provide a direct link to the industrial units to the north of the site which are to remain, and will therefore ensure the industrial units associated with this use do not have to enter/exit along the access units predominately serving the industrial units”. This seems to us strong enough evidence that even the applicant did not want to present a scheme with industrial vehicles including HGV’s travelling through a new residential road; 9.2. We do not understand why the design options present an access into Unit 3, using Units 3 land only. Why has an option not been presented using land within the ownership of Unit 1 & 2 to access both the industrial Unit 3 and the new residential road and units? This could be the primary access to the Unit 1 & 2 site with the existing access closed to vehicles excepting pedestrians and cyclists. This would address many of our concerns regarding increased trip generation from the residential units accentuating to the existing Summer Road junction safety issues. 9.3. There may be other alternative options for access arrangements to future developments at Units 1 & 2 & 3 but these are not presented as part of this application’s evolution. However, as the consideration of one option for a new access to serve Unit 3 only has been released by SCC, and is now in the public domain, the applicant should be asked to present a wider scoping of options for access to the wider site. This should follow the Local Plan Options Consultation (see 4, 5 & 6 above) and until such a time this proposal is premature;

9.4. SRAG has had advice from a retired LA Highway’s Director who has known this junction for 30 years and suggests that if the new development was provided with an internal one-way system with an entry to the north along H C Way it would reduce considerably the left turn dangerous movements at Summer Road east/TD which cause tail backs onto the main carriageway when the level crossing is down. A variation of this could be a left turn exit for industrial vehicles only. New residential development vehicles would use the internal one-way system and leave via Summer Road. An alternative most attractive option would be for all industrial and residential traffic to access off the HC Way and for the Summer Road access to be closed; 9.5. We have seen a SCC Officer response to the October 2018 Access Options report dated 30/10/18 which flags up the following concerns: - • Issues with turning out of Summer Road and drivers attempting to carry out U-turns resulted in additional “No U‐turn” signs being installed. • A left only exit from the site could be the preferred road safety option (from the new northern access), but enforcing this through appropriate infrastructure would be necessary. • Concerns that northbound vehicles will not go to roundabout on the northern side of Hampton Court Bridge to U-turn, which could increase vehicle turns at Bridge Road / Riverbank (where there are already collision concerns). • A historic scheme to reduce/stop vehicles turning right out of Summer Road was installed and extended since 2000. • All movements could be the preferred option if they can be accommodated through design, although consideration should be given to larger vehicles accessing/exiting the northern access. 9.6. On 14/1/2019 the applicant’s Transport Consultant advised SCC that following the RSA’s Option A, the All Movements Option had been discarded and that Option A & B are being pursued which are in short respectively a left in only, or left in & left out movements into Unit 3. We have not seen an email response to this communication but there is evidence of meeting/s with the applicants transport consultant as an email dated 3/6/19 states “.. it is agreed between both SCC and the applicant team that no significant changes are required from a technical viewpoint to the Hampton Court Way / Summer Road junction”. The failure of presenting a new access off the HCW can only lie with the applicant who must be unwilling to forgo a loss of the land needed to provide the new access; 9.7. We believe this suggests that SCC do not consider vehicular access to the whole site, using the existing Summer Road access, as unreasonable if the trips generated are similar to existing (which we refute, see below). SCC have indicated that they cannot make funds available for anything other than minor changes (signs, white lines and bollards) to the current layout of the Summer Road/HCW junction. However, SCC has the option to require the developer to address the long-term highway concerns as part of this application;

9.8. In the EBC pre-application response report dated 26/3/19 (Planning Statement Appendix 3) under “Layout” the advice states -“The shared access road was identified as a constraint, and it was advised that a new access is created for the commercial unit to assist in the re-consideration of the layout. You explained that due to time constraints this would not come forward with the housing application. This will disadvantage the scheme and the housing scheme should be submitted with the additional access.” This advice and established constraint related to the internal site planning but its effect would have positive benefits to the wider highway network and community’s concerns; 9.9. In the same pre-app report under “Connectivity and legibility” the EBC officer states “There is a single access for both the commercial unit and the proposal site, resulting in commercial vehicles and residential movements (cars and pedestrians) using the same shared access. This also acts to ‘close’ the site off from the surrounding area. It was strongly advised that a second access to the site is introduced in order to separate the existing commercial entity and associated lorry and vehicle movements from the residential element and provide greater accessibility and connectively for residents through the site.” The submitted application has ignored the EBC Officer’s concern. 9.10. We have asked SCC for more radical solutions to the reconfiguration of the HCW/Summer Road junction to be presented and costed in the past. This exercise could be undertaken by the applicant in association with a new access at Unit3, accompanied by a roundabout or traffic signalled junction at the crossroads as presented by SCC in 1994; 9.11. We do not know what HRP’s/Unit 3’s views are but it would seem that they are unwilling to consider a new site access and do not have plans to redevelop their site at the current time. However, the inclusion of this site in the Local Plan as a housing site which could accommodate 186 home with Units 1 & 2 is a serious concern for the highway impact and cannot use a single point access. 186 homes in a site of 0.86 hectares is a density of 216 units/hectare; 9.12. Similarly, the cumulative impact of the other nearby Local Plan housing sites, at 67 Summer Road EM and Land south of Summer Road/North of Leaf Close, that are being planned for another 64 homes, in Option 1, and will require an access point that must use the main road crossroad, must be assessed. This totals another 250 homes which could amount to 500-1000 additional trips generated per day using this main road junction with its prohibited turns, requiring additional unsustainable car journeys of an extra one mile in a southern direction and 1.0 miles northwards. There is a need for a strategic access options review before these schemes are accepted and designs developed to the application stage which must be led by SCC;

9.13. We are told by the Local Plan Options Consultation that a Transport Assessment is underway to identify if the highway infrastructure of all sites can accommodate the additional capacity. We understand that each site will be subject to highway modelling. We suggest that this should look at the practical access options for these three sites and the impact of additional trip generation on the main road crossroads and highway infrastructure. The proposal is premature until this analysis comes forward; 9.14. The Design South East Review Report dated 18th February 2019 assesses the pre-application proposal of January 2019 and should be a background document to this application and in the public domain. Please see Appendix 5 and in particular the paragraph on page 3 headed New Link where it states “..and additional link is considered a crucially important additional provision.” The new link is envisaged as “a bridge for pedestrians and vehicles”. “providing a new and contextual “front door” for the development”. The Summary on page 1 emphasises this new link and concludes that “A wider masterplan for the island could be explored….”. We have seen no explanation on how the proposed scheme responds to this; 9.15. The submitted Design & Access Statement at pages 26-28 chooses not to reference the Design Reviews suggestion for a new link and their report is not provided for reference; 9.16. SCC CHA email of 7/10/19 to MW (see Appendix 6) comments on the second access as follows “There wasn’t a point when SCC objected to a new access from Hampton Court Way, it would provide advantages and disadvantages and it would be my responsibility to weigh these alternatives up. It is the developer’s choice as to whether a new access was provided or not and given the overall impact of the development on the highway network I would have been happy to consider either option.” In our opinion this statement conflicts with the CHA previous advice where it is suggested that the CHA had concerns regarding the safety to pedestrians and cyclist within the site, and the CHA did not address the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using the existing access. It is clear to us that the CHA was not definitive at the final hurdle that the developer must provide this second access to proceed with a proposal; 9.17. We note that SCC did not raise such an objection to a new access disrupting the passage of pedestrians and cyclists, to what might have been a greater disruption, created by the approved access to the 2-storey basement car park and service area of the original HC station development (2008/1600) which crossed the same footpath/cycle track just a few hundred metres to the north of this site.

10. INCREASED TRIP GENERATION 10.1. The projected increase in traffic associated with 78 flats and a commercial unit, taken together with the existing traffic from Unit 3, all using the single point of access and egress off Summer Road east/TD are of serious concern to the local community. The numbers of trip generated by this proposal set out in the documentation are refuted and considered wholly under estimated; 10.2. The Transport Assessment (TA) at Section 6 pages 28- 31 and Appendix A11 blinds us by using a formula called TRICS to promote a likely number of trips generated from the existing uses, suggesting 22 in the morning and 24 in the afternoon, totalling 46 trips/day. This calculation is not based on actual survey information of the current trip generation, nor is there any past information even though transport consultants have been engaged since 2016. However, the application forms states that there are 40 existing car parking spaces are available on the site. 10.3. We believe the number of parking spaces on site are a better indication of the likely average trips generated. Our regular sighting of the cars and commercial vehicles suggests that the site is near full capacity. 40 car parking spaces are likely to generate at least 80 trips/day, but we stress that this is Monday to Friday only; 10.4. Equally important to the capacity of the single site access is the existing and potential trip generation capacity of Unit 3. We know that this unit is quoted in a 2013 application as having 37 car parking spaces, amounting to another 74 trips/day which could be cars or commercial vehicles. We know that the current archive storage unit uses multiple transit vans daily and at least one HGV/day. 10.5. We consider it important to recognise that these existing trips are generated on weekdays only. The site gates are usually closed on Saturdays and Sundays; 10.6. The proposed trip generation in the TA for 78 flats is 40 trips/day. Simplified this suggests that only half the vehicles parked on the site will be used each day for one two-way trip which we consider to be unrealistic with a capacity of 208 people living in these flats. 10.7. The residential trips generated will be seven days per week, creating greater traffic volumes on the surrounding roads at the weekends; 10.8. The flats on site are provided with 82 car parking spaces which suggest the site can generate more than double the trips than the existing 40 car parking spaces can generate. If on average each car is used for one two-way trip that amounts to 164 trips/day. We accept that some vehicles may not be used Monday to Friday but others may be used four or more times per day;

10.9. The proposed trip generation for the unknown office floorspace is guided by TRICS as 6 trips/day. However, the unit is provided with 5 car parking spaces. This unit will thus be attractive to users with that need, generating at least 10 trips/day. 10.10. If the office unit is subject to a change of use with customers calling for short periods the number of trips generated could be far higher; 10.11. According to both the applicant’s TA (page 14 point 2.33) & the Framework Travel Plan (section 2.9) the modal split for travel in Elmbridge is that 47% of residents travel to work by car. If the capacity of this site is 208 people this amounts to 98 people using cars per day, amounting to 196 trips/day. The Council’s own figures suggest that trip generation could be much higher than the 40 trips/day, plus that parking is under provided; 10.12. A Friends of the Earth recent survey of Elmbridge’s performance on climate change published on its website states that 37% of commuter journeys are made by public transport, cycling or walking. FOE states that “Elmbridge should aim for 60% by 2030. We need fewer vehicles on the roads – they increase air pollution and are harmful to our health”. This data collected from Elmbridge transposes to 63% of commuter journeys being made by private vehicle. If 63% of the 208 people living at this site at full capacity use cars each day that is 131 private vehicles generating 262 trips. 10.13. We conclude that there will be between 174-272 residential and commercial trips generated per day compared with approximately 80 trips per day currently if the site is used at full capacity; 10.14. As discussed under 9 above, the cumulative impact of housing developments at Unit 3, plus land south of Summer Road/north of Leaf Close, plus at 67 Summer Road, all allocated as potential housing sites in the Local Plan Options Consultation July 2019 over the next 15 years will introduce large additional trips using this junction, which could reach 500- 1000 trips/day.

11. IMPACT OF INCREASED TRIP GENERATION 11.1. As we believe there will be an increase in the trips generated by the proposed development, together with planned future housing developments, we are concerned that this will impact on the wider highway network. As stated in Section 8 above the local community has long term concerns regarding the volumes of traffic and the safety of pedestrian and vehicle users of the cross road junction at the HCW & Summer Road/s; 11.2. SRAG has had advice from a retired LA Highway’s Director who suggests that if the current proposal to provide access to and from the development via Summer Road goes ahead, because of the increased traffic generated, it will adversely affect the main junction with HCW, especially when the level crossing gates are closed and the traffic turning left from Hampton Court Way into Summer Road tails back even more dangerously than it does at current peak periods. We value this opinion and consider the impact on the highway network has not been sufficiently assessed; 11.3. The TA states at 2.6 that the level crossing “barrier will not be closed regularly throughout the day”. We consider four times per hour, for 18 hours each day, to be a sufficiently regular closure that it has an impact on the current highway network, and should be taken into consideration if additional movements are to be added to the vicinity of the crossing. The current two trains per hour mean the barrier is closed between 3-5mins (confirmed by regular use and the applicant’s surveys) 4 times/hour day, thus the barrier is closed on average 12-20 mins/hour. On each occasion during the peak AM and PM hours the traffic tails back onto the HC Way and fills the slip road. When the slip road is full, the movement of traffic south on the HCW becomes difficult to pass the queue, pushing vehicles into the oncoming traffic and potentially causing collisions or bringing the traffic to a halt. If this route is the principle main access to the site for 78 flats, an office and an industrial unit, the trips generated will add to these queueing cars; 11.4. The queueing traffic in the slip road causes further frustration, delay, and danger to vehicles turning right out of Summer Road EM as there is a fear of an overtaking vehicle approaching at a wide angle using the central reservation, or cars sitting in the central reservation waiting to join the level crossing queue, or large commercial vehicles sitting at the give way line, waiting to go straight across as they are too large to sit in the central reservation, thus causing a tail back in the residential road. Summer Road EM has been known to become inaccessible if there is an accident at this junction as in August 2018;

11.5. The impact of Crossrail 2 has not been considered but it has been agreed in principle that it will come to Hampton Court and increase to four trains per hour. Subject to funding the construction is programmed to start in the early 2020’s. Crossrail 2 has confirmed the level crossing is to be retained, and thus the barrier will be down 8 times an hour resulting in closure 24-40 minutes per hour. The queueing traffic onto the HCW will cause the peak traffic flows southwards to be static many hours a day. Together with the existing static traffic flows northwards this will frustrate road users, leading to greater abuse of the prohibited turns and cause unacceptable levels of environmental pollution in an Air Quality Management Area already recognised as having high levels of pollution (see below); 11.6. The traffic surveys, under Appendix A2 Consequential surveys, show the current abuse of the prohibited traffic turn limitations, and it is unlikely that this will do anything other than increase with this development. Commercial vehicles, particularly delivery vans, travelling north and visiting the site will not join the half mile crawl to the Palace roundabout and another half mile back more than once, and the Embercourt Road/Speer Road route via the railway arch roundabout that is the alternative route, has restricted height and single line traffic due to street parking; 11.7. Network Rail have responded to the consultation expressing concern about construction traffic causing disruption to the level crossing which is supported by the local community’s concerns. Crossrail 2 has not been consulted and we ask that they are consulted to ensure their infrastructure requirements are not compromised and to ask them to work with the SCC CHA to assess the impact of this proposal when the level crossing is operational 8/hours.

12. PARKING PROVISION & IMPACT 12.1. The application states it provides for 78 car parking spaces for the residential units plus 1 car club space and 1 visitors/car club space, totalling they claim 80 spaces. Based on the EBC adopted policy DM 7 they should be providing 52 spaces for the one bed flats, 34 spaces for the 2 bed flats and 6 spaces for the 3 bed flats, totalling 92 spaces. There is an under provision of 12 spaces. 12.2. DM7 states where in suburban areas space permits “it maybe appropriate to consider provision for visitors”. Thus, EBC does not have a robust policy for accommodating visitors parking; 12.3. We do not know how the occupier’s spaces will be allocated, although it is stated that 48 spaces are provided in 4 x 12 “under-croft” ground floor internal bays (Planning Statement 5.16) it must be assumed these will be allocated, and thus a fair site management policy would be for all spaces to be allocated. This should be explicit in the application and/or subject to a planning condition. The spaces should be numbered Thus, if any flat occupier chooses not to own a car their space will sit empty, and flat occupiers who choose to have 2 or more cars and to have visitors will be forced to park off site; 12.4. However, only 18 additional roadside spaces are identified (plus 2 car club/visitor’s spaces), which with the 48 stated under-croft spaces totals 66 spaces. Thus, there could be another under provision of 12 spaces. It appears that these are in a 5th under-croft area that the Transport Consultant has forgotten about, thus 60 of the 78 spaces are in 5 under-croft parking areas. This does not give us confidence that the parking has been thought out; 12.5. Block A has 31 flats with 12 under-croft spaces so 18 spaces will be allocated on the roadside and one space in another Blocks under-croft; Block B has 24 flats and 24 under-croft spaces; Block C has 23 flats and 24 under- croft spaces. It looks like one occupier from Block A will be allocated a parking space in Block C. This is clearly not thought out and will lead to unattractive units if spaces are not allocated. The flats that are not allocated convenient spaces will inevitably choose to park outside the site if it is more convenient for their daily travel plans; 12.6. This parking layout and anticipated allocation suggests that daily there will be flat owners with two cars or more parking on the public highway in Summer Road TD or Summer Road EM both of which do not have controlled parking zones or street lining controls. Summer Road TD suffers commuter parking of 15-20 cars each day on the bend which reduces the road width and creates a traffic hazard. There will be competition with overspill parking from this site and commuters;

12.7. Summer Road EM is at full capacity with residents parking, both on street and off street in front gardens converted to parking spaces. The road also suffers from some commuter parking. Any additional incoming parking that is not related to its residents is unwelcome; 12.8. The application does not include any proposals or block management policies to restrict car ownership in some flats or prevent overspill parking; 12.9. The layout includes 4 stretches of kerb line on the west side of the access road that could be used for parking by mounting the kerb. This will restrict the width of the road, causing an access problem for commercial and emergency vehicles; 12.10. There is no loading and unloading space for delivery vehicles; 12.11. The pre-application advice report of December 2018 (Planning Statement Appendix 2) clearly states “Parking • The provision of one parking space per flat, is welcome, this should be allocated spaces if possible, with accessible spaces and electric charging points shown”. This confirms the requirement for allocated parking that has been ignored and gives the local community cause for concern for overspill parking; 12.12. The pre-application advice report of December 2018 (Planning Statement Appendix 2) clearly states the office use parking requirement as “For a B1 this would be 9 spaces due to the location, the proposal is below the requirement”. Only 5 spaces have been provided. The occupier’s needs are unknown for both employees and visitors or customers. We have already questioned above the need for this use and below we state our concerns for the appearance of this block at the entrance to the development. The under provision and poor relationship of the parking spaces to the positioning of the flats leads us to the conclusion that the office element should be removed from the scheme; 12.13. Both SCC Highways and EBC in their pre-application advice appear to accept that 1 to 1 parking provision for the flats is acceptable as this is a sustainable location. We challenge that premise on the basis that the public transport is not frequent and does not allow the community to travel in all directions. A car is required for most journeys south into Surrey, and those that can afford to buy a flat usually own a car to use for longer journeys. There is no benchmarking of car ownership levels in nearby flats. Summer Crossing, and Warwick gardens has flats of comparable sizes and the parking provision should be matched as these units do not demonstrate that car ownership is or could be low in this area. Other blocks such as Queens Court off Bridge Road similarly have high car ownership rates and are attractive because they have reasonable parking provision;

12.14. The site is severely constrained with very little unbuilt space and will require significant construction vehicle logistical planning to avoid grid lock on the site, in the access from Summer Road, and along the HCW. There will be no room to park construction workers' vehicles. While this is normally subject to a reserved matters application at a later date the principle of no parking of construction workers' vehicles in either Summer Road Thames Ditton or East Molesey should be established now; 12.15. There was a development recently refused at Sandown Park, see planning application 2019/0551, where we noted the attached 72 flats just north of Cafe Rouge, and a short walk to Esher station, will have 117 car park spaces, a ratio of 1.625. Why is a site near Esher Station less sustainable than this site near Hampton Court Station? This application has recently been refused 3/10/19, on grounds of the impacts on transport amongst other things. The Committee debate was definitive in the unacceptable increase in public highway congestion likely to result from the large residential elements. 12.16. If this was presented as a sustainable development the parking spaces should be provided with 100% electric charging points. The EBC policy of 20% is clearly outdated and will influence purchasing choices in future if flat owners do not have access to a charging point. It is a requirement of SCC CHA in their response that 100% charging points are provided which suggests they must be allocated to each flat.

13. HIGHWAY SAFETY CONCERNS 13.1. The TA states the main reported cause of collisions on HC Way has been driver/rider/pedestrian error. As such, it is considered that there are no underlying issues in regards to the local highway network that would be exacerbated by the proposed development. We ask what accidents are not caused by error; the statement is meaningless. On 16 August 2018 a motorbike travelling south down HC Way tried to overtake a car which was slowing down to do an illegal right turn into Summer Road, East Molesey. The motorcyclist did not predict the right turn as it was signed as prohibited, but was forced into oncoming turning car and needed emergency evacuation by helicopter. This was not human error on the part of the motorcyclist, and the car turning right could be said to be making an unintentional right turn due to the poor signing and weak road configuration; 13.2. In February 2019 a SCC Highways engineer agreed that safety at the HCW/Summer Road junction could be improved by changes to the highway configuration but suggested that major changes are, in the financial climate, unrealistic. We have agreed modifications to signage, roadway lining and the central reservation gap, and that the only delay to implementation is a lack of funding, see our appendix 3 evidence. There appears to be a conflict of guidance being given to residents and that being given to the applicant; 13.3. The configuration of this junction has three prohibited right turns but the road layout does not prohibit the desired movements for each. The right into Summer Road, EM when travelling south, is an easy movement with no physical barrier. The right out of Summer Road TD can be achieved by travelling across the pedestrian refuge if in a small vehicle, or going against the flow of traffic when the south lane is clear, as the give way junction and island is not acute enough to dictate a left turn. The right turn into Summer Road TD when travelling north has no physical barriers, although more often than not vehicles avoid this movement by turning into Summer Road EM to do a legal U turn which in itself causes a danger. All movements cause a danger to the traffic that can be flowing at speeds in excess of 40mph, as reflected in the applicant traffic surveys referenced in the TA at 2.14 which suggests 15% of vehicles exceed 40mph; 13.4. The reason for needing to do little or nothing to improve the HCW/Summer Road junction appears to be that there is no significant record of RTIs. Why do we have to wait for further serious injuries or fatalities before we appreciate something which should be self-evident? An audit/risk review of the current crossing including the impact of the existing level of violations of the no right turn/no U turn signs and the increased risk which will result from increased traffic should be undertaken before any additional traffic movements are added to this junction;

13.5. The HGV turning head adjacent to Block C appears much too close to a residential building and could involve potential collision and no doubt carbon emissions in such close proximity to windows and balconies is not in the interest of the occupiers;

14. OVERVIEW OF IMPACT ON TOWNSCAPE & CHARACTER OR AREA 14.1. In April 2019 SRAG gave detailed comments on our concerns for the negative impact on the character of the area and creation of a poor townscape in our pre application comments in Appendix 1. Specifically see points 11, 12, 13 & 14 regarding our early concerns for the excessive heights and footprints of the blocks proposed; 14.2. Our note of meeting with the application developer’s team on 15/5/19 is at Appendix 2 and regard should be taken to the developer’s acceptance of the issues expressed in Point 6 on the negative impact of the heights and massing, and in Point 7 on the appearance and location of the commercial unit; 14.3. The developers team responded in a simplistic manner to our concerns regarding the height breaching the 1913 SW Railway Act limit of 50 feet building heights within half a mile of HC Palace on ex railway land by reducing the maximum height to 15.24m which is exactly 50 feet. This does not respond to our concerns regarding the impact on the local context, see below; 14.4. The only other amendments since our communication on the lack of context relates to the roof design and materials which are superficial in terms of the negative impact of the massing and height, see below; 14.5. Our feedback at pre-app stage and in this full response has been mindful of the Councils adopted policies on character and townscape as set out in the Core Strategy 2011 CS 17; the Development Management Plan 2015 DM2; the Design & Character SPD including the Companion Guide for TD & WG; the recent decisions on Sandown Park & Molesey football Club; the relevant parts of NPP Framework; the new National Design Guide Oct 2019; the officer’s Pre-App Reports of 24/10/18, 12/12/18 & 15/3/19, together with the Design Review South East Report of 30/1/19, and all application plans and supporting documents including the Design & Access Statement (D&A) and HTVI Report, all of which have been read in full. 14.6. SRAG is supportive of the critical assessment and advice given in the Design Review SE Report of February 2019 under the headings Urban Design & Scale, density, mass, heights and form, which was followed up by the Officer Report in March, with a similar response under Design on the amended pre-app scheme. We believe this strong pre-app advice should be the baseline for assessing the current proposal, which in our opinion has not responded to this guidance.

15. UNREALISTIC CONTEXTUAL ASSESSMENT 15.1. Neither the D&A or the HTVI contain a detailed appraisal of the character of the built environment in the immediate area. They concentrate on the physical constraints, and distant historic areas at HC Palace and TD & EM village centres; 15.2. There is no assessment of the building typologies, densities, plot ratios, heights, building forms or other townscape features along the HC Way, on the east side opposite the site, to the south on the HC Way, on Summer Road EM, Molember Road, Summer Crossing, Warwick Gardens, Aragon Road, Queens Road and Alexandra Road. It is as if these areas do not exist as a context; 15.3. These areas are low density two and three storey residential areas containing both houses and small blocks of flats set in spacious communal grounds. They may comprise forms from the Victorian to the 21st century and have varying characters but they are set within a strong mature landscape that is allowed to dominate the character of the area. There are no apartment slab blocks in the immediate area; 15.4. There is no appraisal of the impact on the long views from the west, from points within Molember Road/Summer Road footbridge, and from the east at Albany Reach, or from the north from HC Bridge, a statutorily listed building; 15.5. The SRAG Email of 18/6/19 to the applicant’s team sets out our concerns regarding the limitations of the character assessment, which included the following – 15.6. However, we would again ask you to extend your townscape character assessment to a wider area as we wholly disagree with your teams assessment that includes statement that there is “no recognisable pattern of development in the area” and the site is “not part of an urban typology” and the site benefits from “a strong tree screen on all sides”. We consider the team are looking at this site in the manner of an urban London Borough whereas it is part of North Surrey, and do not consider that development is acceptable by virtue of a tree screen that is beyond the site boundaries and the developers control. We invite the team to consider the following wider views and character and would be happy to walk the area with your architects and planners:- • Various views from the east at Albany Reach, the riverside open space accessed from Aragon Avenue and via the KGS car park. Whilst you advise that HRP are happy with the view from the Palace estate, we are concerned that from the riverside new built form should not rise above the tree line, nor be continuous within the tree canopy.

• Long views from the west beyond the HC Way. For example the tree line sets the horizon from the Summer Road footbridge and various points on Molember Road. Both the 15m multi antennae mast at unit 3 and the new 20m mast on the footway break the tree line, and these views show the canopy is not a regular height as it appears to drop below 15m in many places to the south. • Long views and the perceived character from the south. Please acquaint with the sense of place when travelling from the Scilly Isles junction northwards. This green corridor is not about an “urban typology” but one of green spaces and large specimen trees and landscaping enclosing a linear corridor where built form is set back, recessive and of varied 2-3 storey forms. The green corridor reduces in width the nearer one travels to the bridge but remains enclosed by landscaping and at no point until the 3 storey HC Parade on the west side is it dominated by built form. 15.7. There has been no response to the above request; 15.8. The TD & WG Companion Guide identifies the site as part of a Green Corridor which runs from the Scilly Isles to Hampton Court Bridge. It is our opinion that this green corridor should be maintained as the key townscape feature and not be dominated by built form. 15.9. Whilst the site itself contains large warehouse buildings from the second half of the 20th century, which are a result of development of redundant railway sidings positioned between a major highway and railway lines, (nothing has changed), the surrounding area is comprised of low density residential areas of various styles and quality located in the outskirts of both TD & EM villages. The site and the adjacent heavily treed dry ditch, together with the expanses of opens space at the KGS sports ground and the “pony field” on the south side of Summer Road opposite, and the landscaped grounds of Warwick Gardens, previously a garden nursery, plus the Tiffin School & Sports Ground on the west side of the HC Way, together with the tree lined HC Way form a strong separation between the two villages which should be maintained and not urbanised; 15.10. We accept that the warehouse buildings are of limited townscape value, although consider their contribution neutral as they are set back and have always sat below the tree canopy in the public highway views. Any replacement development should assume the same role in the townscape whilst creating a new positive character that reinforces that existing low density two storey dwellings in the area;

15.11. The site context has been misinterpreted and treated as an urban blank canvas. Summer Road TD & EM is an important historical link between the villages, as prior to the railway and the 1930s building of the HC Way, as the major highway to HC Bridge, it was a rural lane separating the two villages. The strength of the open spaces at Tiffin & KGS Schools and the Green Corridor along the HC Way has managed to retain this sense of separation and semi-rural feeling. The Summer Road/HC Way junction is a green junction without enclosure from any prominent urban form. 10 Gladstone Place is the only building that makes a minimal impact on this junction. 15.12. The existing warehouse buildings are set back some 68m from the Summer Road footpath, and the building lines are 6-8m from the western boundary of the site. This siting and the buildings heights means they are not prominent in the green junction landscape. See Appendix 7 SRAG has superimposed the existing building footprint on the proposed layout,

16. HEIGHTS, MASSING, BUILDING LINES/SITING & IMPACT ASSESSMENT 16.1. We consider the assessment of the impact of the heights and mass of this proposal to be under-represented, unrealistic and often inaccurate; 16.2. The D&A & HTVI contain GCI’s & Non verified images based on summer photos taken in 2015/6 prior to tree removal in the dry ditch and on the western boundary of the site. The visualisation images of the proposed impact should be based on current photos with winter tree cover; 16.3. HRP required verified images to be done on winter tree cover images and so should all visualisations be presented in winter as the tree cover is missing for 5-6 months of the year. This applies to images 6-10 in the HTVI. The red line is hardly perceptible and inaccurate in most representations. The only realistic localised context images are the CGI Viewpoints 11 & 12 in the HTVI; 16.4. There is no street-scene section along the HC Way set in the context of the highway levels and the tree cover. Plan PO 200 P1 contains E & W continuous elevations out of any context. Plan PO 201 is the only elevation and section representation that shows any true context representation, illustrating the diminutive size of the Summer Crossing block at under 8m to roof top and the graphic outlines of indicative tree cover along the HC Way at heights of between 4-15m. None of the sections show the outlines of the buildings on the west side of HC Way. There are no 3D images or aerial images of the proposal in the surrounding context as produced at pre- application stage; 16.5. Then existing group of attached warehouses are 2 storeys at the front of the site, set back 68m from the footpath, and reduce in height to the north, but the maximum ridge on plan PO-015 P1 is 7.36m, and they are set 6-8 m from the boundary. The summer and winter views of the existing warehouses from the applicant 2016 viewpoint 9 in the CGI and a Google images shot from winter 2018 can be seen in Appendix 8; 16.6. These warehouse buildings are partly screened by the tree band on HCW turning into Summer Rd EM. However, the strength of this unmaintained landed owned by SCC has been reduced since the previous owners of the site cleared many trees on their western boundary and into the ditch, plus there has been much natural felling caused by ivy strangulation. This is confirmed in the Greegage Tree Survey, see Section 18 below. The height of this tree screen is approximately 5-8m at the junction turning into Summer Road TD, as can be judged by the 8m streetlight which is lost in the top of the canopy. Along the HC Way the tree heights vary from 8-18m with several low section and gaps as can be judged in relation to the 12m streetlights and the 15m and new 20m telecoms masts at the top of the treed ditch at Unit 3 (outside the application site). This tree band is seen in the images in Appendix 8;

16.7. The heights of the nearest surrounding buildings are all around 8m. This can be judged from the height of the 8m street lights on the residential roads of Summer Roads EM & TD. Gladstone Place Summer Rd EM is shown on plan PO-015 P1 at approx. 8m and Summer Crossing at 8.2m. The Warwick Gardens small flats are 2 storeys with a full pitch reaching approx. 8m to ridge. The two Summer Crossing blocks approved in 2002 (2002/1894) were subject to a critical assessment of the impact of their heights and the 2-storey block was approved at 7.4m to ridge and the 3-storey block with a full mansard sitting behind a parapet was approved at 8.6m; 16.8. The heights of the proposed apartment blocks are 15.24m at block A which is 4 stories, with a lower southern element at 11.47m, and 14.34m for the majority of Blocks B & C which are also 4 stories with a lower 3 storey northern element. We consider that three large blocks which stand at nearly double the prevailing heights in the immediate area will not preserve the character of the area, and will be intrusive through and above the tree screen on the HC Way that varies from 5-18m with gaps as described above; 16.9. The heights of these 3 blocks must also be considered in the context of the massing. Whilst we have not calculated the prevailing densities and the plot ratios in the immediate area, we can compare the footprints and elevation lengths of the proposed 3 blocks to the existing buildings and the related buildings lines. The footprint of each block is approximately 5x that of the larger northern Summer Crossing block, 8x that of the front smaller block and 12x that of a house in Gladstone Place. The length of the elevation of each block are 45m and 52m for Block A and Blocks B & C respectively, compared to 12m & 15m for the two Summer Crossing blocks. The northern building line has been brought forward being nearly 50m closer to the footpath, and the western building line is between 1.2 – 6m from the western boundary compared to the existing positioning of the lower warehouses at 6-8m from the dry ditch. Even though the 45m & 52m long slab blocks are staggered by central 2m set backs they still produce long rooflines that are of a consistent height at 14-15m which will compete with the tree canopy. The massing of these blocks is extreme in comparison to the scale of the surrounding built form and will detract significantly from the character of the area. 16.10. Please see the CGI representation in Appendix 8 produced by SRAG to show a more accurate representation of the impact on the scale of the proposal on Viewpoint 9 from the Hampton Court Way junction. The other viewpoints in the HTVI should be produced using winter tree cover and with accurate CGI images rather than unverified wirelines. The red wirelines in Viewpoint 7 & 10 are wholly inaccurate, appear on the wrong part of the site and are unreadable;

16.11. The SRAG representation demonstrates more accurately how dominant Block A will be at the junction of the HC Way & Summer Road destroying the green landscaped junction. The long continuous roofscape will be prominent through and above the tree canopy and give an urbanised feel to this recognised Green Corridor completely eroding the character of the area; 16.12. Other viewpoints should have been provided as requested on 18/6/19 listed in Section 15 above. Setting aside the verified green wirelines presented in Viewpoints 1-5 from HC Palace which are equally inaccurate as most green lines appear on the site of Unit 3 which is not part of this application, and not behind the Summer Crossing buildings that appear in several of these viewpoints, views should additionally be considered from the south bank of the River Thames at Albany Reach and across the KGS sports ground. Summer Crossing buildings are prominent in these views at 8.6m high as there is low tree cover at this end of the KGS fields, and north and south of the railway lines. The proposed 15m+ buildings will be very intrusive in these views as Block A will sit behind the Summer Crossing blocks at double their height, and Blocks B & C will break the tree canopy in several places, and be prominent through the tree canopy in the winter months. Similarly, the long views from the eastern end of Summer Road EM and from Molember Road which have a skyline view of the HC Way trees above small scale 2 storey tiled residential roofs will be broken by the 15m+ long straight rooflines of the 3 blocks. We are also concerned that the buildings will be prominent in views from the north, particularly from HC Bridge due to the raised positioning, and they will set a precedent for future development at Unit 3 and surrounding HC Station; 16.13. SRAG is of the opinion that any future redevelopment of this site should be at a significantly reduced scale, with building heights predominantly limited to 8.5m, with elements up to 12m in carefully selected parts, together with building lines that are no nearer the dry ditch than the existing buildings, although we do support the DSE Report suggestions that the buildings should be sited toward the eastern railing edge boundary. The southern building line should be parallel to the public highway to address the street- scene and sited no closer than the mature oak tree (marked T12 in the tree survey), approximately 25m back from the footpath. This would reduce the impact, if at a height of 8.5m, in long views from the river as built forms would site behind and below the Summer Crossing blocks;

17. BUILT FORMS & APPEARANCE 17.1. Notwithstanding our concerns that the height and massing of the three slab blocks is excessive, there are design elements in the built forms that accentuate the impact and lead us to the opinion that the design will not respect the character of the surrounding area, nor will it produce a contrasting character that will contribute to the organic growth and changing character. The following issues will have an impact on the integration of the development in the surrounding area in terms of both appearance and functioning; 17.2. Viewpoint 12 in the HTVI demonstrates the weak sense of arrival perceived as both a passer by and user of the development. The Block A form has a flat bland façade with an unbroken flat roof parapet with mean detailing. The window openings and recessed balconies give no sense of rhythm to the façade. The ground flood treatment of a glazed curtain wall extending along the east elevation does not give any indication of an entrance. We have concerns that this elevation will be dominated by commercial advertising attached to the façade in a tacked-on manner, or alternatively the users will provide privacy by installing full internal blinds giving a dead frontage. As we have concerns, expressed in point 7 above, that this commercial unit is likely to cause conflict both within the site and generate vehicle movements outside the site contributing to street parking and traffic, we consider the commercial unit should be withdrawn. The prominence of this site deserves a strong sense of arrival to be incorporated into the design of the south facing elevation; 17.3. Should the Council be minded to approve this scheme a condition should be used to withdraw all advertising rights, both illuminated and non-illuminated unless otherwise approved; 17.4. As discussed in 15 above the roof forms containing the 4 floors appear as a bulky 4th floor continuation of the 3rd floor elevations, and not as a roof form by virtue of the 2.5m vertical elevations. The roofs are not mansards in that they do not sit behind a parapet wall as found in other more distant buildings in the local villages. The projecting dormers overhang the 3rd storey and the south and north elevations of each block are dominated by brick gables which enclose the upper roof slopes creating a top-heavy appearance. The design of these roof forms will be prominent in the street-scene and long views across the nearby fields and roof tops as described in point 16 above;

17.5. The ground floor elevations on both the west elevation facing HC Way, which will be visible through the gaps in the tree cover, and the east elevation which will be viewed from trains, are punctured by openings that are left unfilled to the under-croft car parks, hit and miss brick detailing that relieve the dead space, and small louvred doors to cycle stores and refuse stores. The entrance doors to each block are not identified as an obvious feature. This leads to a lack of an inviting street-scene character and sense of place as has been advised in much of the pre-application Officer reports. The HC Way will be overlooked by what is obviously a rear elevation at ground level and may become an unattractive and undesirable narrow space. The development does not accord with the Police Security Initiative as set out in “Secure by Design 2019”. There are elements of the internal lobby and lift arrangements which similarly give rise to security concerns which will impact on the functioning of the development in the surrounding area; 17.6. The built forms will create a soulless environment that will not integrate with the local areas, by virtue of the design, layout and lack of connectivity of the access road and footpath to the immediate area. This site and the immediate areas adjacent to the railway lines, the River Ember banks and the dry ditch are already the scene of much anti-social activity as witnessed by the widespread graffiti, drug waste, and the police crime scene this summer at the dry ditch adjacent to Unit 3, and there is a fear that this will spread into the proposed development forming an unpopular residence.

18. CONCLUSION ON SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA 18.1. SRAG are of the opinion that on design and the impact on the character of the area alone the proposal has not responded to the protracted pre- application advice, and in particular to the impartial nationally recognised guidance from Design South East. We ask the Council to use this guidance as the baseline and be confident our Local Plan policies, in particular CS9 & 17 and DM2 & 12, are established and tested to resist this type of poor quality design; 18.2. The character of the area has been ignored and misinterpreted in the applicant’s documents, and the visual images of the likely impact of the proposal are unrealistic and inaccurate and fail to give the Committee Members a true flavour of this excessive development; 18.3. SRAG is looking for a residential development containing building blocks of much smaller scale footprints and at significantly lower heights, to respect the prevailing built fabric and a developer should take example from the many design awards around the UK in recent years and illustrated in national design guidance; 18.4. Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework states clearly that “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides”. There is an opportunity to improve the quality and functioning of this site but this proposal fails to allow the strength of the green landscape that separates two villages to be the dominant feature; 18.5. The design guidance in NPPF has been strengthened in the October 2019 publication of the National Design Guidance which is to be followed shortly by the National Model Design Code setting out key elements for successful design. This is a clear statement that the government expects the quality of design to be improved and a strong thread is to give due consideration to the local vernacular. 18.6. The May 2019 appeal decision on Molesey Football Club is a clear indication that this message is being put into practice as the proposal was dismissed on the grounds it did not respect the scale and heights of surrounding area. There is a clear comparison to the current application in that the Inspector stated that 3 storeys without a roof was not characteristic of the 2 storeys plus roofs style of built form in the area. Additionally, the conclusion stated the need to deliver housing need targets did not on balance override the harm to the character of the area.

18.7. The Council had conviction in its adopted policies in the recent refusal of Sandown Park outline development proposals (2019/0551) on grounds of the likely detriment to character of the area. The Committee Members debate explicitly showed concern that the proposed buildings at 4-6 storeys were in principle likely to harm the character of the area which predominantly comprises 2-3 storeys buildings. This same sentiment applies the current site which is 3 and 4 storeys in an area that is predominantly 2 storeys.

19. ECOLOGY & TREES & LANDSCAPING SCHEME 19.1. Whilst the proposed scheme includes a Landscape Master Plan for within the site, we do not wish to comment on the detail as this will relate to built forms that we have argued above are inappropriate for this site. However, the urban design concept does make much play on the relationship to the existing mature landscape beyond the site boundaries in relation to the screen provided for buildings of excessive heights and mass. Whilst this approach is not properly assessed, particularly in views as described in Sections 15 & 16 above and set out in our email to the developer’s team dated 18/6/19, it is of concern that the existing landscape should not be considered to provide a screen for inappropriate built forms and its ability to achieve a screen is over exaggerated; 19.2. The dry ditch to the west of the site is claimed to be owned by SCC but is not maintained except on the footpath side, so as stated in the Landscape Character Report it forms a “scrub strip”. However, this is an important belt of trees recognised in the adopted Local Plan policies as a “Green Corridor”. Unfortunately, many trees on the western boundary of this site, that form the edge of the dry ditch scrub strip were removed 2016 by a previous owner and the strength of the strip has been reduced. This has not been addressed in the application documents and the visualisation are a misrepresentation being based on a summer tree cover prior to the 2016 removal of trees. 19.3. The applicants Greengage Tree Survey assesses the trees in the ditch under 22 individual trees and 3 groups, one of which (G3) is in effect the continuous length and comprises all the unspecified smaller specimens in the ditch 2m below the site level. It recognised that many trees are heavily clad in ivy, that many have fallen limbs, or are dead, many are of poor shape, many have decay and a limited life. 3 individual trees and 2 groups (G1 & G2) are graded category U and scheduled for removal in the conclusion (para 6.2). G2 comprised 15 trees that were cut down in 2016. How can a developer be allowed to remove trees on land it does not own without replacing them or taking on a maintenance responsibility? The removal of these trees must be to the benefit of the proposal in terms of safety and implementing the onsite landscaping but they will further reduce the strength of the green corridor and increase the visibility of the huge three apartment slab blocks through the tree canopy and long gaps between each tree particularly at the northern end; 19.4. We request that the trees in the dry ditch and at the south east entrance to the site be surveyed by an independent arboriculture consultant and that subject to the finding that consideration be given to making a Tree Preservation Order on these trees as individual specimens or as groups of trees. Trees should not be removed until this exercise has been completed;

19.5. The heights of the trees in the Greengage Tree Survey are stated as estimated and we suggested that the 6 that are stated as over 15m high are exaggerated, and are set up to 2m below the site level. As stated in Section 16 the trees at the Summer Road end are between 5-8m high and predominately 8-18m along the HC Way with many gaps, which is confirmed in the graphic tree representation in plan PO 210 where they are illustrated as 4-15m. The heights of this weak tree strip should not be taken as providing a solid screen to obscure the impact of these vast built forms; 19.6. Should the Council be minded to approve this application there needs to be a S106 agreement for a programme of tree works and an ongoing endowment maintenance fund established for the trees in the dry ditch with a management agreement involving SCC; 19.7. The Landscape Character Report specifies a large number of 3 tree specimens to be planted within the site boundary along the narrow-decked path on the western boundary which forms the eastern boundary to the dry ditch. We note that these are identified as mountain ash, field maple, and common hazel but are concerned that they will not complement the native species found in the ditch which are predominately oak, European ash, sycamore and willow. The proposed groups of trees are only at the widest points, and not a continuous belt so they will not fill the gaps between the ditch trees. Additionally, this pathway is to be finished with composite decking in spaces that are 3-6m wide thus it is unlikely that these trees will thrive; 19.8. There does not appear to be a fence or hedge structure along the western boundary of the site. This will lead to trespass via the dry ditch in an area where unsociable activity involving drugs and graffiti is an existing problem; 19.9. The swale feature within the community garden is also designed to be linked to the dry ditch but suggests it will be “a dry bowl but have the capacity to hold excess rain water” and “links to an existing stream” and contains planting that will “be evoking a wetland but be tolerant of dry conditions”. This is a very confused design element, again giving us cause for concern that it will undermine the mature native specimens in the dry ditch and create an informal unauthorised link from the dry ditch to the backs of residential properties. The dry ditch is to our knowledge normally dry, without a water course. It is unclear how the landscape scheme can thus have a principle to respect the local indigenous wetland landscape. It does not appear to be understood if this ditch is part of a flood defence system, which we consider it must be as there is a sluice gate on the Ember to the north, and it is connected to the Tiffin field drainage and the River Rythe to the south. If the swale removes the banks that are part of the flood defence it is unacceptable to the wider community and advice should be sought from the Environment Agency;

19.10. An amendment to the site layout, uploaded on 22/10/19 in PO-100 P7 and L-101 PO2, identifies a 2.4m acoustic eco-barrier approximately 20m long and 2m deep along the length of the swale and amenity space but no elevation details are provided. This completely undermines the landscape approach of linking the swale to the existing stream, or dry ditch and suggests this area is unsuitable as an amenity space if a noise barrier is required. A 2.4m high barrier will reduce the visual benefit of a having a gap between the buildings in views from HCW, accentuating our townscape and security concerns discussed in Section 17 above. Similarly, the siting of the 1.8m slatted fence on the eastern boundary at the southern group of trees to the right of the entrance and near the level crossing will dissect a group of trees containing category B rated specimens which will put tree roots and growth at risk and be visually jarring. Any fence on this boundary should follow the rail track edge or stop short at the angle away from the lines; 19.11. The D&A, HTVI & the Landscape Character Report make references to the two roof terraces on the 3rd floor flat roofs. Trees are specified as Sumachs/Rhus which have a vigorous regenerating habit and birch which grow to 18m. These trees will no doubt be unsuitable on a roof terrace structure but equally will look misplaced rising above a recognised tree canopy in a Green Corridor. We are of the opinion that trees and any large structures including umbrellas and awnings will have a negative impact on the street scene creating an urbanised feel in the Green Corridor. For this reason, if the Council is minded to approve this proposal there should be a condition that no permanent or temporary structures, including trees, are place on flat roof communal gardens that sit at a height above the parapet walls; 19.12. The tree planting within the site on the eastern boundary is for fastigiate hornbeams which again are not an indigenous species, and according to the Council’s Tree Officer will spread over the boundary no doubt causing a nuisance to SW Railways and train disruption from the infamous announcement of “leaves on the lines”. 19.13. The trees and landscaping relationship to the land to the east of the site and the railway tracks has not been assessed, which comprises land in the ownership of Network Rail and KGS. Whilst the trees are not affected by this proposal, the likelihood that the heights and mass of the built forms will rise above and be prominent through the tree canopy has not been identified as described in Sections 15 & 16 above. This issue is of comparable concern to that of the reliance on the screening of the dry ditch landscape. We remain of the view that any development cannot be justified on the grounds that it is mistakenly hidden within an existing mature landscape;

20. AIR QUALITY 20.1. The developer’s report Air Quality Assessment dated October 2019 states: 20.1.1. The site is located within the Hampton Court AQMA, which was declared by Elmbridge Borough Council in 2008 due to measured exceedances of the long-term air quality objective for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The primary source of emissions of this pollutant in the area is road traffic. (page 6) 20.1.2. It is considered likely that exceedances of the long-term air quality objective are on going within the Hampton Court AQMA (page 16) 20.2. NO2 levels exceeded the 40 μg/m3 limit set in Schedule 2 of The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 every year between 2008 and 2017 with the exception of 2015 which was reported at 39.7 μg/m3. 20.3. Elmbridge Environmental Health published the 2019 Annual Status Report (ASR) on 30/10/2019 which shows annual mean concentration of NO2 at 38 μg/m3 (figures from 2018 monitoring); 20.4. 2019 data from Hampton Court Parade AQMA shows a significant increase in pollution during this year; current NO2 levels are 40 μg/m3 (Appendix 10); 20.5. NO2 levels recorded in the AQMA fail to meet air quality standards; 20.6. NO2 is monitored in Elmbridge, however SRAG notes that other pollutants are not recorded, in particular PM2.5 and PM10. 20.7. Page 13 of the Elmbridge ASR 2019 states: The latest available data for 2017 shows that the percentage of mortality attributable to PM2.5 pollution across England is 5.1%. The percentage within Surrey is 5.7% and within Elmbridge is 5.9%. Elmbridge has a higher percentage of mortality attributable to PM2.5 pollution when compared to England and Surrey as a whole. 20.8. SRAG requests PM2.5 and PM10 monitoring be undertaken within the AQMA in order to ascertain current levels and ensure compliance before any application for a large development in the area is considered for approval; 20.9. We are concerned that this is not a suitable site for residential development, it is close to the main highway that suffers recognised levels of pollution which exceed proscribed limits. The occupants will suffer from poor living conditions, being unable to open windows and suffer consequential health damage; 20.10. There is published research on the impact of high pollution levels on asthma, lung disease, Alzheimer’s, and recently mental health including depressions and schizophrenia;

20.11. We are concerned that the development of 78 units, with a capacity of 208 occupants and a commercial unit with an unknown occupier and traffic generating capacity, will inevitably increase the polluting vehicles that need to use the AQMA corridor to access the site. It is a danger to the established communities in the vicinity to allow a development that would be known to increase pollution levels, in the same way that allowing any development that would worsen or spread the flood risk near a river would; 20.12. It should be taken into consideration that the railway lines create additional pollutants that are not monitored as part of the AQMA; 20.13. It should be taken into consideration that the level crossing immediately at the site entrance involves cars sitting idling and contributing pollutants for 12- 20 minutes/hour at present, and this will increase to 24-40 minutes/hour when Crossrail 2 arrives thus doubling the pollutants from road traffic passing the site. These pollutants are not currently monitored. There is a case for extending the AQMA; 20.14. We accept that the recorded levels may have decreased over three previous years but even when levels at an AQMA are not exceeded, DEFRA recommends “… that monitoring continues until there are three years of results below 10% of the objective level, prior to considerations for revocation”. The target is 36 μg/m3 NO2 which has never been achieved since the AQMA was declared. 20.15. We would draw attention to errors and inconsistencies contained within the Air Quality Assessment dated October 2019 20.15.1. Sensitive Receptors identified on Page 12 do not include residential properties on Hampton Court Way, Summer Road or Summer Crossing; 20.15.2. Page 15 references the AQMS sited approximately 250m north of the proposed development; Table 4 mentions Locations in Colchester, sited 95m west of the proposed development; 20.15.3. Table 9 on Page 18 shows 1-10 Residential Properties < 50m from Site Boundary, however we have identified 20 such properties. In the same table we see Receptor Cricket Ground. We believe this is incorrectly identified and should be described Tiffin School Sports Facilities within ~40m of Site Boundary. These playing fields also host Old Tiffinians Sports Facility and Cheeky Chimps Nursery. 20.15.4. Speeds in Table B2 on Page 35 are believed to be MPH not kph. 20.16. Please be mindful of the QC Robert McCracken opinion on the 2008 Air Quality Directive issues in 2015 attached in Appendix 9; 20.17. On 12th September this year the Court of Appeal upheld a refusal of planning permission to Gladman Developments Ltd on air-quality grounds for 330 homes in Kent, making it the first time a planning appeal has been refused due to concerns over air pollution and public health. The Council should be mindful of this decision; 44

20.18. Application 2018/0551 at Sandown Park was refused on grounds that it is unacceptable to increase air pollution from increased traffic in the vicinity of Esher High Street which is an AQMA and the refusal cited policy DM5. The same scenario and conditions apply to this site; 20.19. The proposal is contrary to the Council’s adopted Policy DM5 and the Council has the power to refuse planning permission on grounds of a threat from increased air pollution and thus this application should be refused. The council has declared a Climate Change Emergency and reviewing the designated AQMA’s should form part of the strategy.

Summer Road Action Group Committee 7th November 2019

SRAG OBJECTION TO APPLICATION 2019/2005 UNITS 1 & 2 HAMPTON COURT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SUMMER ROAD, THAMES DITTON APPENDICES The Appendices contains the following as referenced in the main report:- 1. 24/4/19 SRAG submission to Landhold/Iceni at pre application consultation 2. Minutes of meeting15/5/19 by Iceni with developer’s team 3. 2019 list of minor junction improvement works in emails with SCC CHA dated 6/2/19 & 11/2/19 4. October 2018 Transport Consultants Report on options for a 2nd access 5. 18/2/19 Design South East Review Report 6. SCC CHA email of 7/10/19 to MW 7. SRAG Layouts superimposed 8. Viewpoint 9 Submitted CGI in HTVI & SRAG winter CGI representations 9. QC Robert McCracken 2008 opinion on clean air 10. Air Quality Monitoring data, Jan – Oct 2019.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 46 APPENDIX 1 24/4/19 SRAG submission to Landhold/Iceni at pre application consultation

23rd April 2019

To Daniel Simpson Iceni Consultation FOA Landhold Developments Ltd

(By email)

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ON

UNITS 1 & 2 HAMPTON COURT ESTATE, SUMMER ROAD, THAMES DITTON

Introduction

We represent many of the households in Summer Road, Gardens and Avenue who received the consultation leaflet through our letter boxes. We have looked at your leaflet and website and have had a group meeting where the Committee concluded that we wish to convey our serious concern regarding the proposal as currently illustrated. In view of our concerns, we have obtained the most recent pre-application documents from Elmbridge Borough Council to assist our understanding and to enable our feedback on your proposal. We are grateful for the opportunity to give our opinions and would like the design team to consider the following points before they work up this development proposal and submit a planning application:-

1. We consider the leaflet contained a limited explanation of the proposal, and whilst the website contains a little more information it is not illustrated in the context of the surrounding urban fabric and open land. The site is presented in isolation and the opportunity for community engagement is poorly communicated and appears to be a tick box exercise. There was no response date on the leaflet and the phone number was “not set up” according the message. There is no invitation to discuss the proposal at a workshop, public meeting or exhibition but maybe these will be offered in due course. Whilst it is noted that there has been a pre- application engagement process with the Council and other bodies, we will not be restricted by that process in our response. We note that Historic Royal Palaces (HRP) have been involved and would welcome an opportunity to hear their opinion. We are familiar with the adopted local planning documents and have environmental and legal professionals amongst us; 2. We are fully conversant with the proposal for the Hampton Court Station site immediately to the north of this site, and consider that two major proposal in our immediate neighbourhood are likely to have a significant impact on the quality of our lifestyles and environment; 3. We consider the site is being treated like an inner London or London Borough site, whereas the site and our homes are in north Surrey which is a greener and more open pleasant environment; 4. The leaflet calls this land “run down industrial units” and thus assume it is being treated as brownfield land. Our knowledge is that these units have been in continuous use for the 30 years plus that many of us have lived in the area and all still appear to be in use. There are several smaller units in Unit 1 (a-f) and more there appears to be more than one unit in Unit 2. Plus, there is a Unit 3 that is still in storage use which we understand is the unit owned by Historic Royal Palaces and assume this is the reason for their involvement. These units are

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 47 providing a facility for employment uses. The number of existing businesses and employees needs to be identified, together with the number of vehicles generated. We do not consider these uses to be bad neighbours. The buildings are not attractive, but they were screened well by mature vegetation until recent times. The short-lived storage unit a few years ago did install intrusive signing which has since been removed. The only problems we are aware of in recent times is the additional vehicle movements resulting from the storage of new cars which we believe is likely to be an unauthorised use; 5. The site is not allocated in the local plan as a development site, and you have not made a case that it is registered as Brownfield Land; 6. The Core Strategy (CS) and Development Management (DM) Plan contain policies to safeguard employment provision should be satisfied. There are criteria that need to be satisfied in CS23 and DM11; 7. There is no evidence that this proposal will provide a community benefit to counter balance the loss of an employment provider. In principle there is a fear that additional vehicles movements will be generated and that an increase in built forms will have a negative impact on our quality of life and environmental amenity; 8. If it can be demonstrated that there is no demand for these employment uses, the site should be considered in totality for comprehensive development with Unit 3 which is a very large unit and we are aware that HRP are a sensitive owner occupier who are likely to continue to demand this unit. Partial site development is likely to result in conflict between occupiers and miss the opportunities for wider environmental and community benefit, particularly in relation to the Ember River banks and the open land and ditch to the west; 9. The site is sandwiched between the Hampton Court Way and the railway lines and no doubt suffers poor air quality which is monitored locally at the high quality (expensive) monitoring unit adjacent to Hampton Court Parade. NO2 readings on the Hampton Court Way currently exceed recognised acceptable limits which is attributed to existing high traffic volumes and particularly daily static traffic between Hampton Court Bridge and Imber Court roundabout. In our group’s opinion this site is unlikely to provide an ideal residential environment. Plus, it will worsen when Crossrail 2 arrives and doubles the train service bringing 8 train movements per hour. Additionally, if the current proposal increases traffic movements, the current air quality will inevitably worsen. The Development Management Plan policy DM12c) is designed to safeguard residents air quality and will need a full assessment of the impact of this proposal; 10. Many trees in the ditch and banks on the inner western edge of the site have been removed over the last year or so which is regrettable as they provided a satisfactory screen for the industrial units, no doubt absorbed some of the main road pollutants, and would have provided a screen to any new development. There are now many gaps in the tree line, making the unattractive units more prominent, which we suspect was the strategy to develop a desire to replace these units. It is unclear whether the removed trees were within the site boundary or within the Environment Agency’s ditch ownership. This area is in need of a management plan and should be addressed as part of any development proposal; 11. As the site is not allocated for development and does not feature in the Design & Character SPD for site specific guidance, due regard should be given to the prevailing character in the area if redevelopment is justified; 12. The illustrations show blocks of excessively large footprints in comparison with the prevailing layouts and footprints in the locality. A wider context with the residential units along Hampton Court Way west side, Summer Road, East Molesey, the Summer Road Crossing two blocks and Warwick Gardens should be illustrated and will show the excessive scale. Our group would like

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 48 to see the proposal illustrated in aerial computed generated images and a simple area architectural model would assist understanding of the context; 13. Similarly, the illustrations show blocks of 3, 4 and 5 storeys plus roof. There is a conflict in the two illustrations of the 5 storey blocks showing in one a 5th floor in a roof and in another a 5th floor plus a roof. 4 and 5 storey residential blocks are not characteristic of the prevailing heights in the localities mentioned above. The most recent development in the area at Summer Crossing is 2 and 3 storeys with the 3rd storey in a mansard roof form, appearing as predominantly two storey blocks. Three is the maximum heights that should be consider on this site; 14. This site is previously used railway land which is subject to the 1913 South Western Railways Act establishing that no previously used or existing railway land should contain buildings higher than 50 feet unless otherwise approved by the relevant commissioner in order to safeguard the views from Hampton Court Palace. The Government Commissioner will not be the Local Planning Authority but the relevant Secretary of State. Local communities have taken legal advice in recent times on the provisions and enforcement of this Act of Parliament. Please note the Act does not infer that 50 feet is an acceptable height on this site as the relevance relates to the impact on views from Hampton Court Palace. Our group is of the opinion that buildings of 50 feet high are unacceptable on this site; 15. The ditch marked “existing vegetation” on the western boundary does not appear to be within your site boundary although new tree planting and a strong relationship appears to be shown. The purpose and function of this ditch needs to be explored and understood as it clearly links to the River Ember and has a sluice gate but it rarely contains any significant water. It appears that the ditch links with the Summer Road Tiffin fields which regularly flood, and eventually join the River Rythe to the south. It is used by trespassers, and contains much rubbish, and its vegetation is unmaintained except on the Hampton Court Way footpath line which must be a Surrey CC responsibility. A formal proposal for the ownership and management of this strip of land should be demonstrated in any adjacent development. If the site is developed piecemeal without Unit 3 there will be limited opportunity for a continuous proposal for this green strip which is important to the quality of our environment. It is assumed this and is owned by the Environment Agency (EA) who should be involved in developing a joint proposal; 16. No doubt a Flood Risk Assessment will be required. Any development that creates more displacement of flood waters would be unacceptable to our group as we already have high buildings insurance costs due to our proximity to the Rivers Ember & Mole; 17. The ditch strip provides a green lung on a main traffic route and in effect forms a green corridor extension to the Green Belt designation to the south. It should be retained as a green lung; 18. The community amenity space located between two blocks, will be of limited value to users outside the site as there is no connectivity with other routes or spaces. Any green space would have greater environmental value located at the entrance to the site incorporating a larger play area; 19. The landscape proposals are misleading as the opportunity for water features, meadow and woodland walkways are extremely limited on such small external spaces that will surround these large blocks. If the EA consider that pedestrian access to their ditch strip is possible there maybe opportunities for a decked walkway and footbridges from the Hampton Court Way. Alternative pedestrian routes would relieve the conflict and congestion of the narrow, shared cycle and pedestrian footpath to the west of the site; 20. The main road and junction with Summer Road East Molesey to the west and Summer Road Thames Ditton to the east, is both a major traffic congestion point and an accident blackspot.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 49 There are three prohibited traffic movements which are regularly breached and cause accidents. The level crossing additionally contributes to both traffic congestion stacking back onto the main road, and a pedestrian movement constraint. Our group is in discussion with Surrey CC regarding improvements to this junction, and the design team should ensure Cllrs Peter Szanto and Nick Darby and Peter Shimadry of Surrey Highways are involved in this proposal. Any development needs to be considered in the context of these matters of serious local concern. Any additional vehicle movements that worsen the traffic congestion and increase the prohibited movements are unacceptable to the Summer Road/Gardens/Avenue, East Molesey community. Our egress onto Hampton Court Way is currently a slow and high- risk movement. Our daily vehicular journeys are impacted by additional the half mile to Imber Court roundabout and back when approaching from the north, which is at a standstill at peak hours. A proposal for highway junction improvements that remove the prohibited right turn when travelling south as part of this development would be supported by our group; 21. It is most likely that 80 residential units and a commercial unit of an unspecified size will produce far greater vehicular movement at the single access point than the existing uses, which will worsen the local congestion and increase the accident risk levels. 22. If residential development can be justified consideration should be given to affordable live- work units, and flexible working spaces; 23. No doubt the scale of the residential development will require the provision of affordable housing; 24. If the site can be redeveloped comprehensively incorporating unit 3, consideration should be given to a purpose-built storage facility for the unit 3 occupier locate at the front, Summer Road entrance to the site. This would remove the need for commercial vans to pass by residential units with potential conflicts, give more opportunity for environmental enhancements and community benefit and secure a long-term user for the site, thereby mitigating the loss of employment provision. 25. We note from the pre-application documents that the most recent document from 18th February 2019 is a Design Review statement following a panel meeting on 31st January. This report appears to us to be highly critical of proposal and suggest a comprehensive approach with due regard to supporting the existing and newly formed communities. The current proposal does not appear to us to respond to this critic. Our group would like to offer an established link to develop the Design Review panels advice.

Conclusion

In conclusion we consider that the principle of residential development on this site should not result in the loss of local businesses and employment providers. Any businesses should be accommodated on the site or relocated. The site should be developed comprehensively. The proposal is based on a scale and quantum of development that is excessive for this site, which will be visually oppressive and create an increase in traffic congestion. There are no community benefits incorporated.

We hope the above is helpful. We will be sharing this with local Councillors, Planning Officers, and the wider community to ensure the feedback is properly considered in further pre- application discussion. We look forward to seeing the results of your consultation published and hopefully your proposal will be reconsidered before a planning application is submitted. Our

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 50 group would welcome the opportunity to be properly involved in the pre-application process and work with you to design an acceptable proposal. We invite you to contact our Co-Chairs to set up a meeting with the relevant parties.

Kind regards

Co-Chairs Summer Road Action Group

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 51 APPENDIX 2 Minutes of meeting15/5/19 by Iceni with developer’s team

Project: Unit 1 and Unit 2, Hampton Court Estate, Thames Ditton Meeting: Summer Road Action Group Meeting Time/Date: 14:00, 15 May 2019 Venue: Colets Health and Fitness Club Present: Steve Nichol (SN), Julie Hennig (JH), Peter O’Donnell (PO), Karen Liddell (KL) – SRAG Representatives Matthew Rosson (MR) – Landhold Developments Chloe Saunter (CS), Sam Stackhouse (SS) – Montagu Evans Richard Jay (RJ), Charlotte Hunter (CH), Daniel Simpson (DS) – Iceni Projects Paula Meneses (PM), Felix von Bechtolsheim (FvB) – Collado Collins Caroline James (CJ), Karen Randolph (KR) – Elmbridge Borough Council

Actions 1. Introduction to Landhold by MR.

2. Overview of the fourth Pre-Application by FvB, and discussion of the Email over latest design evolution. This included showing the latest plans, the plans. background of the project, the DRP discussion. RJ, MR and SS to undertake further - SRAG agreed pre app process had been difficult but considered the discussions with recent Officer advice and the DRP report advice to be robust and Surrey CC regarding asked for a copy of the 4th pre app report when received. junction and whether they are 3. Discussion of highways, traffic, and the Hampton Court Road Junction planning changes. led by RJ and PO. The below provides a summary of the key points Full traffic raised: assessment to undertaken. - PO raised the point that if you are travelling to the site from Esher, you need to go all the way to Hampton Court roundabout and turn around, meaning traffic often backs up from the roundabout with a c.40 minute wait. He believes that adding more homes here will increase the traffic problems. - PO raised the primary problem with the proposals in his opinion as the proximity to the inadequate junction at Hampton Court Way. The inability to turn left causes mass traffic issues, and the potential for an increase in cars attempting to access the site will add to the havoc that already exists at this junction. PO feels that improving this junction will be crucial to the success of the development as, in its current state, it will be a detriment to current local residents, and those intending to live in the proposed development. - RJ outlined the TRICS database approach, and study undertaken, looking at the traffic generation of the site currently vs. post-

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 52 development. TRICS determined that the development would result in trip generation similar to the existing use. RJ notes that as part of the planning application we will be undertaking and 1:1 car parking to be submitting a full transport assessment. solidified in design. - PO suggested that the TRICS results are not reflective of current road experience and the junction issue. This is a unique site in his view. - RJ noted that the TRICS study has been shared with Surrey County Council. The primary issue seems to be the inability to turn right when travelling from Esher, but Surrey do not seem to have plans to change this in the near future. RJ to speak to Surrey CC Confirmation that regarding their position on this turn. the team will provide - SN highlighted that people turn illegally and try to overtake renewable energy stationary traffic waiting at the level crossing in order to turn into provisions. the site. It is clear that this is a unique turning that needs to be addressed as a significant local issue, that SN believes would be exacerbated by the development. - KL notes that as a group they have been in prior discussions with Surrey CC regarding the Hampton Court Way Junction. SN to send over full - The existing air quality problems in this area were also discussed. legislation of 1913 - PO concluded that the traffic and access is fundamental to whether Act; to be reviewed the group supports the application; this will cause further issues by team. than already apparent if not addressed. It will require an innovative solution, although SRAG note that they do not have any solutions themselves currently. Landscaping to be - Discussions to be undertaken with transport consultants and reviewed to ensure Surrey CC Highways to see how this can be addressed. enhancement of green corridor. 4. Discussion of car parking, led by KR and SS:

- SS notes that the car parking provision had to be mindful of both the traffic and parking impact, as well as air quality. It is proposed that there will be 1:1 car parking available on site. - KR noted that there is pressure from the government to reduce the use of cars with no real solution actually offered. From members’ point of view, they are restricted to the amount of parking they can have. The more cars the more air pollution. However, given the context of the area, the minimum should be 1:1. Trains and buses are poor in this area. - SS confirmed that parking will be 1:1. - SS confirmed they did not have the figures for the current parking provision on the site, and whether there was any existing overflow onto Summer Road TD. - SRAG concerns expressed about lack of visitor parking and unknown parking demand for the commercial unit which could result in overflow parking in Summer Road/s TD & EM side.

5. Discussion of renewable energy, led by KL and FvB:

- JH said that the building should have renewable energy provisions and solutions. A green building would be a positive addition to the area. JH noted that the air quality is currently dreadful and so some positive renewable energy provision would be good. - SS confirmed that the building will exceed regulations in terms of sustainable design but they are still considering the detail of what that involves. It is proposed to have some green roofs, car charging points and potential for photo voltaics. - FvB confirmed that here will be a shared roof terrace on part of the roof, while the rest will be green roofs.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 53

6. Discussion of height and massing:

- KL noted that in her opinion the proposed buildings are too big and do not fit comfortably within the area which is predominantly two- storeys. She questioned how four and five storeys on a site like this can be justified. - SS reiterated that there are housing needs and requirements in the area, so it is encouraged to push density on brownfield sites like this one. - KL suggested that the building will be seen from Thames Ditton riverside open space at Albany Reach, to the east of the KGS playing fields; the surrounding tree canopy beyond the site is less than 15m and would allow the building to be seen. The top of the current building can be seen from Albany Reach. FvB confirmed that you may be able to see the top of the building, but primarily you cannot see it. - MR confirmed that the project team has been in discussion with Hampton Court Palace and they have not raised any objections to the scheme. - SN encouraged the project team to look at the 1913 South Western Railway Act which imposes a 50ft restriction on all buildings on this site this close to Hampton Court Palace. He suggested the Act could be a major obstacle for the proposals. SN agreed to email a copy of the Act to the project team to review. - KL stressed that she does not want to see the green corridor of the area destroyed by development. The development of the site needs to be seen in the context of the Jolly Boatman – cannot have brick walls all down Hampton Court Way. In KL’s opinion the perfect scheme on this site would be three storeys with pitched roofs as the maximum. - SRAG considered the massing and building forms are too long and need to be broken up; - It was agreed that the trees in the dry ditch are important to the green corridor but outside the control of the design team. SRAG expressed its view that the height and massing proposed should not rely on a tree screen either within or outside the site. - The dry ditch was discussed and its potential for new pedestrian or vehicle access point across had been dismissed. The Environment Agency has not given any information on the relationship of the dry ditch to the local water courses which is a concern to SRAG.

7. Discussion of design and commercial unit, led by FvB and PO: Team to review SRAG suggestions - PO stated that the scheme should be altered so that it is not a for commercial unit continuous block. The 2015/6 pre app plans by a previous and what should be developer were tabled demonstrating a reduced impact of the four there to bring benefit separated blocks; to wider community. - PO raised a concern about the prominence of the proposed commercial unit with it being at the arrival point to the site. He

asked for reassurance as to the management control of the unit: what is to stop the occupier putting up neon signs, or cluttering it with posters for example. For PO this needs to be elegant arrival point for the development. This was also tied into the need for an onsite caretaker to limit bad behaviour in the apartments – this will discredit the whole development.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 54 - SS confirmed that a design code could be prepared to ensure that the commercial premises conforms to this. It was also highlighted that any future signage would require advertisement consent. - Suggestions were made for potential uses of the unit, including: an arts studio, rentable workspaces, a community asset, or a repair hub. - Team confirmed they will take suggestions for the commercial unit on board and discuss.

8. Further questions or points raised: Continued

- Flooding: Summer Road floods every year for at least three engagement with months, the ditch hasn’t been maintained for years. SRAG. - Change of access: Could we potentially look at changing the access? FvB confirmed that due to the land and ditches surrounding site, this would not be possible. - KL asked what the intentions are for Unit 3? MR confirmed that this is owned by Hampton Court and therefore we are not aware of any plans, but that we are in dialogue with the current occupiers to ensure access is maintained. - The group asked about the level of affordable housing MR confirmed that it is unknown at this point as we need to undertake a viability assessment based on the final scheme, but that there will be an affordable provision.

SRAG concluded that the team needs to consider what community benefit Meeting notes to be this site brings. The commercial units on site have not affected the residents sent to SRAG and over the years, but new housing and an unknown commercial occupier on councillors who the site will have an impact. attended the meeting. It was agreed that a meeting note will be shared with all and that the project team will maintain a dialogue with SRAG as they consider the points raised.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 55 APPENDIX 3 2019 agreed list of minor junction improvement works in email to SCC CHA dated

From: Karen Jones Sent: 11 February 2019 18:24:03 To: Peter Szanto CLR Cc: Nick Darby CLR; Peter Shimadry EI; Mick Jones (yahoo) Subject: RE: 2PM FRIDAY 1ST FEBRUARY MEETING. Re: HAMPTON COURT WAY & SUMMER ROAD, EAST MOLESEY

Dear Peter

Thank you for your email and Peter Shimadry’s note of meeting on Friday 1st February. We appreciated your time and we also produced our own collective summary of what we thought we discussed and agreed after the meeting. Thankfully we agree that Peter Shimadry’s summary is fair and accurate but think it lacks the explicit detail that we hope will be worked up and implemented soon. We believe you all agreed that you could progress the following minor works and signing to test if improvements could be achieved without major layout changes to the road layout which you tell us are unrealistic in the current funding constraints:-

1. Install sign/s on HC Way on the north bound lane before the Summer Road junction to replace the cross road sign, to inform of both the no right turn, earlier than the red circle sign (into Summer Road TD), and that Summer Road is a No Through Road together with signing for unsuitable for HGVs/coaches. Can we please add a NO U turns to this collective map style sign;

2. Install sign/s on the HC Way south bound lane before the Summer Road junction to replace the cross road sign and the level crossing sign, to inform of both the no right turn, earlier than the red circle signs, (into Summer Road EM) and the level crossing with warning of queuing likely. Last week we witnessed queuing at least twice the length of the slip road which pushes the traffic flowing straight on into the middle of the road but still travelling at 40mph whilst Summer Road residents need to sit in the central reservation space;

3. We discussed signing and road markings on the Summer Road TD approach from the level crossing, suggesting a white directional left only arrow in the road approaching the give way lines. We are surprised there is not a red circle prohibitive no left turn warning highway code sign here, although the blue left only arrows are prominent once you are at the give way lines. As we did not conclude, could you please review the signing on this stretch please;

4. We had a general discussion on refreshing all road markings, plus using new markings to make the existing prohibited movements more prominent as a cost effective measure. We believe extending the use of the diagonal white lines on the south bound lane around the north end of the raised central reservation would help indicate that this area should not be crossed to do the prohibited right turn. Similarly a new white directional arrow with the words AHEAD ONLY next to or just after the slip road left turn directional road arrow would create an additional visual reminder of the no right turn;

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 56 5. We discussed installing one or two bollards in the pedestrian gap/cut through in the central reservation just south of the Summer Road junction. However, having watched a motor cyclist sitting in this gap ready to pull out in front of me as I slowed down to pull into Summer Road EM last week it occurs to me that bollard/s will prevent cars using the gap but not motorcycles. Is there an alternative pedestrian friendly obstacle that can be used. We would suggest a set of two staggered chicane hoop railings that can fit a pushchair/pram underneath (as seen at the Summer Road EM river footbridge). There are issues of pedestrian conflict at the southern crossing point which in my opinion suggests pedestrians should be discouraged from crossing here, and the position closed, and the refuge gap north of the junction should be enhanced (however I accept that this is a major layout change that cannot be funded at the present time);

6. We think Peter Szanto agreed to seek assistance of the Elmbridge Parking Officer (Adrian) to add yellow lines to prohibit parking on the two corners of Summer Road with Summer Gardens to allow access for the rubbish collection truck and other large vehicles.

We would appreciate your confirmation of the package of works with an indication of the likely timings for implementation taking into consideration your necessary funding source approvals. We will then pass the information on to the Summer Road/Gardens/Avenue residents asking them to be patient rather than start petitions.

We have discussed keeping a record of the breaches of the highway movements that we witness. Could Peter Shimadry advise if this would be a useful exercise, how many participants would make it representative and useful, and if there is a standard methodology or software programme that we should use? I had considered setting up a simple calendar in a shared Dropbox.

We look forward to hearing from you or Peter Shimadry soon.

Kind regards

Karen & Mick Jones Summer Road EM Mike Wilson Summer Road EM

From: Peter Szanto CLR Sent: 06 February 2019 20:01 To: Karen Jones Cc: Nick Darby CLR Peter Shimadry EI Subject: Re: 2PM FRIDAY 1ST FEBRUARY MEETING. Re: HAMPTON COURT WAY & SUMMER ROAD, EAST MOLESEY

Dear Karen, Mick and Mike,

Thanks for a good meeting last week. I think we had a good discussion and ended up with practical proposals to be evaluated. Peter has kindly summarised them below. We'll keep you updated as this progresses. With best wishes

Friday 1 February

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 57 Meeting at Summer Road, East Molesey (plus inspection of site)

Attendees: Karen Jones, Mick Jones, Mike Wilson (residents of Summer Road) Peter Szanto (County Councillor, East Molesey & Esher) Nick Darby (Councillor (The Dittons) Peter Shimadry (Surrey Highways)

Concerns discussed include: Safety and driver behaviour at the junction of Hampton Court Way/Summer Road. Illegal movements (right turn into both sides of Summer Road); speeds on Hampton Court Way; speeds entering Summer Road (northbound left turn) Traffic queuing back from the level crossing onto Hampton Court Way Obstruction/access on Summer Road

Road safety monitoring and highway funding discussed. Potentially affordable improvements suggested.

To be investigated: Signing on Hampton Court Way. Rationalise/declutter/improve on both northbound and southbound approaches to junction, e.g. improve the crossroads signs, enhanced warning of prohibited movements and no-through road status of Summer Road, unsuitable for HGV signs Refresh of road markings Bollard at pedestrian crossing point to discourage illegal U-turns Measures to address obstructive parking in Summer Road, particularly at junction with Summer Gardens

Surrey Highways to provide information on the above, plus estimated costs.

I will update when I have further information.

Kind regards, Peter

Peter Shimadry Senior Engineer, North East Area Team Surrey Highways Kind regards,

Peter Szanto Surrey County Councillor East Molesey and Esher

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 58 APPENDIX 4 October 2018 Transport Consultants Report on options for a 2nd access

THIS PDF DOCUMENT WAS OBTAINED AS A REDACTED DOCUMENT UNDER A FOI REQUEST TO SCC.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 59 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 60

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 5

3. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SITE ACCESS OPTION ...... 8

4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 15

APPENDICES

A1. CORRESPONDENCE WITH SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL

A2. TRICS OUTPUTS

A3. ATC RESULTS

A4. HIGHWAY BOUNDARY

A5. ACCESS OPTION DRAWINGS

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 61 2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 has been appointed by (The Client) to prepare an Access Appraisal (AA) considering a number of access options to serve existing industrial units from Hampton Court Way, East Molesey, KT8 9AE. The units are situated on the east side of Hampton Court Way and are accessed from Summer Road to the south of the site, as can be seen from Figure 1.1 overleaf.

1.2 The units form the northern half of an existing industrial estate area, with additional units currently situated in the southern half. A planning application is currently being prepared by to redevelop the southern half of the site to provide circa 100 residential units. This southern half will be referred to as the development site throughout this report. The development site will continue to be accessed from Summer Road. As the northern site is not included within the development proposals, and will therefore remain as industrial units, it is considered that a separate access to these units would be beneficial to minimise any conflict with vehicles associated with the proposed residential properties and the remaining industrial units. As such, a number of access options have been considered which include the provision of a new access from Hampton Court Way which would allow a direct link to the remaining industrial units, ensuring that the industrial vehicles associated with the remaining industrial units do not have to enter / exit along the Summer Road access and travel through the residential site. The indicative location of the proposed access is shown at Figure 1.1 overleaf.

1.3 It should be noted that the proposal of providing a new access to serve the northern industrial units has been discussed with Tim Dukes at Surrey County Council (SCC), who has advised that a feasibility assessment should be undertaken to assess a number of access options to enable him to determine whether any access proposals would be acceptable in principle. As such, this access appraisal considers 3 options, providing details on how each would operate, along with junction capacity assessments and swept path analysis (SPA).

1.4 During discussions with SCC, trip generation rates for both the proposed and existing uses at the development site were agreed, and these rates therefore form part of this assessment. The email discussions with the highway officer are shown at Appendix A1.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 62 3

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 63 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 64 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 65 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 66

3. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SITE ACCESS OPTION

Introduction

3.1 As discussed in Section 1, this report considers the possibility of providing a vehicular access to the remaining industrial units from Hampton Court Way. The access options would allow a direct link to the remaining industrial units, ensuring that the industrial vehicles associated with the remaining industrial units do not need to use the Summer Road access road, which would mean the existing access could serve the residential units only. By providing a separate access for the northern industrial units, it removes the potential for conflict between vehicles associated with the future residential development. Residential traffic would generally arrive and depart at similar times, whereas commercial vehicles would arrive as residential traffic is departing and leave when the residential traffic is arriving. Whilst this would be of an ad-hoc nature, given the relatively low number of trips associated with the remaining industrial units, it is considered a benefit for these to be separated.

3.2 The design work undertaken has demonstrated that there are three poss ble alternative access options available;

• Option A – all movement access;

• Option B – all movements in but left out only

• Option C – restricted to left in and left out only, no right turns.

3.3 The feasibility assessments undertaken include junction capacity modelling and swept path analysis (SPA) of these three options. The tracking vehicle used is a 10 rigid, which is the largest vehicle anticipated to access the northern industrial units. In addition, the 10m rigid vehicle is the largest vehicle currently able to access the industrial estate via the existing access on Summer Road.

General Design Considerations and Observations

3.4 Vehicular access options from Hampton Court Way have been considered in detail.

3.5 The existing access lies along the southern boundary of the site, which is intended to be for future residential use only.

3.6 Hampton Court Way is a straight road and on the eastern side, where the access would be a located, a wide verge and footway/cycleway is provided meaning that visibility in both directions is very good.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 67 8

Visibility Requirements

3.7 Owing to the road being subject to a 40mph speed restriction, the visibility requirements in accordance with TD 42/95 is an ‘x’ distance of 2.4m and a ‘y’ distance of 120m.

3.8 As discussed within Section 2 of this note, an ATC has been undertaken in order to understand whether the travelled speeds are different to that of the 40 speed limit. The results of the ATC highlighted that the 85%ile speed of vehicles travelling northbound is 38.5mph and 38.3mph southbound and it is therefore considered splays of 120m are adequate.

3.9 The visibility splays are achievable on all of the design options considered, as shown on the drawings appended to this report.

Potential Access Arrangements

3.10 The formalised access options are drawn using Ordnance Survey mapping from ProMap and topographical survey received from SGD Surveys. Public maintainable highway information has been obtained from SCC to ensure the visibility splays are achievable within highway land or the development site. A plan showing the public maintainable highways is included at Appendix A4.

Option A – ‘All movements’ access 3.11 Option A is to provide an all-movements priority access immediately north of the boundary of the redevelopment site. This is a single access that will facilitate two-way vehicle passing, however, in order for this to be achieved the access needs to be 10m wide. As such, a pedestrian / cycle refuge island will be provided in the middle of the access road to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists traversing this route. This refuge island is designed in accordance with the relevant standards. In addition, in order to prevent vehicles waiting to turn right obstructing northbound traffic, this option involves providing a ghost right turn lane, using the hatching that is currently provided along the centre of the road.

3.12 Figure 4.1 below demonstrates how this option can be accommodated, with the full drawing provided at Appendix A5 as Drawing 18-T072_SKETCH_008.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 68 9

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 69

3.15 In terms of safety, there will be a slight impact associated with vehicles turning right out of the access creating a potential conflict , however, given the low number of vehicles using the access and the capacity assessment demonstrating that vehicles are able to access without significant delay, this should not impact unduly on the operation of the junction.

Option B – ‘All movements in / Left out’ access 3.16 This option involves the provision of an all movements in, but left out only access. As with option A, the access would be located immediately north of the boundary of the redevelopment site, and a pedestrian / cycle refuge island will be provided using the separation in the middle of the access to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists traversing the route along Hampton Court Way. Further, this option also incorporates the right turn lane to prevent vehicles waiting to turn right obstructing northbound traffic.

3.17 Removal of the right turn out will result in a slight improvement to highway safety when compared to Option A. It should be noted, however, that any vehicles wanting to travel northbound along Hampton Court Way when departing will be required to travel southbound and perform a U-turn at the Hampton Court Way / Embercourt Road roundabout, 1km south of the proposed access, which makes this option less attractive than Option A.

3.18 Figure 4.2 below demonstrates how this option can be accommodated, with the full drawing provided at Appendix A5 as Drawing 18-T072_SKETCH_009.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 70 11

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 71

Option C – ‘Left in / Left out’ access 3.21 This option involves the provision of a left in / left out access. The access would be located in the same position as both options detailed above, immediately north of the boundary of the redevelopment site. By providing a left-out only access, vehicles exiting only need to wait for a gap in the southbound traffic along Hampton Court Road to depart, which would technically result in reduced queuing into the site. However, given the very low amount of trips departing during peak hours, the results would not be much better than Option A and B. As with Option B, any vehicles wanting to travel northbound along Hampton Court Way after leaving will be required to travel southbound and perform a U-turn at the Hampton Court Way / Embercourt Road roundabout, 1km south of the proposed access. Similarly, vehicles travelling from the south to access the industrial units will be required to travel past the access and perform a U-turn at the roundabout junction with Hampton Court Way, Hampton Court Road and Hampton Court Bridge.

3.22 Figure 4.3 below demonstrates how this option can be accommodated, with the full drawing provided at Appendix A5 as Drawing 18-T072_SKETCH_010.

Figure 4.3 – Left in – left out only

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 72 13

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 73

4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

4.1 This feasibility assessment has reviewed the access opportunities to the existing industrial units which are located to the north of the development site. These units are currently accessed via Summer Road, however, an investigation has demonstrated that a separate access via Hampton Court Way is achievable. Three potential options have been investigated;

• Option A – all movement access;

• Option B – all movements in but left out only

• Option C – restricted to left in and left out only, no right turns.

4.2 This assessment has demonstrated that all three of these options work in capacity, safety and movement terms. Notwithstanding, Option A provides a preferred solution as it provides a safe access arrangement to the northern industrial units whilst facilitating all movements.

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 74 15

A1. CORRESPONDENCE WITH SURREY COUNY COUNCIL

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 75 Ryan Broom

To: Richard Jay Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

From: Sent: 14 August 2018 08:43 To: Tim Dukes EI ; Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hi Tim,

Once again, thanks for your assistance on this scheme so far.

Following your email below, we have looked into the internal road design to restrict the opportunity for overspill parking as you mentioned. Full details of this will be provided within the Transport Assessment at the application stage.

I do have a quick question. You mentioned previously about the possibility of a new access to the site from Hampton Court Way, at the northern extent of the site. Whilst, at this stage, a proposed access in this location does not form part of the application, my client is interested in understanding the potential opportunity for this to come forward in the future. The reasoning for providing an additional access at this location is that will provide a direct link to the industrial units to the north of the site which are to remain, and will therefore ensure that the industrial vehicles associated with this use do not have to enter / exit along the access road predominantly serving the residential units.

I would welcome your in principle thoughts on the possibility of providing an access to the site from Hampton Court Way in this location?

Please let me know should you wish to discuss further.

Kind regards,

1 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 76 The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this information.

From: Tim Dukes EI [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2018 08:07 To: Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hello again

I’ve had a chance to go through the details now and I’m satisfied that the trip rates used should be robust, particularly when paired with a good quality travel plan, I am happy to review a draft of this prior to submission if that would assist?

Regarding your query about the reduced parking provision, considering the public transport opportunities nearby, the relatively good pedestrian and cycle links I think there is a good argument for sustainable travel being a viable option for many future occupiers. As such a reduced parking provision is definitely something that can be considered. I know that there are parking pressures on Summer Road and in surrounding residential areas, so overspill parking should be considered within the TA, however, it should be possible to manage this. It may be worth considering the presence of local services within the TA to demonstrate that employment, education, retail and leisure facilities are within easy reach of future residents as well as public transport links.

While the internal layout of the site I am assuming will remain private (i.e. unadopted), I note that there a significant stretches of footway that could be open to parking on should pressure occur within the site, it may be worth considering the internal design to account for this. I have worked on several small estates that experience significant on street overspill parking that is detrimental to pedestrians and footway users, potentially causing vehicle/pedestrian conflict. This could be made worse in this case by the relatively long stretch of internal road that allows vehicle speeds to increase. You may wish to consider some form of redesign or speed reduction measures.

Finally, I’m not sure whether the northern end of the site is to be accessed via this development? If so I think it would be worthwhile considering the type of use and the numbers/sizes of vehicles using the access road. Mixing industrial traffic with residential traffic can cause problems and obviously the carriageway construction would need to be considered to account for HGVs etc.

I hope this is useful.

Kind regards

Tim

Tim Dukes Transport Development Planning

Surrey County Council Room , County Hall Penryhn Road Kingston upon Thames KT1 2DW www.surreycc.gov.uk/tdp

2 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 77 From: Sent: 26 July 2018 08:56 To: Tim Dukes EI ; Cc: Kerry James EI Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hi Tim,

Understood and appreciate you letting us know. Look forward to hearing from you next week, please do let me know if you wish to discuss further or require any clarification.

Kind regards,

The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this information.

From: Tim Dukes EI [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 July 2018 07:25 To: Cc: Kerry James EI Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hello

I’m afraid I haven’t had a chance to go through in detail the attachments you kindly sent over. I have bookmarked a time in my diary to go through them early next week though, and I’ll hopefully be able to provide you with some additional comments then.

Thanks for your patience.

Kind regards

3 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 78 Tim

From: Sent: 24 July 2018 11:46 To: Tim Dukes EI Cc: Kerry James EI Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hi Tim,

Apologies for my delay in responding, I had been on leave. As you can see below, my colleague Simon kindly provided you with a response / further information in relation to the scheme at Hampton Court Industrial Estate. Please can I ask whether you have had a chance to review this email?

I would also appreciate your thoughts on the parking provision, as per my email on the 28th June in the email trail below.

Please do not hesitate to give me a call should you wish to discuss.

Kind regards,

From: Sent: 18 July 2018 12:10 To: Tim Dukes EI ; Cc: Kerry James EI Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hi Tim,

is on leave for a few days so has asked me to respond to your email.

4 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 79

Many thanks for your prompt response, it is appreciated.

Understood in regards to the acceptability of the trip rates, the TRICS data sheets for each use was attached to my original email to Tony (attached again for your reference) but yes you are correct, these would of course be included as an appendix to our report at the application submission stage.

We will include a multimodal assessment within our Transport Assessment, which will also form part of the Framework Travel Plan.

Yes I believe that a proposal was previously put forward by a different applicant which included an access from Hampton Court Way, however, this current application is only seeking access from Summer Road. Whilst it is proposed to retain the access in the same location, some revisions are proposed. At the moment the site currently has a segregated entrance and exit arrangement, however, the proposals are to provide a single, all-movements, junction which will be designed in accordance with the design guide. Consideration is being given to providing a pedestrian/cycle access onto Hampton Court Way, but this is subject to confirming ownership boundaries and levels to determine whether this is possible.

I have attached the current layout, however, this is still being refined at present. This should give you a better idea of what is being proposed, but the application submission may change slightly in terms of the internal layout.

If you have any further comments or queries please do let us know.

Kind regards,

From: Tim Dukes EI [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 July 2018 15:04 To:

5 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 80 Cc: Kerry James EI ; Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hello

Thanks for your email, Tony has briefed me on your proposal and it looks like the information you have provided regarding trip rates taken from the TRICS database is acceptable. Obviously I would need to see the location’s of the sites chosen, and the survey types to confirm this, but I assume these would be included within any Transport Assessment submitted as part of the full application.

Given the sites location and the sustainable travel opportunities available I think multimodal trip rates would be useful to see too, this could inform the Travel Plan draft as well.

Tony mentioned that there was talk of a new access from Hampton Court Way to the site at one point, is the current proposal simply to retain the existing access?

If you have an indicative site plan that would be very useful and would help me to understand exactly what the thoughts of the Developers are at this stage of the planning process.

Many thanks

Tim

Tim Dukes Transport Development Planning

Surrey County Council Room , County Hall Penryhn Road Kingston upon Thames KT1 2DW www.surreycc.gov.uk/tdp

From: Sent: 03 July 2018 14:53 To: Tim Dukes EI Cc: Kerry James EI ; Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hi Tim,

Are you able to advise on when we are likely to receive a response to the below. Please let me know should you have any questions.

Kind regards,

6 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 81

From: Sent: 28 June 2018 14:06 To: Tony Otterson EI Cc: Kerry James EI ; Tim Dukes EI ;

Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hi Tony,

Thanks for letting me know. Tim – I look forward to hearing from you soon. Please do not hesitate to give me a call should you wish to discuss any of the points.

Kind regards,

7 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 82 The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this information.

From: Tony Otterson EI [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 June 2018 13:55 To: Cc: Kerry James EI ; Tim Dukes EI ;

Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hi ,

Many thanks for your email.

My colleague Tim Dukes will be dealing with this site from now on, and will respond to you in the near future.

Kind regards

Tony Otterson Surrey County Council Transport Development Planning Mobile:

From: Sent: 28 June 2018 13:04 To: Tony Otterson EI Cc: Kerry James EI ; Tim Dukes EI ;

Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your email, I have set out some comments and response below.

Access

Initially, thanks for confirming that SCC would likely accept the use of the existing access based on a comparison between the existing and proposed vehicle movements associated with the site.

Whilst the information you provided from Hydrock back in 2016 is noted, it is considered that this existing movements survey may not be entirely accurate as we are not aware whether the site was fully occupied at the time of the survey or not. We have undertaken an updated, TRICS based, assessment in order to determine the likely level of traffic the site could generate if it is at full capacity. The exact uses, and unit areas, have been confirmed to us by the client. For information, the site currently consists of the following: 8 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 83

Unit Use Class Area (sqm) 1A B8 – Commercial warehousing 145 1B-D B8 – Self-storage warehousing 456 1E B2 – Industrial Unit 375 1F B2 – Vehicle Repair 742 2 B8 – Commercial warehousing 894 Total 2,612

We have therefore obtained relevant trip rates from the TRICS database (attached) and applied this to the above unit mix. The full results are provided in the attached spreadsheet, however, the assessment has demonstrated that, at full occupancy, the site could generate the following:

Existing Trip Generation Arrivals Departures Two-way AM Peak 17 4 22 PM Peak 5 19 25 Daily 113 112 225

We have also utilised the trip generation you provided below for the residential element to determine a residential trip rate, and then applied this to the proposed development. I have been informed that the proposals are currently looking at a maximum of 80 residential units and circa 750sqm of commercial space. The table below summarises the likely trip generation for the proposed development:

Proposed Trip Generation Arrivals Departures Two-way AM Peak 10 15 26 PM Peak 14 12 26 Daily 113 125 238

So to compare the existing trip generation with the proposed trip generation gives the following results:

Trip Generation Comparison Arrivals Departures Two-way AM Peak -7 +11 +4 PM Peak +9 -7 +1 Daily 0 +13 +13

As can be seen, whilst the trip generation assessment has demonstrated that the proposals may result in an increase in vehicular trips associated with the site, the increase is minor, with 4 additional trips in the AM peak (1 every 15 minutes) and 1 in the PM peak. It is therefore considered that any increase will be negligible and not discernible from daily fluctuations on the network and therefore the use of the existing access is considered acceptable. Additionally, the above proposed trip generation is robust and it is anticipated the realistic vehicular trip generation will be lower at this site, especially with the implementation of a robust Travel Plan. Furthermore, as detailed below, it is the intention to provide a limited number of parking spaces at the site given the accessibility, thereby naturally reducing vehicular traffic generation as the properties will be marketed towards residents with low / zero car ownership.

We have also considered the existing trip generation based on an Industrial Estate type scenario given that the occupiers could change and this is a realistic possibility. As you can see from the table below, if this was the case the site would generate a much higher level of trips than would be the case with the proposed development. This level of trips could arise without the need for planning permission if different types of B2 and B8 occupiers were to take any of the units so could be viewed as the worst case.

Industrial Estate Trip Generation Arrivals Departures Two-way AM Peak 33 14 47 PM Peak 8 25 32 Daily 208 208 415

We are awaiting background traffic data to complete assessments of the local junction / level crossing, which will form part of the Transport Assessment at the application stage, but I trust that you agree to the acceptability in principle based on the above?

9 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 84 Parking

With regard to the parking provision, I have provided below further details on the sustainable nature of the site. As mentioned, the site is located immediately to the south of Hampton Court station, within an approximate 5 minute walk (although it is considered that this could reduce with the proposed development via the possible provision of pedestrian links to Hampton Court Way towards the north of the site). This station is manged by South Western Railway and provides a direct link to London Waterloo, with trains running every 30 minutes throughout the day and the journey taking approximately 40 minutes. There is also a good range of bus services available within an accessible range of the site. Not only are there bus stops located on either side of Hampton Court Way within the immediate vicinity of the site, there are further bus stops available on Summer Road to the south east of the site and also on Creek Road and Bridge Road to the north, by the station. These bus stops are all circa 500m (6 minute walk) from the site and provide access to a number of frequent services as detailed below.

Bus Service Destinations Peak Hour Frequency 411 Kingston upon Thames – Hampton Court – East and West Molesey 4 per hour 461 Chertsey – Addlestone – Weybridge – Kingston upon Thames 4 per hour 515 Kingston - Surbiton - Esher - Hersham - Weybridge - Addlestone 1 per hour R68 Hampton Court – Twickenham – Kew Retail Park 8 per hour Total 17 per hour

As can be seen from the table, there are a number of bus services available within the immediate vicinity of the site, with the frequent services providing access to 17 buses per hour during the peak hours.

The good public transport accessibility within the vicinity of the site is demonstrated by the 2011 Census Method of Travel to Work data which, for Elmbridge 005 (the MSOA the site is located in), shows that only 42% of residents drive as a method of travel to work.

The site is also in an accessible location with regard to services / facilities, with a number of food shops, restaurants, retail units etc. located opposite Hampton Court station.

It is therefore considered that, given the accessibility, and with the provision of a robust Travel Plan promoting sustainable modes of transport, a reduced parking provision is acceptable and suitable for this site.

Again thanks very much for your initial comments Tony and I trust the above provides some justification / clarity. If you could provide me with your thoughts on the above at your earliest opportunity that would be greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to give me a call should you wish to discuss.

Kind regards,

10 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 85 The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error please contact the sender and destroy any copies of this information.

From: Tony Otterson EI [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 June 2018 14:40 To: Cc: Kerry James EI ; Tim Dukes EI Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

I have reviewed your notes and can offer the following comments:

Access Assuming nothing has changed in relation to safety record and background traffic movement by the time of the application, then SCC would be likely to accept the use of the existing access, assuming the predicted peak period traffic generation does not exceed that of the sites’ current activity.

Hydrock had previously provided an initial assessment of the potential change in peak period traffic movements at the access as summarised below.

Existing Movements(surveyed 2016) Arrivals Departures AM Peak 13 6 PM Peak 2 19 65 unit development (Trics data) AM Peak 5 12 PM Peak 11 6

Based on the above it would appear unlikely an increased to 100 units (x1.54) plus some commercial use would result in traffic movements less than that of current levels. On this basis, we would need to see your forecasts before commenting formally.

Parking My initial thought would be at or towards the maximum to ensure there is no over spill parking on the adjacent highway. However, without details of the quality of adjacent bus services and details of local amenities it is difficult to comment formally.

Kind regards

Tony Otterson Surrey County Council Transport Development Planning Mobile:

11 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 86

From: Sent: 21 June 2018 10:55 To: Tony Otterson EI Cc: Kerry James EI ; Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hi Tony,

That would be great, thanks. Please do not hesitate to give me a call should you wish to discuss.

Kind regards,

From: Tony Otterson EI [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 June 2018 10:47 To: Cc: Kerry James EI Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Sorry for the delay in my response.

I should be in a position to review and respond to your email tomorrow. I trust this is ok.

Kind regards

12 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 87 Tony Otterson Surrey County Council Transport Development Planning Mobile:

From: Sent: 21 June 2018 10:15 To: Tony Otterson EI Cc: Kerry James EI Subject: RE: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Hi Tony,

Sorry for the chase but I was wondering if you have had the opportunity to review my email below? Please let me know should you wish to discuss on the phone.

Kind regards,

From: Sent: 13 June 2018 15:51 To: [email protected] Cc: Subject: Hampton Court Industrial Estate

Good Afternoon Tony,

13 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 88

I am not sure if you recall but you previously advised on a proposed development at Hampton Court Industrial Estate, where you were consulted on the proposed access arrangements. I have attached this correspondence for your reference. This scheme is now being taken forward by a different applicant and Iceni Projects are acting as the transport consultant. I am therefore seeking to ascertain your views on these revised proposals, mainly in relation to access. I have attached the application boundary for your reference, and this Google Maps link will take you to the site’s location.

I note from the previous correspondence that SCC accepted the use of the existing access from Summer Road in principle “our position is that the existing access does not present a problem in either capacity or more importantly safety grounds, and therefore this junction should continue to serve the development”, based on the following reasons:

• The accident record at the existing access is good, without any recorded incidents over the last 5 years. • The proposed development is likely to generate a similar or lesser volume of traffic over the working day, and is therefore unlikely to produce any additional impacts at the existing access. • The data provided did not suggest that there is currently an issue with the interaction of queues between the site access and the adjacent level crossing or the junction onto Hampton Court Way

Looking at these reasons now:

• A review of Crashmap shows that, since the previous correspondence in April 2016, no further collisions have occurred at the existing access up to the end of 2017 (the latest information available).

• The previous proposal was in relation to a 65 dwelling development. This application is seeking to provide circa 100 dwellings, with the possibility of a small element of ground floor commercial space. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the level of traffic generated by the proposed development will still be similar (or lesser) than that produced by the existing units on site.

• We will undertake a revised survey of the level crossing and the Hampton Court Way junction to assess queuing, however, considering the similar trip generation levels, and the fact that the level crossing is subject to a small number of rail movements (4 trains in total per hour) it is considered that, as before, there will not be an issue with the interaction of queues.

As such, we consider that the previous view of the access from Summer Road being suitable to serve the development still remains, subject to the updated surveys. I would appreciate if you could confirm that this is the case?

Lastly, in regards to parking at the site, whilst I acknowledge that this will ultimately be the decision of Elmbridge as the local planning authority, I was hoping to understand your views. The site is located immediately to the south of Hampton Court station, and bus stops are available on both sides of Hampton Court Way immediately adjacent to, and opposite, the Summer Road junction. There are also a number of other bus stops available within the vicinity of the site providing frequent routes to a number of destinations. It is therefore considered that the site benefits from a good level of public transport connectivity and therefore, with the provision of a detailed Travel Plan, a reduced number of parking spaces is appropriate for this site. Would you agree therefore that this site warrants a lower car parking provision than the maximum standards?

Thanks Tony and a response on this would be greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or want to discuss.

Kind regards,

14 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 89

A2. TRICS OUTPUTS

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 90 TRICS 7.5.1 290318 B18.22 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2018. All rights reserved Tuesday 26/06/18 Page 1 Iceni Projects 114-116 Charing Cross Road London Licence No: 751001

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-751001-180626-0616 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS:

Land Use : 02 - EMPLOYMENT Category : C - INDUSTRIAL UNIT VEHICLES

Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON HD HILLINGDON 1 days 02 SOUTH EAST RE READING 1 days 03 SOUTH WEST BR BRISTOL CITY 1 days 04 EAST ANGLIA SF SUFFOLK 1 days 09 NORTH TW TYNE & WEAR 1 days 12 CONNAUGHT CS SLIGO 1 days 13 MUNSTER CR CORK 1 days

Secondary Filtering selection:

Parameter: Gross floor area Actual Range: 645 to 1475 (units: sqm) Range Selected by User: 300 to 1500 (units: sqm)

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Include all surveys

Date Range: 01/01/10 to 22/09/15

Selected survey days: Tuesday 2 days Wednesday 1 days Thursday 3 days Friday 1 days

Selected survey types: Manual count 7 days Directional ATC Count 0 days

Selected Locations: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) 3 Edge of Town 4

Selected Location Sub Categories: Industrial Zone 6 Commercial Zone 1

Secondary Filtering selection:

Use Class: B 1 6 days B 2 1 days

Population within 1 mile: 1,001 to 5,000 2 days 5,001 to 10,000 1 days 10,001 to 15,000 2 days 15,001 to 20,000 2 days

Population within 5 miles: 5,001 to 25,000 1 days 75,001 to 100,000 1 days 100,001 to 125,000 1 days 125,001 to 250,000 2 days 250,001 to 500,000 2 days

Car ownership within 5 miles: 0.5 or Less 1 days 0.6 to 1.0 1 days 1.1 to 1.5 5 days

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 91 TRICS 7.5.1 290318 B18.22 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2018. All rights reserved Tuesday 26/06/18 Page 2 Iceni Projects 114-116 Charing Cross Road London Licence No: 751001

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):

Travel Plan: No 7 days

PTAL Rating: No PTAL Present 6 days 1b Very poor 1 days

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 92 TRICS 7.5.1 290318 B18.22 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2018. All rights reserved Tuesday 26/06/18 Page 3 Iceni Projects 114-116 Charing Cross Road London Licence No: 751001

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters

1 BR-02-C-02 STAINLESS FITTINGS BRISTOL CITY SOUTH LIBERTY LANE

BRISTOL Edge of Town Industrial Zone Total Gross floor area: 1 4 7 5 sqm Survey date: TUESDAY 22/09/15 Survey Type: MANUAL 2 CR-02-C-01 FABRICATIONS CORK

WALLINGSTOWN IND.EST. CORK Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Industrial Zone Total Gross floor area: 1 1 7 5 sqm Survey date: THURSDAY 13/12/12 Survey Type: MANUAL 3 CS-02-C-01 AV SPECIALISTS SLIGO RATHFINN CLOSE FINISKLIN BUSINESS PARK SLIGO Edge of Town Commercial Zone Total Gross floor area: 1 1 1 2 sqm Survey date: TUESDAY 28/04/15 Survey Type: MANUAL 4 HD-02-C-02 WINDOW PRODUCTION HILLINGDON BETAM ROAD

HAYES Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Industrial Zone Total Gross floor area: 1 0 8 0 sqm Survey date: WEDNESDAY 05/12/12 Survey Type: MANUAL 5 RE-02-C-01 SHEET METAL FABRICATION READING COMMERCIAL ROAD

READING Edge of Town Industrial Zone Total Gross floor area: 6 4 5 sqm Survey date: THURSDAY 22/11/12 Survey Type: MANUAL 6 SF-02-C-01 JOINERY SUFFOLK ANSON ROAD MARTLESHAM HEATH IPSWICH Edge of Town Industrial Zone Total Gross floor area: 1 1 0 0 sqm Survey date: FRIDAY 12/07/13 Survey Type: MANUAL 7 TW-02-C-01 INDUSTRIAL UNIT TYNE & WEAR SHAFTESBURY AVENUE TYNE POINT IND. ESTATE JARROW Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Industrial Zone Total Gross floor area: 9 5 0 sqm Survey date: THURSDAY 15/11/12 Survey Type: MANUAL

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 93 TRICS 7.5.1 290318 B18.22 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2018. All rights reserved Tuesday 26/06/18 Page 4 Iceni Projects 114-116 Charing Cross Road London Licence No: 751001

TRIP RATE for Land Use 02 - EMPLOYMENT/C - INDUSTRIAL UNIT VEHICLES Calculation factor: 100 sqm BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period

ARRIVALS DEPARTURES TOTALS No. Ave. Trip No. Ave. Trip No. Ave. Trip Time Range Days GFA Rate Days GFA Rate Days GFA 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 7 1077 0.292 7 1077 0.027 7 1077 0.319 08:00 - 09:00 7 1077 0.504 7 1077 0.106 7 1077 0.610 09:00 - 10:00 7 1077 0.411 7 1077 0.186 7 1077 0.597 10:00 - 11:00 7 1077 0.252 7 1077 0.199 7 1077 0.451 11:00 - 12:00 7 1077 0.239 7 1077 0.226 7 1077 0.465 12:00 - 13:00 7 1077 0.358 7 1077 0.372 7 1077 0.730 13:00 - 14:00 7 1077 0.318 7 1077 0.292 7 1077 0.610 14:00 - 15:00 7 1077 0.398 7 1077 0.318 7 1077 0.716 15:00 - 16:00 7 1077 0.226 7 1077 0.265 7 1077 0.491 16:00 - 17:00 7 1077 0.146 7 1077 0.517 7 1077 0.663 17:00 - 18:00 7 1077 0.040 7 1077 0.571 7 1077 0.611 18:00 - 19:00 7 1077 0.027 7 1077 0.133 7 1077 0.160 19:00 - 20:00 20:00 - 21:00 21:00 - 22:00 22:00 - 23:00 23:00 - 24:00 Total Rates: 3.211 3.212 6.423

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 94 TRICS 7.5.1 290318 B18.22 Database right of TRICS Consortium Limited, 2018. All rights reserved Tuesday 26/06/18 Page 5 Iceni Projects 114-116 Charing Cross Road London Licence No: 751001

Parameter summary

Trip rate parameter range selected: 645 - 1475 (units: sqm) Survey date date range: 01/01/10 - 22/09/15 Number of weekdays (Monday-Friday): 7 Number of Saturdays: 0 Number of Sundays: 0 Surveys automatically removed from selection: 0 Surveys manually removed from selection: 0

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 95

A3. ATC RESULTS

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 96 23478 EAST MOLESEY

SEPTEMBER 2018 Posted Speed Site Location Direction Start Date End Date Limit Total Average Average (PSL) Vehicles 5 Day Ave. 7 Day Ave. 85%ile Speed Mean Speed

A309 Hampton Court Way, Channel: Northbound Sat 15-Sep-18 Fri 21-Sep-18 104506 15537 14929 38.5 28.9 Site No: East Molesey (LC 40 23478001 85) TQ 15374 68070 Channel: Southbound Sat 15-Sep-18 Fri 21-Sep-18 98195 14475 14028 38.3 33.3

Page 1 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 97 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Sat 15-Sep-18 00:00 149 1 0.7 139 93.3 5 3.4 4 2.7 0 0.0 01:00 123 1 0.8 114 92.7 6 4.9 2 1.6 0 0.0 02:00 75 0 0.0 71 94.7 4 5.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 03:00 58 2 3.5 53 91.4 3 5.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 04:00 119 2 1.7 100 84.0 15 12.6 2 1.7 0 0.0 05:00 193 4 2.1 170 88.1 18 9.3 0 0.0 1 0.5 06:00 336 6 1.8 293 87.2 31 9.2 6 1.8 0 0.0 07:00 616 14 2.3 528 85.7 65 10.6 7 1.1 2 0.3 08:00 1020 7 0.7 911 89.3 67 6.6 32 3.1 3 0.3 09:00 895 19 2.1 797 89.1 33 3.7 42 4.7 4 0.5 10:00 916 23 2.5 811 88.5 35 3.8 40 4.4 7 0.8

11:00 893 20 2.2 821 91.9 30 3.4 19 2.1 3 0.3

12:00 815 6 0.7 757 92.9 16 2.0 28 3.4 8 1.0 13:00 903 8 0.9 838 92.8 21 2.3 31 3.4 5 0.6 14:00 874 11 1.3 790 90.4 26 3.0 44 5.0 3 0.3 15:00 1073 5 0.5 989 92.2 36 3.4 40 3.7 3 0.3 16:00 976 13 1.3 884 90.6 47 4.8 30 3.1 2 0.2 17:00 952 11 1.2 898 94.3 32 3.4 11 1.2 0 0.0 18:00 895 15 1.7 832 93.0 41 4.6 5 0.6 2 0.2 19:00 781 6 0.8 732 93.7 36 4.6 7 0.9 0 0.0 20:00 529 6 1.1 497 94.0 24 4.5 2 0.4 0 0.0 21:00 375 3 0.8 356 94.9 16 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 22:00 303 2 0.7 292 96.4 8 2.6 1 0.3 0 0.0 23:00 304 3 1.0 285 93.8 13 4.3 3 1.0 0 0.0 12H,7-19 10828 152 1.4 9856 91.0 449 4.2 329 3.0 42 0.4 16H,6-22 12849 173 1.4 11734 91.3 556 4.3 344 2.7 42 0.3 18H,6-24 13456 178 1.3 12311 91.5 577 4.3 348 2.6 42 0.3 24H,0-24 14173 188 1.3 12958 91.4 628 4.4 356 2.5 43 0.3

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 98 Page 2 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Sun 16-Sep-18 00:00 218 2 0.9 202 92.7 9 4.1 4 1.8 1 0.5 01:00 141 0 0.0 131 92.9 6 4.3 4 2.8 0 0.0 02:00 89 0 0.0 82 92.1 7 7.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 03:00 76 1 1.3 72 94.7 3 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 04:00 104 2 1.9 95 91.4 7 6.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 05:00 134 3 2.2 121 90.3 10 7.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 06:00 274 4 1.5 240 87.6 25 9.1 5 1.8 0 0.0 07:00 449 13 2.9 405 90.2 29 6.5 2 0.5 0 0.0 08:00 717 19 2.7 636 88.7 58 8.1 4 0.6 0 0.0 09:00 1032 20 1.9 956 92.6 34 3.3 22 2.1 0 0.0 10:00 1037 12 1.2 973 93.8 29 2.8 22 2.1 1 0.1 11:00 886 5 0.6 833 94.0 18 2.0 28 3.2 2 0.2 12:00 799 13 1.6 729 91.2 9 1.1 39 4.9 9 1.1 13:00 559 9 1.6 517 92.5 9 1.6 17 3.0 7 1.3 14:00 699 16 2.3 634 90.7 22 3.2 22 3.2 5 0.7 15:00 897 13 1.5 841 93.8 31 3.5 10 1.1 2 0.2 16:00 951 17 1.8 886 93.2 37 3.9 11 1.2 0 0.0 17:00 926 7 0.8 881 95.1 23 2.5 14 1.5 1 0.1 18:00 817 6 0.7 773 94.6 21 2.6 17 2.1 0 0.0 19:00 682 6 0.9 641 94.0 29 4.3 5 0.7 1 0.2 20:00 498 5 1.0 467 93.8 23 4.6 3 0.6 0 0.0 21:00 350 5 1.4 331 94.6 14 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 22:00 200 3 1.5 183 91.5 12 6.0 2 1.0 0 0.0 23:00 112 3 2.7 104 92.9 4 3.6 1 0.9 0 0.0 12H,7-19 9769 150 1.5 9064 92.8 320 3.3 208 2.1 27 0.3 16H,6-22 11573 170 1.5 10743 92.8 411 3.6 221 1.9 28 0.2 18H,6-24 11885 176 1.5 11030 92.8 427 3.6 224 1.9 28 0.2 24H,0-24 12647 184 1.5 11733 92.8 469 3.7 232 1.8 29 0.2

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 99 Page 3 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Mon 17-Sep-18 00:00 74 0 0.0 64 86.5 5 6.8 5 6.8 0 0.0 01:00 52 1 1.9 43 82.7 4 7.7 4 7.7 0 0.0 02:00 26 0 0.0 22 84.6 3 11.5 1 3.9 0 0.0 03:00 48 0 0.0 45 93.8 3 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 04:00 142 1 0.7 118 83.1 21 14.8 2 1.4 0 0.0 05:00 309 5 1.6 276 89.3 25 8.1 3 1.0 0 0.0 06:00 905 22 2.4 771 85.2 85 9.4 24 2.7 3 0.3 07:00 724 15 2.1 638 88.1 36 5.0 30 4.1 5 0.7 08:00 848 17 2.0 750 88.4 33 3.9 46 5.4 2 0.2 09:00 1060 7 0.7 918 86.6 96 9.1 36 3.4 3 0.3 10:00 934 5 0.5 775 83.0 118 12.6 25 2.7 11 1.2 11:00 914 7 0.8 801 87.6 90 9.9 16 1.8 0 0.0 12:00 835 12 1.4 695 83.2 111 13.3 16 1.9 1 0.1 13:00 814 12 1.5 680 83.5 102 12.5 18 2.2 2 0.3 14:00 848 11 1.3 706 83.3 112 13.2 14 1.7 5 0.6 15:00 1020 9 0.9 876 85.9 92 9.0 43 4.2 0 0.0 16:00 1058 9 0.9 914 86.4 82 7.8 51 4.8 2 0.2 17:00 1050 26 2.5 929 88.5 77 7.3 17 1.6 1 0.1 18:00 1044 33 3.2 936 89.7 38 3.6 36 3.5 1 0.1 19:00 707 15 2.1 644 91.1 38 5.4 10 1.4 0 0.0 20:00 495 4 0.8 461 93.1 23 4.7 6 1.2 1 0.2 21:00 359 5 1.4 332 92.5 21 5.9 1 0.3 0 0.0 22:00 212 3 1.4 196 92.5 11 5.2 2 0.9 0 0.0 23:00 118 2 1.7 111 94.1 4 3.4 1 0.9 0 0.0 12H,7-19 11149 163 1.5 9618 86.3 987 8.9 348 3.1 33 0.3 16H,6-22 13615 209 1.5 11826 86.9 1154 8.5 389 2.9 37 0.3 18H,6-24 13945 214 1.5 12133 87.0 1169 8.4 392 2.8 37 0.3 24H,0-24 14596 221 1.5 12701 87.0 1230 8.4 407 2.8 37 0.3

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 100 Page 4 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Tue 18-Sep-18 00:00 75 0 0.0 65 86.7 6 8.0 4 5.3 0 0.0 01:00 32 0 0.0 30 93.8 2 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 02:00 33 1 3.0 28 84.9 4 12.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 03:00 42 1 2.4 32 76.2 7 16.7 2 4.8 0 0.0 04:00 130 1 0.8 111 85.4 16 12.3 2 1.5 0 0.0 05:00 300 8 2.7 262 87.3 26 8.7 3 1.0 1 0.3 06:00 896 21 2.3 760 84.8 87 9.7 22 2.5 6 0.7 07:00 864 9 1.0 752 87.0 43 5.0 52 6.0 8 0.9 08:00 903 19 2.1 793 87.8 41 4.5 45 5.0 5 0.6 09:00 1065 8 0.8 929 87.2 103 9.7 24 2.3 1 0.1 10:00 933 3 0.3 809 86.7 96 10.3 24 2.6 1 0.1 11:00 853 9 1.1 736 86.3 88 10.3 17 2.0 3 0.4 12:00 964 5 0.5 844 87.6 93 9.7 18 1.9 4 0.4 13:00 889 7 0.8 771 86.7 86 9.7 23 2.6 2 0.2 14:00 867 13 1.5 736 84.9 99 11.4 15 1.7 4 0.5 15:00 1058 16 1.5 899 85.0 102 9.6 38 3.6 3 0.3 16:00 995 10 1.0 868 87.2 62 6.2 53 5.3 2 0.2 17:00 1105 20 1.8 969 87.7 53 4.8 61 5.5 2 0.2 18:00 1033 23 2.2 921 89.2 72 7.0 17 1.7 0 0.0 19:00 757 12 1.6 687 90.8 44 5.8 13 1.7 1 0.1 20:00 441 9 2.0 396 89.8 27 6.1 8 1.8 1 0.2 21:00 359 7 2.0 333 92.8 17 4.7 2 0.6 0 0.0 22:00 268 3 1.1 247 92.2 14 5.2 4 1.5 0 0.0 23:00 153 4 2.6 139 90.9 7 4.6 3 2.0 0 0.0 12H,7-19 11529 142 1.2 10027 87.0 938 8.1 387 3.4 35 0.3 16H,6-22 13982 191 1.4 12203 87.3 1113 8.0 432 3.1 43 0.3 18H,6-24 14403 198 1.4 12589 87.4 1134 7.9 439 3.1 43 0.3 24H,0-24 15015 209 1.4 13117 87.4 1195 8.0 450 3.0 44 0.3

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 101 Page 5 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Wed 19-Sep-18 00:00 88 2 2.3 67 76.1 12 13.6 7 8.0 0 0.0 01:00 53 0 0.0 43 81.1 9 17.0 1 1.9 0 0.0 02:00 33 0 0.0 28 84.9 4 12.1 1 3.0 0 0.0 03:00 53 2 3.8 40 75.5 10 18.9 1 1.9 0 0.0 04:00 146 1 0.7 122 83.6 19 13.0 4 2.7 0 0.0 05:00 313 6 1.9 272 86.9 31 9.9 4 1.3 0 0.0 06:00 905 18 2.0 764 84.4 92 10.2 26 2.9 5 0.6 07:00 924 18 2.0 815 88.2 51 5.5 37 4.0 3 0.3 08:00 895 23 2.6 785 87.7 44 4.9 41 4.6 2 0.2 09:00 1165 5 0.4 1010 86.7 88 7.6 60 5.2 2 0.2 10:00 1134 4 0.4 981 86.5 113 10.0 35 3.1 1 0.1 11:00 918 4 0.4 784 85.4 105 11.4 22 2.4 3 0.3 12:00 867 9 1.0 738 85.1 89 10.3 25 2.9 6 0.7 13:00 838 9 1.1 724 86.4 91 10.9 12 1.4 2 0.2 14:00 819 5 0.6 704 86.0 91 11.1 15 1.8 4 0.5 15:00 1008 8 0.8 889 88.2 90 8.9 19 1.9 2 0.2 16:00 1157 10 0.9 982 84.9 76 6.6 86 7.4 3 0.3 17:00 1130 21 1.9 988 87.4 62 5.5 58 5.1 1 0.1 18:00 1073 9 0.8 972 90.6 49 4.6 43 4.0 0 0.0 19:00 773 10 1.3 722 93.4 34 4.4 7 0.9 0 0.0 20:00 488 7 1.4 445 91.2 31 6.4 5 1.0 0 0.0 21:00 418 6 1.4 389 93.1 16 3.8 7 1.7 0 0.0 22:00 293 4 1.4 277 94.5 9 3.1 2 0.7 1 0.3 23:00 155 0 0.0 145 93.6 10 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 12H,7-19 11928 125 1.1 10372 87.0 949 8.0 453 3.8 29 0.2 16H,6-22 14512 166 1.1 12692 87.5 1122 7.7 498 3.4 34 0.2 18H,6-24 14960 170 1.1 13114 87.7 1141 7.6 500 3.3 35 0.2 24H,0-24 15646 181 1.2 13686 87.5 1226 7.8 518 3.3 35 0.2

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 102 Page 6 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Thu 20-Sep-18 00:00 95 2 2.1 77 81.1 12 12.6 4 4.2 0 0.0 01:00 58 0 0.0 47 81.0 10 17.2 1 1.7 0 0.0 02:00 30 1 3.3 26 86.7 1 3.3 2 6.7 0 0.0 03:00 47 2 4.3 40 85.1 4 8.5 1 2.1 0 0.0 04:00 124 0 0.0 104 83.9 16 12.9 3 2.4 1 0.8 05:00 289 11 3.8 230 79.6 39 13.5 7 2.4 2 0.7 06:00 943 13 1.4 824 87.4 89 9.4 16 1.7 1 0.1 07:00 865 23 2.7 748 86.5 58 6.7 33 3.8 3 0.4 08:00 869 22 2.5 779 89.6 29 3.3 34 3.9 5 0.6 09:00 1200 7 0.6 1043 86.9 97 8.1 49 4.1 4 0.3 10:00 1081 10 0.9 928 85.9 110 10.2 30 2.8 3 0.3 11:00 1000 5 0.5 844 84.4 121 12.1 26 2.6 4 0.4 12:00 915 4 0.4 776 84.8 108 11.8 21 2.3 6 0.7 13:00 962 9 0.9 820 85.2 104 10.8 24 2.5 5 0.5 14:00 845 7 0.8 720 85.2 97 11.5 20 2.4 1 0.1 15:00 1054 9 0.9 906 86.0 114 10.8 21 2.0 4 0.4 16:00 1070 7 0.7 949 88.7 66 6.2 45 4.2 3 0.3 17:00 1162 14 1.2 1006 86.6 66 5.7 74 6.4 2 0.2 18:00 1089 14 1.3 985 90.5 57 5.2 32 2.9 1 0.1 19:00 736 10 1.4 680 92.4 34 4.6 12 1.6 0 0.0 20:00 528 9 1.7 476 90.2 37 7.0 6 1.1 0 0.0 21:00 428 9 2.1 399 93.2 18 4.2 2 0.5 0 0.0 22:00 327 8 2.5 306 93.6 9 2.8 4 1.2 0 0.0 23:00 190 4 2.1 172 90.5 10 5.3 4 2.1 0 0.0 12H,7-19 12112 131 1.1 10504 86.7 1027 8.5 409 3.4 41 0.3 16H,6-22 14747 172 1.2 12883 87.4 1205 8.2 445 3.0 42 0.3 18H,6-24 15264 184 1.2 13361 87.5 1224 8.0 453 3.0 42 0.3 24H,0-24 15907 200 1.3 13885 87.3 1306 8.2 471 3.0 45 0.3

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 103 Page 7 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Fri 21-Sep-18 00:00 136 0 0.0 116 85.3 14 10.3 5 3.7 1 0.7 01:00 62 1 1.6 52 83.9 5 8.1 4 6.5 0 0.0 02:00 51 0 0.0 45 88.2 5 9.8 1 2.0 0 0.0 03:00 51 1 2.0 42 82.4 8 15.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 04:00 119 1 0.8 98 82.4 19 16.0 1 0.8 0 0.0 05:00 337 8 2.4 298 88.4 26 7.7 5 1.5 0 0.0 06:00 816 16 2.0 702 86.0 87 10.7 11 1.4 0 0.0 07:00 997 15 1.5 868 87.1 88 8.8 23 2.3 3 0.3 08:00 942 15 1.6 848 90.0 45 4.8 32 3.4 2 0.2 09:00 1119 11 1.0 960 85.8 121 10.8 24 2.1 3 0.3 10:00 1094 10 0.9 923 84.4 128 11.7 29 2.7 4 0.4 11:00 1031 6 0.6 878 85.2 116 11.3 29 2.8 2 0.2 12:00 1071 12 1.1 908 84.8 108 10.1 43 4.0 0 0.0 13:00 1088 6 0.6 923 84.8 119 10.9 33 3.0 7 0.6 14:00 1088 4 0.4 952 87.5 78 7.2 47 4.3 7 0.6 15:00 979 5 0.5 870 88.9 62 6.3 37 3.8 5 0.5 16:00 1044 14 1.3 923 88.4 50 4.8 55 5.3 2 0.2 17:00 1133 14 1.2 990 87.4 60 5.3 66 5.8 3 0.3 18:00 1050 12 1.1 933 88.9 67 6.4 37 3.5 1 0.1 19:00 831 13 1.6 763 91.8 39 4.7 16 1.9 0 0.0 20:00 513 6 1.2 478 93.2 26 5.1 3 0.6 0 0.0 21:00 386 4 1.0 343 88.9 35 9.1 4 1.0 0 0.0 22:00 301 7 2.3 274 91.0 16 5.3 3 1.0 1 0.3 23:00 283 4 1.4 269 95.1 7 2.5 3 1.1 0 0.0 12H,7-19 12636 124 1.0 10976 86.9 1042 8.3 455 3.6 39 0.3 16H,6-22 15182 163 1.1 13262 87.4 1229 8.1 489 3.2 39 0.3 18H,6-24 15766 174 1.1 13805 87.6 1252 7.9 495 3.1 40 0.3 24H,0-24 16522 185 1.1 14456 87.5 1329 8.0 511 3.1 41 0.3

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 104 Page 8 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 105 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 =>61 Sat 15-Sep-18 00:00 149 42.8 37.7 4.8 0 0 0 1 4 52 59 28 4 1 0 0 01:00 123 43.1 38.1 5.7 0 0 0 2 4 36 53 22 3 2 0 1 02:00 75 43.6 38.6 5.1 0 0 0 0 5 13 38 14 4 1 0 0 03:00 58 45.8 41.3 7 0 1 0 0 1 6 19 22 6 2 0 1 04:00 119 47.6 41.4 6.2 0 1 0 0 1 14 44 35 18 5 1 0 05:00 193 47.4 41.6 6.6 0 0 0 0 7 20 71 59 23 8 1 4 06:00 336 44.5 39.9 4.8 0 0 0 0 3 43 181 84 19 2 2 2 07:00 616 41 37.3 4.6 0 2 3 2 18 191 307 82 10 1 0 0 08:00 1020 37.9 29.6 8.9 25 99 86 82 119 378 200 28 2 0 0 1 09:00 895 27.5 18.9 7.9 163 179 256 143 64 73 14 1 2 0 0 0 10:00 916 19.8 13.9 5.7 354 288 177 78 12 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 11:00 893 20.9 14.8 6.4 280 343 137 71 38 18 4 2 0 0 0 0 12:00 815 19.9 13.6 5.3 343 242 138 83 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13:00 903 19.7 14.5 5.3 241 356 229 63 6 5 0 0 2 1 0 0 14:00 874 23.4 16.2 8.1 284 197 206 116 21 32 12 0 1 0 0 5 15:00 1073 31 21.8 8.1 87 208 234 217 165 120 38 4 0 0 0 0 16:00 976 37.6 28.9 9 33 84 103 93 147 312 180 16 5 3 0 0 17:00 952 37.2 30 7.9 17 65 68 63 188 370 158 22 1 0 0 0 18:00 895 39.1 34.6 4.2 0 0 1 8 132 445 277 30 1 0 1 0 19:00 781 38 33.6 4.1 0 0 1 14 158 420 172 14 2 0 0 0 20:00 529 39.8 35.4 4.3 0 0 1 3 58 229 207 28 2 1 0 0 21:00 375 40.4 36.7 3.9 0 0 0 0 14 149 175 34 3 0 0 0 22:00 303 40.5 36.9 4.2 0 0 0 1 9 115 146 27 3 2 0 0 23:00 304 41.2 37.4 4.8 0 1 0 1 19 76 159 42 3 3 0 0 12H,7-19 10828 35.5 22.7 10.7 1827 2063 1638 1019 918 1950 1191 185 24 5 1 7 16H,6-22 12849 37.1 24.7 11.1 1827 2063 1640 1036 1151 2791 1926 345 50 8 3 9 18H,6-24 13456 37.6 25.3 11.2 1827 2064 1640 1038 1179 2982 2231 414 56 13 3 9 24H,0-24 14173 38.3 26 11.4 1827 2066 1640 1041 1201 3123 2515 594 114 32 5 15

Page 10 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 106 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<5151-<56 56-<61 =>61 Sun 16-Sep-18 00:00 218 40.7 36.8 4.5 0 0 0 1 8 90 91 23 3 2 0 0 01:00 141 43.8 38.8 4.9 0 0 0 0 5 29 71 26 8 2 0 0 02:00 89 44.5 39.3 5.6 0 0 0 0 1 25 33 23 5 0 2 0 03:00 76 45.1 39.9 5.5 0 0 0 0 1 15 34 17 7 1 1 0 04:00 104 47.6 41 6 0 0 0 0 2 16 41 25 12 8 0 0 05:00 134 47.3 41.7 6.1 0 0 0 0 2 13 55 39 17 3 4 1 06:00 274 44.5 39.4 4.9 0 0 0 0 10 46 124 74 18 2 0 0 07:00 449 42 37.9 5.2 0 2 5 5 3 105 248 68 7 5 1 0 08:00 717 39.8 35.3 4.6 0 0 8 11 61 316 281 38 1 1 0 0 09:00 1032 38.1 30.7 8.2 6 65 124 34 140 419 210 28 3 2 0 1 10:00 1037 35.3 26.4 8.9 64 96 133 153 188 289 105 7 1 0 0 1 11:00 886 18.7 13.7 5.4 289 377 159 53 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 12:00 799 19.3 14.1 5.7 278 269 200 30 12 4 1 2 2 1 0 0 13:00 559 15.6 11.6 4 310 179 62 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14:00 699 32.4 18.8 9.9 189 141 169 43 32 71 39 13 1 0 1 0 15:00 897 39.2 34.7 4.2 0 1 4 8 94 482 274 31 2 1 0 0 16:00 951 38.5 32.7 6.6 9 35 29 22 128 462 242 20 4 0 0 0 17:00 926 37.9 29.4 9.6 71 54 86 43 88 370 195 16 1 2 0 0 18:00 817 38.7 29.8 9.8 45 82 72 32 46 290 232 17 1 0 0 0 19:00 682 39.3 34.4 4.9 2 3 3 27 70 323 232 20 2 0 0 0 20:00 498 40 35.4 4.5 0 0 0 2 73 189 201 30 3 0 0 0 21:00 350 41.3 37.7 4.2 0 0 0 0 8 104 182 46 9 1 0 0 22:00 200 40.8 37.4 4.3 0 0 0 1 7 57 110 22 1 2 0 0 23:00 112 45.3 40.2 6.3 0 0 0 0 1 23 52 22 8 2 2 2 12H,7-19 9769 37.8 26.4 11.1 1261 1301 1051 439 794 2811 1831 240 23 12 2 4 16H,6-22 11573 38.6 27.9 10.9 1263 1304 1054 468 955 3473 2570 410 55 15 2 4 18H,6-24 11885 38.7 28.2 11 1263 1304 1054 469 963 3553 2732 454 64 19 4 6 24H,0-24 12647 39.2 28.9 11 1263 1304 1054 470 982 3741 3057 607 116 35 11 7

Page 11 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 107 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<5151-<56 56-<61 =>61 Mon 17-Sep-18 00:00 74 46.3 41.1 6.7 0 0 0 0 1 14 26 21 7 3 0 2 01:00 52 45 40.1 5.5 0 0 1 0 0 6 24 16 4 1 0 0 02:00 26 50.3 43.1 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 8 2 3 1 0 03:00 48 45.7 40 5.9 0 0 0 0 4 5 20 12 6 1 0 0 04:00 142 45.7 40.8 5.4 0 0 0 0 2 20 57 44 14 4 1 0 05:00 309 45.2 40.2 4.9 0 0 0 0 8 30 155 83 28 5 0 0 06:00 905 38.7 32.4 6.6 1 35 11 57 207 348 203 38 4 0 1 0 07:00 724 19.9 14.1 5.7 248 269 126 50 26 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 08:00 848 20.2 14.7 5.5 233 317 205 76 12 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 09:00 1060 35.9 27.2 8.6 13 116 191 137 125 327 142 9 0 0 0 0 10:00 934 39.3 35 4.1 0 0 1 1 93 534 250 49 4 1 1 0 11:00 914 39.7 35.3 4.4 0 1 2 5 100 426 331 43 2 3 0 1 12:00 835 40.2 35.7 4.8 0 1 0 19 74 346 324 61 9 0 0 1 13:00 814 39.6 34.9 4.7 0 2 5 12 103 362 287 39 4 0 0 0 14:00 848 39.8 35.4 4.8 0 2 8 12 85 332 366 37 5 0 1 0 15:00 1020 37.5 28.1 9.5 43 107 128 84 146 304 179 23 4 1 0 1 16:00 1058 31.7 21 9.2 113 269 199 218 86 104 48 12 3 3 0 3 17:00 1050 38.1 32.6 5.5 1 10 29 53 237 457 249 14 0 0 0 0 18:00 1044 35.6 27.3 8.5 68 45 118 176 214 290 124 6 2 0 1 0 19:00 707 39.7 34.9 4.9 0 1 1 11 100 332 212 42 6 0 1 1 20:00 495 40 35.8 4.4 0 0 0 7 47 193 216 27 5 0 0 0 21:00 359 41.9 37.9 4.7 0 0 0 0 6 114 175 53 8 0 1 2 22:00 212 42.9 38.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 1 55 111 33 10 2 0 0 23:00 118 43.6 38.6 5.2 0 0 0 0 3 31 57 17 8 1 1 0 12H,7-19 11149 38.1 28.5 9.9 719 1139 1012 843 1301 3488 2301 295 33 8 3 7 16H,6-22 13615 38.6 29.6 9.6 720 1175 1024 918 1661 4475 3107 455 56 8 6 10 18H,6-24 13945 38.7 29.8 9.6 720 1175 1024 918 1665 4561 3275 505 74 11 7 10 24H,0-24 14596 39.2 30.3 9.7 720 1175 1025 918 1680 4637 3568 689 135 28 9 12

Page 12 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 108 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<5151-<56 56-<61 =>61 Tue 18-Sep-18 00:00 75 45 40.2 5.4 0 0 0 0 1 12 35 19 5 2 1 0 01:00 32 47.7 40.8 6.9 0 0 0 0 2 7 6 10 5 2 0 0 02:00 33 45.4 41.1 6.1 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 8 4 0 0 1 03:00 42 48.8 41.5 6.8 0 0 0 0 2 6 13 12 4 5 0 0 04:00 130 49.2 42.5 6.4 0 0 0 0 1 19 34 40 25 8 3 0 05:00 300 45.2 40.1 5.3 0 0 0 0 4 51 136 75 26 5 2 1 06:00 896 39.2 30.7 8.5 19 30 91 114 125 232 236 43 5 1 0 0 07:00 864 25.7 16.5 7.6 278 204 142 116 88 31 5 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 903 26.8 17.8 8.2 197 229 260 75 40 79 16 5 2 0 0 0 09:00 1065 37.3 32.6 4.9 0 7 10 64 238 532 200 12 1 0 1 0 10:00 933 39 33.6 5.6 0 9 25 40 128 434 261 29 7 0 0 0 11:00 853 39.4 34.4 4.9 0 3 7 21 134 364 290 30 3 1 0 0 12:00 964 38.2 33.2 5.2 2 17 4 24 189 486 221 17 2 2 0 0 13:00 889 39.3 35.2 3.9 0 0 1 2 66 492 291 30 7 0 0 0 14:00 867 39.4 34.6 4.5 0 0 2 11 151 377 289 34 2 0 1 0 15:00 1058 36.2 28.5 8.4 23 83 158 61 204 363 148 17 1 0 0 0 16:00 995 24.7 18.2 7.4 136 272 346 124 40 46 26 3 1 0 0 1 17:00 1105 24.9 18.5 6 97 301 349 245 88 23 1 0 1 0 0 0 18:00 1033 37.6 32.6 5.4 0 14 33 42 184 541 205 13 1 0 0 0 19:00 757 39 33.8 5 0 1 4 32 155 321 217 22 5 0 0 0 20:00 441 40.8 36.8 4.3 0 0 0 0 21 168 195 51 5 1 0 0 21:00 359 40.7 37.1 4.6 0 0 0 2 15 123 174 37 4 2 2 0 22:00 268 42.5 37.6 4.8 0 0 0 0 10 94 110 45 6 3 0 0 23:00 153 44.4 39 5.4 0 0 0 2 3 34 68 33 11 1 1 0 12H,7-19 11529 37.1 27.9 9.6 733 1139 1337 825 1550 3768 1953 190 28 3 2 1 16H,6-22 13982 37.9 28.9 9.4 752 1170 1432 973 1866 4612 2775 343 47 7 4 1 18H,6-24 14403 38.2 29.2 9.5 752 1170 1432 975 1879 4740 2953 421 64 11 5 1 24H,0-24 15015 38.7 29.6 9.6 752 1170 1432 975 1889 4839 3193 585 133 33 11 3

Page 13 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 109 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<5151-<56 56-<61 =>61 Wed 19-Sep-18 00:00 88 44.3 38.4 6.4 0 0 0 0 3 34 28 14 6 1 1 1 01:00 53 47.4 40.2 8.3 0 0 0 0 4 12 20 8 2 3 3 1 02:00 33 50.6 41.5 7.1 0 0 0 0 1 6 11 7 3 5 0 0 03:00 53 46.7 41.6 7 0 0 0 0 2 8 15 19 4 3 1 1 04:00 146 45.8 40.8 5.6 0 1 0 0 0 25 48 52 16 4 0 0 05:00 313 45.2 40.3 5.2 0 0 0 0 5 40 154 80 27 3 3 1 06:00 905 39.8 32.4 7.6 4 23 60 88 150 248 260 66 6 0 0 0 07:00 924 26.3 18 7.4 174 252 207 146 95 39 10 1 0 0 0 0 08:00 895 21.3 16.4 5.8 117 341 296 112 17 5 3 2 0 0 0 2 09:00 1165 32.7 23.8 7.3 13 135 348 243 183 198 40 5 0 0 0 0 10:00 1134 35.3 29.4 7 11 66 87 74 303 496 90 5 1 0 0 1 11:00 918 38.6 33.7 4.7 0 0 8 36 166 442 244 21 0 1 0 0 12:00 867 38.7 33.2 5.7 12 4 10 27 173 379 242 20 0 0 0 0 13:00 838 39.5 35.1 4.2 0 1 1 7 82 408 306 28 5 0 0 0 14:00 819 38.9 34.1 4.8 0 4 10 14 121 408 238 23 0 0 1 0 15:00 1008 38.3 33.2 4.8 0 0 12 42 236 456 238 23 0 1 0 0 16:00 1157 30.3 20.1 7.9 98 318 321 142 121 131 25 0 1 0 0 0 17:00 1130 34.7 25 8.5 11 182 255 173 144 265 95 2 2 0 1 0 18:00 1073 35.8 28.2 7.9 16 61 144 171 213 318 137 10 1 0 2 0 19:00 773 38.8 34.2 4.3 0 1 1 8 132 399 207 21 3 1 0 0 20:00 488 40.5 36.2 4.6 0 0 0 5 34 208 187 49 2 3 0 0 21:00 418 40.5 36.3 4.6 0 0 0 2 33 167 170 39 6 0 0 1 22:00 293 42.3 37.3 4.8 0 0 1 1 13 103 119 46 10 0 0 0 23:00 155 43.6 38.9 4.7 0 0 0 0 2 35 82 24 10 2 0 0 12H,7-19 11928 36.1 27.2 9.1 452 1364 1699 1187 1854 3545 1668 140 10 2 4 3 16H,6-22 14512 37.3 28.5 9 456 1388 1760 1290 2203 4567 2492 315 27 6 4 4 18H,6-24 14960 37.7 28.8 9.1 456 1388 1761 1291 2218 4705 2693 385 47 8 4 4 24H,0-24 15646 38.3 29.3 9.3 456 1389 1761 1291 2233 4830 2969 565 105 27 12 8

Page 14 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 110 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<5151-<56 56-<61 =>61 Thu 20-Sep-18 00:00 95 44.8 39 6.2 0 0 0 0 7 21 40 16 5 6 0 0 01:00 58 44.9 38.9 6.7 0 0 0 2 0 17 22 10 5 1 0 1 02:00 30 48.5 42.5 6.8 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 8 4 2 0 1 03:00 47 48.4 42.5 6.2 0 0 0 0 0 2 22 14 3 5 0 1 04:00 124 48.5 42.2 6.1 0 0 0 0 2 12 43 40 16 9 2 0 05:00 289 45.2 40.1 5.6 0 0 2 0 9 27 151 67 25 5 1 2 06:00 943 39.4 33.3 6.5 2 23 29 35 160 366 277 42 9 0 0 0 07:00 865 26.6 17.7 8 197 209 236 85 61 57 17 3 0 0 0 0 08:00 869 25.8 16.6 7.8 218 314 134 75 59 61 6 1 1 0 0 0 09:00 1200 32.2 23 7.9 66 185 267 253 203 185 37 4 0 0 0 0 10:00 1081 35.5 31.3 4.7 0 1 29 77 346 519 103 6 0 0 0 0 11:00 1000 36.8 32.8 4.4 0 0 5 56 209 553 162 15 0 0 0 0 12:00 915 38.8 34.1 4.4 1 0 2 22 143 475 242 28 2 0 0 0 13:00 962 38.2 33.5 4.8 0 1 6 55 149 518 200 29 1 2 1 0 14:00 845 39.6 35.7 3.6 0 0 0 1 40 430 347 23 3 1 0 0 15:00 1054 37.8 29.9 9 54 73 74 46 163 412 206 20 4 1 1 0 16:00 1070 32.9 21 9.2 126 267 249 96 113 155 62 1 0 0 0 1 17:00 1162 30.7 23.4 7.3 60 102 259 328 251 126 30 4 1 0 0 1 18:00 1089 35.8 30.1 6.9 2 31 98 117 264 432 128 12 1 0 0 4 19:00 736 39.3 34.6 4.8 0 1 2 17 100 353 233 21 5 1 3 0 20:00 528 40 35.9 4.1 0 0 1 1 33 240 215 34 3 1 0 0 21:00 428 40.3 36.3 4 0 0 0 0 18 196 174 35 5 0 0 0 22:00 327 40.8 37.3 4.5 0 0 0 0 16 104 165 33 6 2 1 0 23:00 190 44.4 39.7 4.9 0 0 0 1 4 27 90 57 9 1 0 1 12H,7-19 12112 35.9 27.4 9.2 724 1183 1359 1211 2001 3923 1540 146 13 4 2 6 16H,6-22 14747 37.1 28.7 9.1 726 1207 1391 1264 2312 5078 2439 278 35 6 5 6 18H,6-24 15264 37.6 29 9.1 726 1207 1391 1265 2332 5209 2694 368 50 9 6 7 24H,0-24 15907 38.2 29.5 9.3 726 1207 1393 1267 2350 5291 2984 523 108 37 9 12

Page 15 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 111 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Northbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<5151-<56 56-<61 =>61 Fri 21-Sep-18 00:00 136 42.6 37.5 5.1 0 0 0 0 8 48 53 19 7 1 0 0 01:00 62 42.6 38 4.4 0 0 0 0 2 17 29 13 1 0 0 0 02:00 51 45.2 39.3 6.7 0 0 0 1 4 6 26 7 3 4 0 0 03:00 51 45.8 41 7.2 0 0 0 1 2 8 15 17 3 3 2 0 04:00 119 46.5 41.4 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 16 45 38 17 1 1 1 05:00 337 42.4 38.1 4.9 0 0 1 0 17 75 178 52 11 1 2 0 06:00 816 40 35.8 4.4 1 0 4 6 61 333 356 52 3 0 0 0 07:00 997 38.6 32.6 6.6 13 21 33 40 169 430 266 19 3 2 1 0 08:00 942 35.4 22.5 11.3 170 244 87 34 62 230 104 6 2 1 0 2 09:00 1119 38.3 33.1 5.4 0 10 17 54 213 543 249 26 1 4 0 2 10:00 1094 36.9 31 7 12 23 79 91 208 484 175 18 0 0 0 4 11:00 1031 37.6 31.1 6.7 2 28 61 104 232 384 204 13 2 0 0 1 12:00 1071 35.4 25.5 8.9 41 126 236 149 128 264 122 5 0 0 0 0 13:00 1088 34.7 26.1 8.5 35 112 202 137 224 290 74 9 4 0 0 1 14:00 1088 34.2 24.4 8.8 86 137 171 203 184 226 78 2 1 0 0 0 15:00 979 33.6 22.7 9.3 115 186 148 131 143 207 46 3 0 0 0 0 16:00 1044 21.6 16.3 6.3 194 349 328 128 27 11 2 0 0 1 2 2 17:00 1133 23.8 17.6 5.9 129 347 396 162 76 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 1050 36 29.1 7.6 26 43 83 152 237 353 141 13 2 0 0 0 19:00 831 38.6 34.2 4.1 0 0 1 10 129 452 215 20 4 0 0 0 20:00 513 40.4 36.3 4.6 0 0 0 9 42 169 246 41 6 0 0 0 21:00 386 40.5 36.5 4.7 0 0 0 0 25 157 163 34 3 1 2 1 22:00 301 40.7 36.5 5.1 1 0 0 4 19 110 129 32 4 1 0 1 23:00 283 41.4 37.4 4.5 0 0 0 0 14 91 132 39 6 1 0 0 12H,7-19 12636 35.6 26 9.5 823 1626 1841 1385 1903 3443 1463 114 15 8 3 12 16H,6-22 15182 37 27.6 9.5 824 1626 1846 1410 2160 4554 2443 261 31 9 5 13 18H,6-24 15766 37.4 28 9.5 825 1626 1846 1414 2193 4755 2704 332 41 11 5 14 24H,0-24 16522 37.9 28.4 9.7 825 1626 1847 1416 2226 4925 3050 478 83 21 10 15

Page 16 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 112 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 113 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 114 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Sat 15-Sep-18 00:00 241 2 0.8 227 94.2 10 4.2 2 0.8 0 0.0 01:00 151 1 0.7 135 89.4 9 6.0 6 4.0 0 0.0 02:00 115 2 1.7 101 87.8 11 9.6 0 0.0 1 0.9 03:00 80 1 1.3 64 80.0 9 11.3 4 5.0 2 2.5 04:00 71 0 0.0 57 80.3 12 16.9 2 2.8 0 0.0 05:00 109 5 4.6 90 82.6 12 11.0 2 1.8 0 0.0 06:00 236 6 2.5 190 80.5 31 13.1 8 3.4 1 0.4 07:00 518 20 3.9 436 84.2 53 10.2 9 1.7 0 0.0 08:00 785 17 2.2 717 91.3 35 4.5 13 1.7 3 0.4 09:00 756 18 2.4 696 92.1 36 4.8 6 0.8 0 0.0 10:00 780 15 1.9 744 95.4 19 2.4 2 0.3 0 0.0 11:00 814 20 2.5 767 94.2 24 3.0 3 0.4 0 0.0 12:00 794 25 3.2 728 91.7 32 4.0 9 1.1 0 0.0 13:00 856 17 2.0 807 94.3 24 2.8 7 0.8 1 0.1 14:00 783 19 2.4 734 93.7 27 3.5 3 0.4 0 0.0 15:00 886 15 1.7 835 94.2 25 2.8 10 1.1 1 0.1 16:00 1037 10 1.0 995 96.0 24 2.3 8 0.8 0 0.0 17:00 1100 13 1.2 1060 96.4 22 2.0 5 0.5 0 0.0 18:00 1065 7 0.7 1015 95.3 29 2.7 14 1.3 0 0.0 19:00 832 9 1.1 791 95.1 29 3.5 2 0.2 1 0.1 20:00 492 5 1.0 463 94.1 21 4.3 2 0.4 1 0.2 21:00 426 1 0.2 414 97.2 9 2.1 2 0.5 0 0.0 22:00 419 6 1.4 397 94.8 15 3.6 1 0.2 0 0.0 23:00 367 3 0.8 357 97.3 6 1.6 1 0.3 0 0.0 12H,7-19 10174 196 1.9 9534 93.7 350 3.4 89 0.9 5 0.1 16H,6-22 12160 217 1.8 11392 93.7 440 3.6 103 0.9 8 0.1 18H,6-24 12946 226 1.8 12146 93.8 461 3.6 105 0.8 8 0.1 24H,0-24 13713 237 1.7 12820 93.5 524 3.8 121 0.9 11 0.1

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 115 Page 19 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Sun 16-Sep-18 00:00 253 2 0.8 240 94.9 11 4.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 01:00 140 2 1.4 132 94.3 5 3.6 1 0.7 0 0.0 02:00 72 2 2.8 63 87.5 5 6.9 2 2.8 0 0.0 03:00 67 1 1.5 63 94.0 1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 04:00 35 1 2.9 30 85.7 4 11.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 05:00 79 2 2.5 70 88.6 7 8.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 06:00 153 7 4.6 136 88.9 9 5.9 1 0.7 0 0.0 07:00 216 6 2.8 189 87.5 19 8.8 2 0.9 0 0.0 08:00 473 20 4.2 419 88.6 26 5.5 7 1.5 1 0.2 09:00 722 12 1.7 680 94.2 22 3.1 8 1.1 0 0.0 10:00 688 20 2.9 637 92.6 23 3.3 8 1.2 0 0.0 11:00 766 20 2.6 732 95.6 11 1.4 3 0.4 0 0.0 12:00 835 21 2.5 786 94.1 22 2.6 6 0.7 0 0.0 13:00 756 19 2.5 719 95.1 16 2.1 2 0.3 0 0.0 14:00 664 14 2.1 639 96.2 10 1.5 1 0.2 0 0.0 15:00 844 24 2.8 797 94.4 15 1.8 7 0.8 1 0.1 16:00 920 11 1.2 890 96.7 12 1.3 7 0.8 0 0.0 17:00 961 13 1.4 923 96.1 20 2.1 5 0.5 0 0.0 18:00 955 8 0.8 916 95.9 25 2.6 6 0.6 0 0.0 19:00 850 4 0.5 799 94.0 41 4.8 6 0.7 0 0.0 20:00 829 2 0.2 796 96.0 26 3.1 5 0.6 0 0.0 21:00 390 5 1.3 359 92.1 23 5.9 3 0.8 0 0.0 22:00 280 1 0.4 269 96.1 9 3.2 1 0.4 0 0.0 23:00 161 3 1.9 148 91.9 8 5.0 2 1.2 0 0.0 12H,7-19 8800 188 2.1 8327 94.6 221 2.5 62 0.7 2 0.0 16H,6-22 11022 206 1.9 10417 94.5 320 2.9 77 0.7 2 0.0 18H,6-24 11463 210 1.8 10834 94.5 337 2.9 80 0.7 2 0.0 24H,0-24 12109 220 1.8 11432 94.4 370 3.1 84 0.7 3 0.0

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 116 Page 20 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Mon 17-Sep-18 00:00 60 1 1.7 58 96.7 1 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 01:00 28 1 3.6 21 75.0 3 10.7 3 10.7 0 0.0 02:00 28 0 0.0 26 92.9 2 7.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 03:00 33 0 0.0 25 75.8 7 21.2 1 3.0 0 0.0 04:00 72 0 0.0 62 86.1 6 8.3 3 4.2 1 1.4 05:00 177 5 2.8 153 86.4 18 10.2 1 0.6 0 0.0 06:00 519 11 2.1 442 85.2 54 10.4 10 1.9 2 0.4 07:00 865 17 2.0 788 91.1 54 6.2 6 0.7 0 0.0 08:00 815 13 1.6 747 91.7 40 4.9 13 1.6 2 0.3 09:00 800 8 1.0 679 84.9 93 11.6 19 2.4 1 0.1 10:00 745 8 1.1 642 86.2 79 10.6 13 1.7 3 0.4 11:00 767 8 1.0 657 85.7 84 11.0 17 2.2 1 0.1 12:00 749 8 1.1 666 88.9 59 7.9 14 1.9 2 0.3 13:00 831 17 2.1 728 87.6 67 8.1 18 2.2 1 0.1 14:00 976 19 2.0 846 86.7 88 9.0 21 2.2 2 0.2 15:00 941 14 1.5 856 91.0 58 6.2 12 1.3 1 0.1 16:00 977 24 2.5 907 92.8 36 3.7 9 0.9 1 0.1 17:00 1118 23 2.1 1037 92.8 42 3.8 16 1.4 0 0.0 18:00 1039 25 2.4 970 93.4 40 3.9 4 0.4 0 0.0 19:00 773 12 1.6 722 93.4 30 3.9 8 1.0 1 0.1 20:00 494 4 0.8 473 95.8 16 3.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 21:00 379 7 1.9 349 92.1 17 4.5 6 1.6 0 0.0 22:00 282 5 1.8 264 93.6 10 3.6 3 1.1 0 0.0 23:00 174 6 3.5 160 92.0 8 4.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 12H,7-19 10623 184 1.7 9523 89.7 740 7.0 162 1.5 14 0.1 16H,6-22 12788 218 1.7 11509 90.0 857 6.7 187 1.5 17 0.1 18H,6-24 13244 229 1.7 11933 90.1 875 6.6 190 1.4 17 0.1 24H,0-24 13642 236 1.7 12278 90.0 912 6.7 198 1.5 18 0.1

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 117 Page 21 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Tue 18-Sep-18 00:00 65 0 0.0 60 92.3 4 6.2 1 1.5 0 0.0 01:00 41 0 0.0 37 90.2 3 7.3 1 2.4 0 0.0 02:00 24 0 0.0 18 75.0 4 16.7 1 4.2 1 4.2 03:00 37 1 2.7 26 70.3 8 21.6 1 2.7 1 2.7 04:00 72 0 0.0 58 80.6 14 19.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 05:00 174 5 2.9 138 79.3 26 14.9 5 2.9 0 0.0 06:00 566 11 1.9 481 85.0 60 10.6 12 2.1 2 0.4 07:00 897 15 1.7 806 89.9 63 7.0 13 1.5 0 0.0 08:00 894 18 2.0 815 91.2 44 4.9 13 1.5 4 0.5 09:00 874 11 1.3 749 85.7 98 11.2 14 1.6 2 0.2 10:00 740 13 1.8 626 84.6 84 11.4 15 2.0 2 0.3 11:00 803 8 1.0 701 87.3 79 9.8 14 1.7 1 0.1 12:00 763 10 1.3 679 89.0 65 8.5 9 1.2 0 0.0 13:00 794 15 1.9 684 86.2 76 9.6 16 2.0 3 0.4 14:00 972 14 1.4 846 87.0 82 8.4 24 2.5 6 0.6 15:00 969 17 1.8 870 89.8 73 7.5 9 0.9 0 0.0 16:00 957 20 2.1 895 93.5 33 3.5 8 0.8 1 0.1 17:00 1006 21 2.1 952 94.6 27 2.7 4 0.4 2 0.2 18:00 1076 30 2.8 1006 93.5 30 2.8 10 0.9 0 0.0 19:00 707 13 1.8 657 92.9 29 4.1 8 1.1 0 0.0 20:00 541 8 1.5 499 92.2 29 5.4 5 0.9 0 0.0 21:00 433 2 0.5 409 94.5 15 3.5 7 1.6 0 0.0 22:00 317 2 0.6 301 95.0 13 4.1 1 0.3 0 0.0 23:00 268 4 1.5 239 89.2 20 7.5 5 1.9 0 0.0 12H,7-19 10745 192 1.8 9629 89.6 754 7.0 149 1.4 21 0.2 16H,6-22 12992 226 1.7 11675 89.9 887 6.8 181 1.4 23 0.2 18H,6-24 13577 232 1.7 12215 90.0 920 6.8 187 1.4 23 0.2 24H,0-24 13990 238 1.7 12552 89.7 979 7.0 196 1.4 25 0.2

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 118 Page 22 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Wed 19-Sep-18 00:00 94 1 1.1 84 89.4 8 8.5 1 1.1 0 0.0 01:00 38 0 0.0 30 79.0 7 18.4 1 2.6 0 0.0 02:00 35 1 2.9 27 77.1 4 11.4 2 5.7 1 2.9 03:00 45 1 2.2 32 71.1 11 24.4 1 2.2 0 0.0 04:00 65 2 3.1 46 70.8 15 23.1 2 3.1 0 0.0 05:00 163 0 0.0 134 82.2 25 15.3 4 2.5 0 0.0 06:00 592 13 2.2 510 86.2 50 8.5 17 2.9 2 0.3 07:00 921 20 2.2 805 87.4 79 8.6 15 1.6 2 0.2 08:00 917 25 2.7 830 90.5 49 5.3 12 1.3 1 0.1 09:00 828 6 0.7 720 87.0 82 9.9 17 2.1 3 0.4 10:00 835 6 0.7 716 85.8 92 11.0 19 2.3 2 0.2 11:00 905 9 1.0 779 86.1 95 10.5 20 2.2 2 0.2 12:00 845 8 1.0 751 88.9 60 7.1 23 2.7 3 0.4 13:00 1072 13 1.2 930 86.8 99 9.2 29 2.7 1 0.1 14:00 1196 13 1.1 1023 85.5 105 8.8 51 4.3 4 0.3 15:00 1078 12 1.1 957 88.8 76 7.1 31 2.9 2 0.2 16:00 1022 15 1.5 957 93.6 34 3.3 15 1.5 1 0.1 17:00 1057 29 2.7 972 92.0 44 4.2 12 1.1 0 0.0 18:00 1008 29 2.9 945 93.8 25 2.5 8 0.8 1 0.1 19:00 833 13 1.6 796 95.6 21 2.5 3 0.4 0 0.0 20:00 599 9 1.5 560 93.5 27 4.5 3 0.5 0 0.0 21:00 411 3 0.7 389 94.7 17 4.1 2 0.5 0 0.0 22:00 350 7 2.0 327 93.4 11 3.1 5 1.4 0 0.0 23:00 300 4 1.3 275 91.7 16 5.3 5 1.7 0 0.0 12H,7-19 11684 185 1.6 10385 88.9 840 7.2 252 2.2 22 0.2 16H,6-22 14119 223 1.6 12640 89.5 955 6.8 277 2.0 24 0.2 18H,6-24 14769 234 1.6 13242 89.7 982 6.7 287 1.9 24 0.2 24H,0-24 15209 239 1.6 13595 89.4 1052 6.9 298 2.0 25 0.2

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 119 Page 23 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Thu 20-Sep-18 00:00 107 2 1.9 89 83.2 14 13.1 2 1.9 0 0.0 01:00 53 0 0.0 44 83.0 6 11.3 3 5.7 0 0.0 02:00 36 1 2.8 28 77.8 7 19.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 03:00 46 0 0.0 35 76.1 8 17.4 3 6.5 0 0.0 04:00 68 0 0.0 52 76.5 13 19.1 3 4.4 0 0.0 05:00 164 2 1.2 132 80.5 24 14.6 6 3.7 0 0.0 06:00 597 14 2.4 523 87.6 47 7.9 11 1.8 2 0.3 07:00 929 17 1.8 812 87.4 85 9.2 13 1.4 2 0.2 08:00 923 16 1.7 835 90.5 57 6.2 13 1.4 2 0.2 09:00 828 10 1.2 726 87.7 74 8.9 14 1.7 4 0.5 10:00 761 6 0.8 631 82.9 111 14.6 10 1.3 3 0.4 11:00 837 8 1.0 717 85.7 94 11.2 16 1.9 2 0.2 12:00 898 4 0.5 798 88.9 79 8.8 15 1.7 2 0.2 13:00 895 9 1.0 797 89.1 70 7.8 15 1.7 4 0.5 14:00 1035 8 0.8 927 89.6 77 7.4 20 1.9 3 0.3 15:00 1030 14 1.4 938 91.1 66 6.4 12 1.2 0 0.0 16:00 1077 17 1.6 1001 92.9 44 4.1 12 1.1 3 0.3 17:00 1015 19 1.9 949 93.5 40 3.9 6 0.6 1 0.1 18:00 1058 23 2.2 985 93.1 31 2.9 19 1.8 0 0.0 19:00 831 15 1.8 778 93.6 22 2.7 16 1.9 0 0.0 20:00 626 8 1.3 590 94.3 21 3.4 7 1.1 0 0.0 21:00 436 5 1.2 412 94.5 15 3.4 4 0.9 0 0.0 22:00 339 7 2.1 317 93.5 11 3.2 4 1.2 0 0.0 23:00 204 3 1.5 189 92.7 9 4.4 3 1.5 0 0.0 12H,7-19 11286 151 1.3 10116 89.6 828 7.3 165 1.5 26 0.2 16H,6-22 13776 193 1.4 12419 90.2 933 6.8 203 1.5 28 0.2 18H,6-24 14319 203 1.4 12925 90.3 953 6.7 210 1.5 28 0.2 24H,0-24 14793 208 1.4 13305 89.9 1025 6.9 227 1.5 28 0.2

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 120 Page 24 of 35 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

TIME TOTAL MOTOR- MOTOR- PERIOD VEHICLES CYCLES CYCLES% CARS CARS % LGV LGV % HGV HGV % BUS BUS % Fri 21-Sep-18 00:00 117 2 1.7 107 91.5 6 5.1 2 1.7 0 0.0 01:00 41 0 0.0 39 95.1 1 2.4 1 2.4 0 0.0 02:00 34 0 0.0 31 91.2 3 8.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 03:00 37 0 0.0 27 73.0 7 18.9 1 2.7 2 5.4 04:00 67 1 1.5 52 77.6 11 16.4 3 4.5 0 0.0 05:00 210 2 1.0 180 85.7 22 10.5 4 1.9 2 1.0 06:00 552 12 2.2 468 84.8 57 10.3 14 2.5 1 0.2 07:00 990 17 1.7 863 87.2 87 8.8 21 2.1 2 0.2 08:00 1029 16 1.6 930 90.4 69 6.7 11 1.1 3 0.3 09:00 840 16 1.9 720 85.7 86 10.2 17 2.0 1 0.1 10:00 745 10 1.3 632 84.8 91 12.2 11 1.5 1 0.1 11:00 844 17 2.0 729 86.4 83 9.8 13 1.5 2 0.2 12:00 828 15 1.8 736 88.9 62 7.5 14 1.7 1 0.1 13:00 914 8 0.9 833 91.1 65 7.1 6 0.7 2 0.2 14:00 955 11 1.2 861 90.2 60 6.3 19 2.0 4 0.4 15:00 989 14 1.4 900 91.0 61 6.2 13 1.3 1 0.1 16:00 900 18 2.0 838 93.1 36 4.0 6 0.7 2 0.2 17:00 1047 19 1.8 995 95.0 26 2.5 7 0.7 0 0.0 18:00 1021 18 1.8 959 93.9 35 3.4 8 0.8 1 0.1 19:00 821 11 1.3 766 93.3 29 3.5 14 1.7 1 0.1 20:00 560 7 1.3 525 93.8 24 4.3 4 0.7 0 0.0 21:00 445 7 1.6 424 95.3 12 2.7 2 0.5 0 0.0 22:00 426 7 1.6 408 95.8 7 1.6 3 0.7 1 0.2 23:00 327 2 0.6 311 95.1 11 3.4 3 0.9 0 0.0 12H,7-19 11102 179 1.6 9996 90.0 761 6.9 146 1.3 20 0.2 16H,6-22 13480 216 1.6 12179 90.4 883 6.6 180 1.3 22 0.2 18H,6-24 14233 225 1.6 12898 90.6 901 6.3 186 1.3 23 0.2 24H,0-24 14739 230 1.6 13334 90.5 951 6.5 197 1.3 27 0.2

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 121 Page 25 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 122 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 =>61 Sat 15-Sep-18 00:00 241 40.6 36 4.8 0 0 0 1 27 98 85 24 6 0 0 0 01:00 151 40.8 36.8 6.1 0 0 0 0 12 65 53 15 1 2 0 3 02:00 115 40.7 36.3 5.4 0 0 0 4 13 30 54 11 2 1 0 0 03:00 80 44.8 39.2 5.6 0 0 0 0 5 13 39 14 8 0 1 0 04:00 71 47.2 40.7 7.5 0 0 0 0 2 15 29 12 8 1 1 3 05:00 109 44.5 39.1 6 0 0 0 1 3 26 46 23 7 1 1 1 06:00 236 43.9 38.5 5.2 0 0 1 1 6 61 110 37 18 2 0 0 07:00 518 40.6 36 5.1 0 1 6 1 47 208 192 54 6 3 0 0 08:00 785 37.8 33.4 4.7 1 1 4 19 170 420 142 22 3 3 0 0 09:00 756 37.5 32.9 5.5 11 0 9 19 148 416 133 18 0 0 0 2 10:00 780 37.6 32.5 5.4 5 1 10 48 186 367 145 14 1 3 0 0 11:00 814 37 32.3 5.3 4 1 15 50 200 396 127 17 3 1 0 0 12:00 794 37.6 32.6 5.4 6 2 16 22 201 381 141 22 3 0 0 0 13:00 856 37.6 32.4 5.5 10 5 11 14 261 375 158 18 3 1 0 0 14:00 783 38.3 33.3 5.1 4 0 4 15 202 372 147 31 6 2 0 0 15:00 886 37.6 32.9 4.7 0 0 3 43 233 422 157 23 5 0 0 0 16:00 1037 36.3 32.8 4 0 0 1 13 309 548 146 18 2 0 0 0 17:00 1100 35.6 32.1 4 0 1 2 23 404 544 110 14 2 0 0 0 18:00 1065 35.8 32.1 4.2 0 0 1 33 381 515 117 14 4 0 0 0 19:00 832 35.9 32.5 4.1 0 0 0 16 271 426 107 9 2 1 0 0 20:00 492 39.1 34.6 4.8 0 0 0 3 75 274 105 25 6 1 3 0 21:00 426 40.1 35.3 4.8 0 0 0 2 58 204 120 34 5 3 0 0 22:00 419 39.4 35.2 4.4 0 0 0 1 40 225 132 13 6 0 1 1 23:00 367 39.7 35.4 4.2 0 0 1 1 31 179 134 19 1 1 0 0 12H,7-19 10174 37.5 32.8 4.9 41 12 82 300 2742 4964 1715 265 38 13 0 2 16H,6-22 12160 37.8 33.1 5 41 12 83 322 3152 5929 2157 370 69 20 3 2 18H,6-24 12946 38 33.2 5 41 12 84 324 3223 6333 2423 402 76 21 4 3 24H,0-24 13713 38.4 33.4 5.1 41 12 84 330 3285 6580 2729 501 108 26 7 10

Page 27 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 123 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 =>61 Sun 16-Sep-18 00:00 253 40.2 35.9 4.9 0 0 0 0 31 107 91 16 5 3 0 0 01:00 140 40.6 36.1 4.9 0 0 0 0 17 56 49 14 4 0 0 0 02:00 72 40.8 36.5 6.4 0 1 0 1 6 26 27 8 1 1 1 0 03:00 67 42.2 36.9 6.2 0 0 2 1 4 19 28 10 2 1 0 0 04:00 35 45.4 39.4 6.2 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 6 4 0 1 0 05:00 79 47.2 40.1 7.1 0 0 0 0 5 18 25 17 7 5 2 0 06:00 153 43.1 37.8 5.7 0 0 4 0 5 40 69 27 7 1 0 0 07:00 216 42.9 37.3 5.6 0 0 4 2 5 77 81 37 8 2 0 0 08:00 473 40 34.7 5.9 0 1 20 5 46 218 141 33 7 1 0 1 09:00 722 38.6 34 4.4 1 2 3 11 115 388 182 18 2 0 0 0 10:00 688 37.8 32.9 5.1 1 2 13 22 159 340 129 17 5 0 0 0 11:00 766 36 32.3 4.8 1 4 16 23 197 411 102 9 3 0 0 0 12:00 835 36.4 32.2 4.9 5 2 10 22 274 387 115 19 1 0 0 0 13:00 756 37.1 32.3 5.3 9 1 9 24 214 360 118 21 0 0 0 0 14:00 664 39.6 34.7 5.6 3 1 7 6 96 317 185 33 10 4 0 2 15:00 844 38.8 34 4.6 0 3 5 12 154 421 220 24 4 1 0 0 16:00 920 38.2 33.7 4.1 0 0 2 2 202 485 210 16 2 1 0 0 17:00 961 36.7 32 5 1 1 15 48 332 400 144 17 2 0 1 0 18:00 955 36.9 32.7 4.3 0 1 0 31 283 467 156 16 1 0 0 0 19:00 850 36.8 32.9 4.2 0 0 0 10 247 445 131 14 2 0 0 1 20:00 829 38.2 33.3 4.5 0 0 2 26 202 398 175 24 2 0 0 0 21:00 390 40 35.7 4.4 0 0 0 0 32 198 126 28 5 0 1 0 22:00 280 40.3 36.4 4.5 0 0 0 0 12 134 107 19 6 1 1 0 23:00 161 42.8 37.5 5.6 0 0 0 0 15 47 66 23 9 0 0 1 12H,7-19 8800 38.2 33.2 5 21 18 104 208 2077 4271 1783 260 45 9 1 3 16H,6-22 11022 38.3 33.4 5 21 18 110 244 2563 5352 2284 353 61 10 2 4 18H,6-24 11463 38.5 33.5 5 21 18 110 244 2590 5533 2457 395 76 11 3 5 24H,0-24 12109 38.7 33.7 5.1 21 19 112 246 2653 5771 2689 466 99 21 7 5

Page 28 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 124 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 =>61 Mon 17-Sep-18 00:00 60 41.5 36 6.3 0 0 1 1 8 22 18 5 5 0 0 0 01:00 28 40.7 37.6 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 11 13 3 0 1 0 0 02:00 28 43.8 38.3 5.9 0 0 0 1 2 4 13 6 2 0 0 0 03:00 33 42.9 38.5 5.6 0 0 0 0 3 5 18 4 2 1 0 0 04:00 72 43.2 37.8 5.4 0 0 0 1 4 21 28 15 2 1 0 0 05:00 177 44.5 38.6 6.4 0 1 1 0 7 47 76 26 12 5 1 1 06:00 519 40.5 35.6 5.7 4 0 2 5 62 210 174 45 14 2 1 0 07:00 865 35.8 32.1 4.6 6 0 6 22 271 447 101 9 3 0 0 0 08:00 815 35.9 30.9 5.9 3 5 50 67 241 332 106 9 0 1 0 1 09:00 800 38.2 33.4 4.6 0 2 3 13 201 381 179 16 4 0 1 0 10:00 745 39 34.5 4.4 0 1 2 0 109 408 189 30 4 0 2 0 11:00 767 38.8 34.4 4.4 0 1 1 1 124 418 190 22 7 2 1 0 12:00 749 39 34.6 4.1 0 0 1 8 92 414 201 29 4 0 0 0 13:00 831 38.7 34.1 4.5 0 1 2 3 164 417 219 17 6 0 1 1 14:00 976 38 33.4 4.6 0 2 9 21 214 505 193 26 6 0 0 0 15:00 941 37.9 33 4.9 1 0 7 33 258 431 185 17 8 0 1 0 16:00 977 37.6 32.3 5.5 5 2 11 62 297 399 171 23 4 2 0 1 17:00 1118 37.1 32.8 4.7 0 1 6 28 326 548 180 18 8 2 0 1 18:00 1039 35.9 32.1 4.5 0 0 12 43 344 494 127 15 4 0 0 0 19:00 773 38 33.3 4.5 0 0 4 14 200 378 150 23 4 0 0 0 20:00 494 39.2 34.7 4.2 0 0 0 3 65 262 141 18 4 1 0 0 21:00 379 40.2 35.7 4.8 0 0 1 2 41 169 129 31 5 0 0 1 22:00 282 40.5 36.5 5.1 0 0 0 1 19 122 108 24 5 0 1 2 23:00 174 40.9 37.4 4.5 0 0 0 0 8 55 86 21 2 2 0 0 12H,7-19 10623 37.8 33.1 4.9 15 15 110 301 2641 5194 2041 231 58 7 6 4 16H,6-22 12788 38.2 33.3 4.9 19 15 117 325 3009 6213 2635 348 85 10 7 5 18H,6-24 13244 38.4 33.4 5 19 15 117 326 3036 6390 2829 393 92 12 8 7 24H,0-24 13642 38.6 33.6 5.1 19 16 119 329 3060 6500 2995 452 115 20 9 8

Page 29 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 125 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 =>61 Tue 18-Sep-18 00:00 65 42.3 37.8 4.7 0 0 0 0 2 21 29 11 1 1 0 0 01:00 41 44.1 37.9 5.9 0 0 0 1 2 13 14 7 4 0 0 0 02:00 24 43.1 38.9 4.1 0 0 0 0 1 3 13 7 0 0 0 0 03:00 37 44.5 38.2 7.3 0 1 0 0 4 6 13 10 2 1 0 0 04:00 72 44.9 39.3 6.4 0 0 0 2 2 16 25 20 4 2 1 0 05:00 174 44.4 38.7 5.8 0 0 0 0 5 52 74 24 13 5 0 1 06:00 566 40.3 35.6 5.1 0 0 2 0 74 247 185 42 12 3 0 1 07:00 897 36.9 32.6 4.6 1 2 1 26 286 419 145 12 4 1 0 0 08:00 894 35.7 31.7 5 5 1 8 30 342 397 96 8 4 1 1 1 09:00 874 38 33.4 4.5 0 0 0 20 210 446 169 24 2 2 1 0 10:00 740 38.6 34 4.3 0 0 1 6 142 390 170 28 3 0 0 0 11:00 803 38.4 33.8 4.4 0 0 3 10 161 419 183 23 3 1 0 0 12:00 763 38.3 33.9 4.4 0 0 7 3 141 419 170 19 1 1 2 0 13:00 794 39.3 34.2 4.8 0 0 3 2 186 344 211 42 4 2 0 0 14:00 972 37.7 33.1 4.4 0 0 1 30 257 474 188 21 1 0 0 0 15:00 969 35.9 32 4.6 0 0 5 51 333 445 115 15 3 1 1 0 16:00 957 36 31.9 5 5 1 6 54 311 440 121 15 2 1 0 1 17:00 1006 36.2 32.4 4.7 2 0 3 36 332 476 135 15 1 4 2 0 18:00 1076 36.7 32.7 4.7 0 3 7 21 322 541 147 25 8 2 0 0 19:00 707 38.8 34.1 4.6 1 0 4 5 134 359 172 26 5 1 0 0 20:00 541 39.1 34 4.8 0 1 1 1 144 217 154 20 1 1 1 0 21:00 433 40.2 35.8 4.4 0 0 0 0 33 219 136 37 7 1 0 0 22:00 317 40.6 36.2 5.2 0 0 0 0 28 149 100 27 7 5 0 1 23:00 268 40.5 36.4 4.7 0 0 0 1 19 111 108 23 4 1 1 0 12H,7-19 10745 37.5 32.9 4.7 13 7 45 289 3023 5210 1850 247 36 16 7 2 16H,6-22 12992 38 33.2 4.8 14 8 52 295 3408 6252 2497 372 61 22 8 3 18H,6-24 13577 38.2 33.4 4.8 14 8 52 296 3455 6512 2705 422 72 28 9 4 24H,0-24 13990 38.5 33.5 4.9 14 9 52 299 3471 6623 2873 501 96 37 10 5

Page 30 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 126 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 =>61 Wed 19-Sep-18 00:00 94 43.3 37.6 6 0 0 0 1 9 26 36 16 4 1 1 0 01:00 38 44.2 38.1 7.1 0 0 0 2 4 6 14 9 1 2 0 0 02:00 35 45.4 39.6 6.8 0 0 0 0 2 7 15 6 4 0 0 1 03:00 45 44.2 38.8 5.9 0 0 0 0 2 13 15 12 2 0 1 0 04:00 65 45 40 6.5 0 0 0 0 2 15 24 17 3 1 3 0 05:00 163 44.9 38.4 6.1 0 0 0 1 11 49 56 27 14 5 0 0 06:00 592 40.2 35.7 5.1 1 2 0 11 44 264 217 45 4 2 1 1 07:00 921 38.2 33.4 5 3 1 4 8 242 455 160 39 6 2 1 0 08:00 917 35.4 30.7 5.1 5 1 15 83 400 312 88 7 6 0 0 0 09:00 828 37.3 32.8 4.4 1 0 4 11 257 394 137 23 1 0 0 0 10:00 835 37.4 33.3 4 0 0 0 5 217 445 150 14 4 0 0 0 11:00 905 37.3 33.2 4.2 1 1 0 16 209 503 153 18 4 0 0 0 12:00 845 37 32.9 4.1 0 0 1 16 241 433 138 15 1 0 0 0 13:00 1072 36.1 32.7 4.2 0 0 4 19 315 571 150 9 2 1 0 1 14:00 1196 35.5 29.5 7.1 27 56 64 99 359 452 121 17 1 0 0 0 15:00 1078 35.7 29.5 7.2 20 53 74 95 285 418 124 8 0 1 0 0 16:00 1022 35.3 30.3 5.3 2 12 24 117 410 356 87 13 1 0 0 0 17:00 1057 37.2 32.6 4.8 1 1 13 29 321 490 176 22 3 1 0 0 18:00 1008 36.6 32.6 4.5 1 0 6 26 312 494 144 21 2 2 0 0 19:00 833 37.9 33.3 4.6 0 0 2 9 224 414 157 22 1 1 3 0 20:00 599 38.6 34 4.3 0 0 2 4 117 311 143 18 4 0 0 0 21:00 411 39.9 35.1 4.6 0 0 1 0 60 195 120 32 1 2 0 0 22:00 350 40.2 36 4.3 0 0 0 0 31 152 136 27 3 1 0 0 23:00 300 40.6 36 4.7 0 0 0 0 34 127 101 32 6 0 0 0 12H,7-19 11684 36.4 31.8 5.4 61 125 209 524 3568 5323 1628 206 31 7 1 1 16H,6-22 14119 37.2 32.3 5.4 62 127 214 548 4013 6507 2265 323 41 12 5 2 18H,6-24 14769 37.5 32.4 5.4 62 127 214 548 4078 6786 2502 382 50 13 5 2 24H,0-24 15209 37.8 32.6 5.5 62 127 214 552 4108 6902 2662 469 78 22 10 3

Page 31 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 127 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 =>61 Thu 20-Sep-18 00:00 107 41.7 37.4 5.4 0 0 0 0 9 34 46 10 6 2 0 0 01:00 53 43.5 38.2 5.7 0 0 0 1 3 12 24 9 3 1 0 0 02:00 36 43.6 37.9 6.8 0 1 0 0 3 6 15 10 0 1 0 0 03:00 46 44.7 39.3 6.3 0 0 0 1 0 14 14 13 2 1 1 0 04:00 68 43.9 38.5 6.1 0 0 0 1 3 18 29 11 2 4 0 0 05:00 164 46.2 39.4 6.2 0 0 0 0 10 33 70 25 20 5 1 0 06:00 597 39.5 34.6 4.8 1 1 2 3 99 278 177 31 3 2 0 0 07:00 929 37.4 32.3 5.2 7 2 10 32 293 398 168 16 3 0 0 0 08:00 923 35.6 30.8 5.3 5 3 35 70 334 365 105 5 1 0 0 0 09:00 828 35.9 32.5 4.3 3 0 2 18 239 451 99 12 4 0 0 0 10:00 761 36.3 32.5 4.1 0 0 0 15 262 362 110 10 2 0 0 0 11:00 837 37.2 33 4.5 1 1 1 10 251 414 133 19 7 0 0 0 12:00 898 37.7 33.4 4.2 0 0 1 10 217 478 166 22 3 1 0 0 13:00 895 37.7 33.3 4.3 0 0 0 9 241 460 148 34 1 2 0 0 14:00 1035 36 32.8 4.2 0 0 0 24 289 565 136 16 1 4 0 0 15:00 1030 36.5 32.7 4.3 1 0 1 17 322 519 147 20 2 0 0 1 16:00 1077 35.6 31.7 4.5 3 2 5 51 385 513 104 10 4 0 0 0 17:00 1015 35.8 31.9 4.6 3 0 10 22 393 450 116 16 4 1 0 0 18:00 1058 35.8 31.9 4.6 0 1 6 46 406 454 125 14 5 0 1 0 19:00 831 36.9 32.6 4.5 0 2 2 18 272 389 127 16 5 0 0 0 20:00 626 38.9 34 4.9 0 2 2 10 126 309 143 25 7 2 0 0 21:00 436 39.7 35.3 4.3 0 0 2 1 43 212 153 20 4 1 0 0 22:00 339 40 35.6 4.9 0 0 1 1 37 160 110 22 5 2 1 0 23:00 204 42 37.5 5.4 0 0 0 0 10 74 84 25 6 2 3 0 12H,7-19 11286 36.3 32.4 4.6 23 9 71 324 3632 5429 1557 194 37 8 1 1 16H,6-22 13776 37 32.7 4.7 24 14 79 356 4172 6617 2157 286 56 13 1 1 18H,6-24 14319 37.3 32.8 4.7 24 14 80 357 4219 6851 2351 333 67 17 5 1 24H,0-24 14793 37.7 33 4.9 24 15 80 360 4247 6968 2549 411 100 31 7 1

Page 32 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 128 23478 EAST MOLESEY Site No: 23478001 Location A309 Hampton Court Way, East Molesey (LC 85) Sat 15-Sep-18 to Fri 21-Sep-18 Channel: Southbound

Time Total 85%ile Mean Stand Period Vehicles Speed Speed Dev. <11Mph 11-<16 16-<21 21-<26 26-<31 31-<36 36-<41 41-<46 46-<51 51-<56 56-<61 =>61 Fri 21-Sep-18 00:00 117 40.3 35.9 6.1 0 1 0 0 14 52 37 8 1 2 2 0 01:00 41 39.5 35.3 4.9 0 0 0 1 3 22 12 1 2 0 0 0 02:00 34 40.8 37 6.3 0 0 0 0 3 14 12 2 2 0 1 0 03:00 37 42.6 38.1 5 0 0 0 0 3 7 19 6 2 0 0 0 04:00 67 42.7 38.1 5.5 0 0 0 0 3 21 29 10 2 1 1 0 05:00 210 43.1 36.8 6.1 0 0 0 0 32 70 63 31 10 3 1 0 06:00 552 40.7 36.3 4.8 0 0 1 3 41 235 202 57 11 1 1 0 07:00 990 37.3 33 4.5 3 1 1 15 272 506 161 29 1 0 1 0 08:00 1029 35.7 31.6 4.6 0 1 6 63 391 437 112 12 7 0 0 0 09:00 840 38.6 33.8 4.7 2 0 1 9 186 420 183 33 5 0 1 0 10:00 745 38.2 33.7 4.4 0 0 2 5 165 398 145 24 5 0 0 1 11:00 844 38 33.5 4.3 1 0 3 12 187 441 179 18 3 0 0 0 12:00 828 38.2 34 4.2 1 2 1 1 137 480 181 19 6 0 0 0 13:00 914 37.2 32.8 4.2 1 0 1 9 284 445 158 16 0 0 0 0 14:00 955 36 32.9 4.3 6 0 1 4 252 547 127 14 2 2 0 0 15:00 989 36.5 31.6 5.7 2 7 36 79 259 444 140 15 4 2 1 0 16:00 900 35.7 32 4.7 7 0 3 25 314 441 87 22 1 0 0 0 17:00 1047 35.9 32.5 4.5 2 0 8 28 308 553 127 12 8 1 0 0 18:00 1021 38.3 33.3 5 2 1 8 31 250 474 220 26 8 1 0 0 19:00 821 37.2 33.3 4.3 0 0 1 10 206 449 127 21 6 1 0 0 20:00 560 39.2 34.6 4.3 0 0 0 1 88 296 142 29 3 1 0 0 21:00 445 39.9 35.3 5 0 0 1 8 57 192 154 27 4 0 0 2 22:00 426 39.7 34.8 4.7 0 0 1 3 73 198 117 30 4 0 0 0 23:00 327 40.3 35.7 5.1 0 0 0 0 43 150 98 28 5 1 1 1 12H,7-19 11102 37.2 32.8 4.7 27 12 71 281 3005 5586 1820 240 50 6 3 1 16H,6-22 13480 37.8 33.2 4.7 27 12 74 303 3397 6758 2445 374 74 9 4 3 18H,6-24 14233 38 33.3 4.8 27 12 75 306 3513 7106 2660 432 83 10 5 4 24H,0-24 14739 38.2 33.4 4.9 27 13 75 307 3571 7292 2832 490 102 16 10 4

Page 33 of 35 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 129 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 130 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 131

A4. HIGHWAY BOUNDARY

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 132 Contact: Work1 Tel: 020 8541 8922 Fax: 020 8541 8923 E-mail: [email protected]

Your ref: Our ref: ME - 459703 S

Highways Information Merrow Depot Merrow Lane Guildford Surrey GU4 7BQ

DX 31509 Kingston

13 February 2018

Dear Sirs,

Unit 1A to Unit 1F (inclusive) and Unit 2, Hampton Court Estate, Summer Road, Thames Ditton KT7 0RH

I refer to your enquiry of 12 February 2018.

1. On the information available to me, I enclose a plan on which I have indicated in yellow the extent of the publicly maintainable highway, in relation to the property in question.

The information provided is limited to the accuracy of the Ordnance Survey map upon which it is based. It should be noted that Ordnance Survey maps are only accurate to one metre and certain features may not be shown.

Summer Crossing is a private road over which the nature and extent of highway rights, if any, is uncertain.

2. Surrey County Council has the following highway proposals within 200 metres of the above property:

At the Elmbridge Local Committee meeting held on 4 December 2017 approval was given to advertise a U Turn traffic regulation order for A309 Hampton Court Way. If made this would prohibit traffic from performing a u turn between the Ember River Bridge and Embercourt Road.

3. The route of a public right of way, public footpath number 91 runs in the vicinity of the property in question. For your reference I enclose an enlarged extract of the Surrey Definitive Map, in relation to the property in question. The line does not denote the definitive width of the public right of way.

4. Please refer to the reply to question two.

5. The property is not, on the information available, subject to a dedication agreement as highway land.

For information regarding local planning applications, please contact the Planning Department of the local district or borough council.

Thank you for the payment of our fee in connection with this matter, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.

Yours faithfully

Laura Willats Information Officer Surrey Highways

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 133

1 of 1

2013-04-24

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 134 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 135

A5. ACCESS OPTION DRAWINGS

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 136 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 137 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 138 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 139 APPENDIX 5 18/2/19 Design South East Review Report

THIS PDF DOCUMENT WAS OBTAINED AS A REDACTED DOCUMENT UNDER A FOI REQUEST TO EBC

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 140 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 141 Hampton Court Trading Estate, Summer Road, Thames Ditton Reference: 964.1-1162

Report of Design Review Meeting Date: 30 January 2019 Location: Elmbridge Borough Council, Civic Centre, High Street, Esher KT10 9SD

Panel

Louise Goodison (Chair), Architecture, Historic Environment Harriet Bourne, Landscape Architecture Martin Harradine, Planning, Urban Design, Historic Environment John Pegg, Landscape Architecture, Urban Design Richard Warwick, Architecture

Also attending

Sogand Babol, Design South East Kelly Jethwa, Elmbridge Borough Council Dana Nickson, Elmbridge Borough Council Sophie Piper, Elmbridge Borough Council (Heritage Officer) Natalie Lynch, Elmbridge Borough Council Alison Lavin, Elmbridge Borough Council Aline Goult, Elmbridge Borough Council Felix von Bechtolsheim, Collado Collins Architects Veronica Popescu, Collado Collins Architects Sam Stackhouse, Montagu Evans LLP Chloe Saunter, Montagu Evans LLP Matthew Rosson, Landhold Developments Simon Possee, Iceni (Transport) Lewis Eldridge, Iceni (Heritage)

Site visit

A full site visit was conducted by the panel ahead of the review

This report is confidential as the scheme is not yet the subject of a planning application

964.1-1162 Unit 1, Hampton Court Trading Estate, Summer Road, Thames Ditton, KT7 0SP 1/7 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 142 Summary

It is encouraging that this scheme has been put forward for review at an early stage in its development. This site holds unique qualities and opportunities – such as presence of water, bridges and historic palaces – to which a proposal here should reflect upon and respond to in a distinctive and creative way. It is a special and unique place that necessitates a strong, contextual landscape and urban design response. The proposal is not yet meeting that need.

We recommend that an alternative proposal is brought forward that is minded toward developing and supporting a community. This can partly be achieved by providing new links, play, high-quality communal spaces and places for neighbourly interaction. Collaboration is important in order to achieve this, with adjoining landowners, statutory consultees, and additional consultants - including a landscape architect. A wider masterplan for the island could be explored with The Crown Estates in particular, as it may have a significant impact on the design approach for this proposal.

A reappraised design should be rooted in a deep analysis of the landscape context, views and local character. The team are encouraged to use this analysis to inform a revised landscape, access, parking, density, massing and site strategy. There might also be some merit in revisiting the instinctive initial response to the site to pursue a linear form.

Background

This is a proposal for a mixed-use development of 82 dwellings across in 3 blocks rising to 5-storeys. It includes 82 car parking spaces, circa. 400 sq.m commercial space and 4 visitor parking spaces. There are 29 no. 1-bed, 49 no. 2-bed, and 4 no. 3-bed homes proposed. No apartments are proposed at ground-floor level. Storage and cycling provisions meet minimum nationally described space standards. Each block is ‘split’ with a glazed central lobby. There are 6-to-8 flats per core.

The proposal lies in close proximity to nationally significant heritage assets, and two water courses - the rivers Mole and Ember. It is a short distance from Grade 1 listed and Scheduled Monument Hampton Court Palace, however the site does not fall into strategic views from these grounds. It is maintained by the project team that the proposal would not be visible from the Privy Garden or listed buildings.

The site is a long and linear ‘island’ that is located in Flood Zone 2. It is bound by a dry stream ditch and Hampton Court Way on the west, and a railway line on the east. The line terminates at Hampton Court station. The site has only one access point from the south and there is an additional development site to the north, owned by The Crown Estate, with rights of access through the development site. The project team are mindful not to prejudice future proposals on that site. At the station, permission has been granted for a hotel. A housing development to the east of the station has recently been submitted for approval. There is a line of existing trees along Hampton Court Way that is in the ownership of Surrey County Council. Kingston Grammar School lies on the east side of the railway, with playing fields and a cluster of two-storey buildings.

There are no strategic guidelines that currently apply to the site. However, it is considered a sustainable location to deliver homes to meet housing need. Parking provision below one space per dwelling will be accepted by the Council in a sustainable location. 2/7 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 143 Landscape

Approach - The approach to landscape, open space, play, water management and parking is unconvincing and lacking in resolution, most likely due to a lack of input from a landscape architect in the early design stages. We recommend that a contribution is sought at the earliest possible time. The landscape strategy should be able to accommodate the possible future development of the adjacent site, should this come forward for development.

Open space - The open space design and landscape treatments should be reconsidered. The open space strategy is centred on the space in the southern portion of the site, which is remotely located from the homes, lacking in identity, character and purpose. In detailed terms, the proposal relies heavily on the provision of flat lawns with hedges. It is recommended that the approach to the landscape is entirely revisited, and a future proposal brought forward that is rooted in a sufficient level of analysis, as well as developed in collaboration with a landscape architect. There should be a large piece of open space that is suitably positioned in relation to the context, and accessible to all the homes. The space should be integrated with the new homes and community, rather than fronting the new commercial space at the entrance of the development.

Dry stream ditch and tree belt - There is an undermaintained dry stream ditch on the west of the site, running parallel with Hampton Court Way. We anticipate that this ditch might be cleared of debris in coming years, with the existing trees at risk of being removed. Currently, the design is over-reliant on these trees, over-emphasising the screening effect provided against the road. Further consultation is needed with the Environment Agency, to clarify the joint approach to dealing with the landscape. It might be necessary to introduce a more consistent landscape treatment on-site along this boundary. The ditch also presents a unique and particular opportunity upon which to develop the character of the proposal which the team are encouraged to pursue; it could be a landscaped route, offering a sheltered and enjoyable way to walk north-south, while also functioning as an ‘address’ for the homes and the settlement.

New link - At least one additional access point is advised along the western boundary of the site. This could take the form of a bridge, for pedestrians, vehicles, or otherwise, which would also build on the existing character of this location, providing a new, and contextual ‘front door’ for the development. This is a challenging site, that is detached from the surrounding street network, with a single access point on the south which is intended for private and service vehicles as well as cyclists and pedestrians. There is concern about how well-integrated into the surrounding neighbourhoods and context a community of 82 homes would be in this location. Therefore, an additional link is considered a crucially important additional provision. It would help the new community connect more cohesively with the existing community, while on a practical level improving connectivity to the station, the high street, schools, amenities and anticipated developments around the station. Consultation and collaboration with The Crown Estate, the County Council, Highways and the Environment Agency will be necessary to achieve this.

Water management - While we appreciate that there is some reduction to the extent of hard-standing proposed compared to the existing site, the current approach to landscaped surfaces introduces piecemeal, uncoordinated pieces of sustainably drained landscape. Sustainable drainage works most effectively across larger surfaces. The approach needs to be revisited and a more strategic attitude adopted, connecting together the smaller pieces 3/7 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 144 into meaningful zones. This response should account for, and respond to, the complex river system and flood zone, as well as the location of the existing dry stream ditch, into which surface water could be accommodated.

Play - Irrespective of policy requirements, there should be a suitable strategy and sufficient play space for children of all ages who will live here. The strategy should demonstrate the location of play in the site’s vicinity, as well as show how the proposal meets the need for doorstep play.

Urban design

Approach - The urban design strategy underpinning the proposal is questioned. The key route into the site runs north-south, adjacent to the railway line. For the most part, the existing eastern portion of the site has a quieter and more intimate quality, and as such might be space suitable for private gardens or bedrooms, or the ‘backs’ of the homes. In parallel with the opportunity for a landscaped north-south route along the western edge and a link on the western or northern boundary, it might be appropriate to consider an option where the layout is mirrored. It would represent a more contextual approach to the design. However, passing trains can be disruptive to the quality of accommodation, and careful consideration will need to be given to the detail design of boundary conditions on both sides.

Views and levels - Understanding levels in relation to Hampton Court Palace is very important in light of the heritage designation and likelihood of the proposal being visible from the Privy Gardens. The panel are not convinced that the redline views presented are sufficiently accurate to determine the visual impact. In order to avoid such a criticism, it is advised that a drone is used to capture panoramic views from the highest datum established by the proposal. These will unequivocally determine the sight-lines to, and from, Hampton Court Palace and other receptors. Long sections are also needed for this purpose. Shorter and more detailed sections are required to clarify detail design, landscape treatments, and how water is dealt with.

In addition to understanding the views from Hampton Court Palace, a more detailed analysis of key views that describe how the urban design proposal is experienced by people in and around the site should be provided. These views should be taken at eye-level, from the cone of view of the pedestrian. They could include;

• A view looking south into the development along Hampton Court Way from the bridge on the River Ember. • A view looking north into the development from Summer Road.

Currently, the proposal fails to provide a sense of arrival into the site, with a weak urban presence at the junction with Summer Road. The process of producing views should inform the urban design response here. It should be used to iteratively test designs, considering how a more urban and civic presence can be provided at what will be a key route into the site. This might mean increased height.

Impact of vehicles - Summer Road is a short length of road bound by the railway line on the east and a busy A-road on the east. A traffic analysis is required to determine the traffic impact of a community of this size accessing the development, at this point.

4/7 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 145 The centrally positioned ‘courtyards’ have the character of parking courts and overwhelm the potential of the site to provide quality outdoor space. Their prominence compounds the lack of character in the proposal. An alternative parking strategy should be brought forwarded that minimises the visual impact of cars as perceived from the street – undercroft parking and on-plot parking is one way to achieve this.

Parking provision - In light of the impact of a high number of vehicles, and sustainable transport options in very close proximity, a reduction in the quantum of parking is recommended. A parking ratio of two homes to one parking space would allow for more meaningful and high-quality open spaces.

Private amenity - The provision of relatively narrow private gardens at ground floor level are unlikely to be of real value to those living in these particular dwellings, while the inset balconies provided on the western elevations are not likely to receive a good level of sunlight. A revised scheme might maintain a sufficient distance from the planting and rows of trees, and might consider the benefit of projecting balconies.

Scale, density, mass, height and form

Amount of development - The scale and density of development proposed on the site feels uncomfortable. Some of the essential provisions required to meet a community of this size are not met – such as sufficient play space - and yet, the spatial quality of the scheme is already low. As such, the panel feel the site only has the capacity to deal with fewer homes while maintaining the level of quality expected.

Linear in nature - The proposal for three individual blocks, with parking courts in- between, results in a sub-standard place to live, for reasons already described. The linear nature of the site seems to lend itself to a proposal that is equally long and linear in form. In this regard, developments that have responded to similar challenges, such as Ralph Erskine’s ‘Byker Wall’ in Newcastle, and Neave Brown’s Alexandra Road Estate, in Camden, could be useful precedents to study. While such an option has been explored in the pre-application process, it is disappointing that it was not presented to the panel. It is felt there could be significant merit in this option, both as a more contextual response to the site, and for the capacity to deliver more, and better-quality homes. In such a form, one of the numerous benefits is the opportunity to deliver entirely dual-aspect, well-ventilated ‘through’ homes that make better use of the site and instil a sense of neighbourliness around a typical ‘street’. This could be a singular type and form, simply laid out across the site several times. It would be a more efficient approach, that will also promote better definition of private and communal spaces, if they are considered integral to the house typology. Sufficient time would need to be dedicated to developing the detailed design of the type, to ensure there is a high-quality design in and of itself, but also that contextual considerations, such as orientation, are accounted for.

Height - The approach to where height is positioned on site - apportioned in the centre - is arbitrary and lacks justification. In a revised design, the proposal should be tested and analysed in urban design terms through diverse methods such as key views and sections in order to determine where height is most suitably positioned.

5/7 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 146 Architecture, layout, materials and detail

Style and language - The architectural language of the scheme is urban, and evocative of the ‘New London Vernacular’. More interrogation of the distinctive and unique local character of Elmbridge, the Hampton Court area and the approach to building in flood plains is needed to inform the architectural language of a proposal in this location. We would advise further analysis of the local homes, architecture, water courses and bridges.

Storage - Bicycle storage is currently embedded in the fabric of the building, but some of these spaces might be drawn outdoors and used to animate the street. They provide a useful opportunity to animate the social experience of the building and the public realm. We would advise that compliance with minimum standards of nationally prescribed space standards for storage is insufficient against what might be required in reality, in particular for family homes.

Cores and glazed link - The additional value added by the articulation of each block as two distinct masses, with a glazed link in-between is unclear. The depth of this separation is too narrow to provide a meaningful contribution to the architecture. The team are encouraged to be bolder in their architectural approach. For example, if a core is required, and the aspiration is to fill this space with light, it might be a better solution to pull the core to the outside face of the proposal.

Ensuring quality through the planning process

In order that the applicant team and local authority are consistent with national policy, DSE’s general guidance on material quality and detail reflect Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework. At planning application stage, the quality of the detailing should be demonstrated through large scale drawings at 1:20 and 1:5 of key elements of the building and landscape. This should be accompanied by actual material samples that are secured by condition as part of any planning approval.

Energy strategy

Our guidance at the planning application stage is that the proposal should produce a clear energy strategy which details how the development will optimise thermal performance, minimise the demand for energy, supply the remaining energy requirements efficiently and optimise the use of renewables, consistent with Government and local policies. This strategy should be communicated in a robustly considered way, for example using detailed modelling work with respected calculation methods.

6/7 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 147 This review was commissioned by Turnhold Properties (Greater London) Ltd with the knowledge of Elmbridge Borough Council.

CONFIDENTIALITY Since the scheme was not the subject of a planning application when it came to the Panel, this report is offered in confidence to the addressee and those listed as being sent copies. There is no objection to the report being shared within respective practices/organisations. DSE reserves the right to make the guidance known should the views contained in this report be made public in whole or in part (either accurately or inaccurately). Unless previously agreed to remain confidential, this report will be publicly available if the scheme becomes the subject of a planning application and to any public inquiry concerning the scheme. DSE also reserves the right to make guidance available to another design review panel should the scheme go before them. If you do not require this report to be kept confidential, please let us know.

7/7 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 148 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 149 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 150 APPENDIX 6 SCC CHA email of 7/10/19 to MW

7/10/19 Email from Tim Dukes

Dear Mr Wilson

Thank you for your email.

In answer to your queries:

1. The post traffic development flows are taken from the TRICS database, this includes all movements in to and out of a site, as such all deliveries, leisure and other non-commuting journeys have been accounted for. In relation to the existing trip rates, I understand the site is currently being used below it is normal capacity, however I need to consider the range of scenarios associated with the land use, this means that ideally an “average” use and “worst case” will be utilised as a comparisons, rather than a temporary usage rate. I recognise the current use is not particularly representative of the long term use of the site.

2. This is correct, and is a fact within the Planning Classes that operate within the Planning System. It is true that fluctuations occur between two sites with planning permission for the same class, hence why the above “average/worst case” is considered a reasonable way to assess planning applications. Unfortunately this is the way the Town planning System operates and short of changing the legislation itself via central Government there is little that can be done at a Local level.

3. The site access road, beyond the junction of the site with Summer Road is a private road and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the County Highway Authority (CHA), as such I cannot require conditions that relate to this and do not have an impact on the local public highway network. I can, and do, make suggestions and on occasion request issues be considered, but this is beyond the legal powers the CHA have.

4. Second access provision - a) There wasn’t a point when SCC objected to a new access from Hampton Court Way, it would provide advantages and disadvantages and it would be my responsibility to weigh these alternatives up. It is the developers choice as to whether a new access was provided or not and given the overall impact of the development on the highway network I would have been happy to consider either option. b) The developer was not asked to cost the improvements suggested. c) The developer was not asked to cost the signalising of the Summer Road/Hampton Court Way junction, I consider this to be an unreasonable requirement given the lack of evidence demonstrating an ongoing RTI black spot at this location. d) The contribution will be secured via a S106 contribution that would be linked to the planning permission and what it can be spent on would be clearly defined within that agreement.

5. I’m afraid I have no record of the fatal RTI involving the motorcyclist. This does surprise me given you say it occurred in 2018. I have found a fatal incident that occurred on Hampton

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 151 Court Way, but this was further south of the Summer Road junction, closer to Thistledene and occurred in 2016.

6. The Planning System only allows for “committed development” i.e. granted planning permission to be taken into account, when assessing planning applications. However, wider impacts are considered if it is thought that a development would result in a significant increase in impact on the local highway network. In this case the uplift in trip rates is limited and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the current planning class of the site would be impacted by the developments in the same way. A recommendation to refuse on this basis would therefore not result in a reduction in impact on the traffic within the surrounding roads of the site.

7. The provision of a Construction Management Plan is normally subject to a reserved matters application at a later date.

Thank you for the invitation, I have carried out several site visits, and given the predicted changes in movements associated with the change in use of the site I am content with my initial response.

I am sorry this is not the response you would have hoped to have received.

Kind regards

Tim

Tim Dukes

Transport Development Planning

Surrey County Council

Room 365, County Hall

Penryhn Road

Kingston upon Thames

KT1 2DW

www.surreycc.gov.uk/tdp

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 152 From: Mike Wilson] Sent: 28 September 2019 15:36 To: Tim Dukes Cc: Peter Szanto ; Nick Darby ; Peter Shimadry ; Katie Herrington

Subject: Hampton Court Estate - Traffic

Thank you for your email regarding the development of 78 residential units at Hampton Court Estate units 2 & 3, Elmbridge Planning Application 2019/2005. I do not think that the increased traffic dangers either on the site or off it have been satisfactorily addressed and cite the following:

1. The developer has submitted traffic flow analysis using desktop methods without any audit of the current traffic flow to and from the development site which from our observations is much lower than assumed. The post development traffic movements have not satisfactorily considered travel to work, travel on the school run, Amazon deliveries and fast food deliveries. 2. While the current frequency of HGV access to the site is low, if the ownership or use of unit 3 changed, HGV movements could increase significantly within the current permissions,. 3. While the danger at the junctions has at least been considered the danger along the proposed single access road has not. Because of the restricted parking spaces cars will start parking on the pavement immediately adjacent to the building entrances, play areas will overflow and accidents will occur. 4. Through 2018 the developer was working with SCC to establish a safe new access from Hampton Court Way to the north end of the development site. On 25 January 2019, following review of road safety audits, you commented to the developer that SCC were satisfied, following minor adjustments, with the developer's submitted highway design for a new access. In your planning application response you advise that this raised issues as a new access from Hampton Court Way would necessitate crossing an existing footway and cycle way, potentially introducing risk at this point. This in turn has enabled the developer to advise that SCC are now not willing to consider a separate access. I request that you do the following: a) advise at what point and on what basis the County Highways Authority decided that it was not willing for the developer to proceed with a separate access, b) request the developer to cost the improvements which were established with Peter Shimadry in February 2019 albeit that these were interim measures as funding was restricted and that they were established in relation to current issues at the junction and not those which will pertain following the development, c) request the developer to cost the installation of traffic lights at the Summer Road Hampton Court Way junction, d) how you intend that a contribution by the developer to road safety measures at the junction becomes legally binding and that this money will be allocated to this traffic issue and not some other. 5. You comment that the CHA has not been able to demonstrate that there is evidence to support the concerns raised due to lack of Road Traffic Incident (RTI) data. Please confirm that you have taken account of the accident (police ref P18197619 16/09/18) where we understand a motor cyclist was killed. 6. The various reviews appear not to have taken account of planned future developments. Please advise what consideration has been given to the following: a) While The level crossing gates currently close for about five minutes 4 times an hour, with the advent of Crossrail 2 they are likely to close 8 times per hour. The increased traffic travelling south along HCW turning left to access the development will, with the

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 153 crossing gates closed, extend the queue beyond the slip lane and cause obstruction and thus danger in the Hampton Court Way. b) The Elmbridge Plan is looking to develop Unit 3 to the north of the 78 unit development which will double the number of accommodation units using this narrow single access. c) The Elmbridge Plan is looking to develop 40 residential units in the field opposite the current development. d) The London Borough of Richmond has introduced 20mph zones across much of the borough. This appears to have made the queues in the Hampton Court Way even longer and encouraged those drivers travelling south and on leaving the delays around Hampton Court station and entering a 40mph limit zone to pay less attention to issues at the Summer Road Junction. 7. Your planning application response appropriately requires that no development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management Plan, to include details of ... parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors ... has been approved. Access around the site is severely constrained and there will be insufficient space to accommodate both private cars and construction vehicles and equipment. To avoid parking chaos in the area, it should be established at this stage that all construction workers should be bussed from a nearby holding area and that none should be given pedestrian access.

The traffic studies undertaken and your planning application response indicate that the consequence of the three restricted traffic movements at this junction and the number of times they are dangerously breached each day are not appreciated. I ask you to attend a site visit during a weekday rush hour for a review with members of the Summer Road Action Group so that you can see that more comprehensive survey and design work is needed.

Regards Mike Wilson

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 154 APPENDIX 7 SRAG Layouts superimposed

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 155 APPENDIX 8 Viewpoint 9 Submitted CGI in HTVI Summer 2016

SRAG winter CGI representations Winter 2018

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 156

THIS IS WHAT SRAG CONSIDERS IS A REALISTIC VISUAL IMPACT

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 157 APPENDIX 9 QC Robert McCracken 2008 opinion THIS OPINION IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THE AUTHOR HAS SHOWN AN INTEREST IN DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO THE HAMPTON COURT AQMA

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 158 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 159 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 160 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 161 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 162 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 163 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 164 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 165 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 166 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 167 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 168 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 169 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 170 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 171 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 172 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 173 SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 174 APPENDIX 10 Air Quality Monitoring data, Jan – Oct 2019

Elmbridge Council directs users to the UK Air Quality website which provides access to readings from Air Quality Monitoring Stations (AQMS) located in the UK.

Running a report for data from Hampton Court Parade AQMS during 2019 produces this summary:

This shows an average of 40 μg/m3 NO2 for the year 2019 to the end of October, and confirms the AQMA is currently failing to meet limits set out in The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1001/regulation/17/made

17. (1) The Secretary of State must ensure that levels of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, benzene, carbon monoxide, lead and particulate matter do not exceed the limit values set out in Schedule 2.

(2) In zones where levels of the pollutants mentioned in paragraph (1) are below the limit values set out in Schedule 2, the Secretary of State must ensure that levels are maintained below those limit values and must endeavour to maintain the best ambient air quality compatible with sustainable development.

SCHEDULE 2 Limit values

Nitrogen dioxide

Averaging period Limit value

One hour 200 μg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 18 times a calendar year

Calendar year 40 μg/m3

SRAG APPENDICES - PAGE 175