Planning, Environment & Design
Earl Shilton and Barwell AAP Strategic Transport Assessment April 2013
Earl Shilton and Barwell Contents AAP April 2013
Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Previous Transport Assessment Work 4 3. Issues, Opportunities and Constraints 11 4. Bus Strategy 15 5. Cycle Strategy 19 6. Pedestrian Strategy 23 7. SUE Highway Access Strategy 26 8. Internal Road Hierarchy & Car Parking 29 9. Assessment of Highway Impacts 33 10. Transport Infrastructure Implementation Plan 50
Figures Figure 1 : Earl Shilton and Barwell Sustainable Urban Extensions 1 Figure 2 : Existing bus services and catchments 15 Figure 3 : Potential bus service amendments and extended catchments 16 Figure 4 : SUE Site Access Proposals 26 Figure 5 : Modelling Framework Process 34 Figure 6 : Bandwidth Diagram - SUEs Traffic Demands - AM Peak 2026 36 Figure 7 : Junction Locations and Do Minimum Assessment 37 Figure 8 : Longshoot and Dodwells Proposals 40 Figure 9 : Normandy Way/ Ashby Road & Ashby Road/ Rogue’s Lane proposals 42 Figure 10 : Rugby Road/ Brookside Improvements 43 Figure 11 : Ashby Road/ Stapleton Lane 44 Figure 12 : A47/ B582 Desford Crossroads 45 Figure 13 : Proposed Traffic Signal Control – Barwell Village Centre 46 Figure 14 : Barwell Village Centre Scheme 47 Figure 15 : Do-Something Assessment : Residual Queues at Key Junctions 49
Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F
i Earl Shilton and Barwell 1/ Introduction AAP April 2013
1. Introduction
Figure 1 : Earl Shilton and Barwell Sustainable Urban Extensions
The Role of the Strategic Transport Assessment 1.1 This Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) has been prepared by Capita Symonds Limited (CSL) on behalf of Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (HBBC). 1.2 The purpose of this report is to document the process undertaken in the identification and evaluation of a framework of transport improvement measures that will be required to support the Earl Shilton and Barwell Area Action Plan. 1.3 The Area Action Plan (AAP) for Earl Shilton and Barwell provides a template for the substantial expansion of residential and commercial development in the area. The two separate urban extensions that comprise the AAP are expected to create an extra 4,100 homes (approximately) within the plan period to 2026. These additional homes will clearly generate significant additional demands on the transport network. 1.4 For these demands to be met, the transport network needs to respond by providing additional facilities and capacity, for all modes of travel, to satisfy local and more distant travel needs. The STA provides the framework for such transport infrastructure improvements that will be required to support the delivery of sustainable development that aligns with the aspirations of the Area Action Plan. 1.5 The STA acts as a blueprint against which future (and current) planning applications that
1
Earl Shilton and Barwell 1/ Introduction AAP April 2013
respond to the AAP can be assessed and determined. Any such planning application will have at its heart an individual transport assessment that considers the impacts of that application. The measures required as part of each planning application will need to be seen to contribute towards the overall strategy as defined in the STA. Any that don’t will need to justify why they divert from the overall plan and show the benefits of moving away from the central strategy. 1.6 In response to the Area Action Plan, two Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs) at Earl Shilton and Barwell have been identified in the emerging Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy 2006 – 2026. These SUEs aim to meet the required need for housing and employment growth within the area in line with the expectations of the AAP. They are significant developments and each will create comprehensive demands on the transport system in the area and throughout the sub-region. 1.7 This report considers the transport aspects of these communities in terms of their travel needs and impacts and sets out movement strategies and an infrastructure implementation plan for all travel modes. Background to the STA 1.8 A review has been undertaken of previous Transport Assessment work relating to the two SUEs. This includes the Hinckley Core Strategy Transport Review, undertaken by White Young Green on behalf of HBBC in August 2007 and the East Midlands Draft Regional Plan – Further Assessment of Highways and Transportation Implications of Sustainable Urban Extensions at Selected Broad Locations in Leicestershire - Technical report (April 2007) produced by Leicestershire County Council (LCC), which gave advice on housing and employment provision. 1.9 HBBC also produced ‘Directions for Growth’ in May 2007. This document considered the sustainability of a number of potential locations including urban extensions, such as Hinckley and extensions to existing rural settlements, including Earl Shilton and Barwell. 1.10 Furthermore, in response to the AAP and the draft Core Strategy, proposals have come forward from developers that seek to satisfy the key requirements of each SUE. In particular, the proposals at Barwell have been fully formulated and now form the subject of a planning application to Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (12/00295/OUT) submitted for consideration on the (10 April 2012). Similar proposals for the Earl Shilton SUE are being formulated but do not yet form the subject of a planning application. 1.11 Earlier work on the transport demands arising from the AAP and the SUEs at Barwell and Earl Shilton, drew on the outputs from the Hinckley & Nuneaton Paramics traffic model developed by on behalf of the Highways Agency, HBBC and LCC. However, this earlier work was superseded by the more recent Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM). 1.12 However, whilst LLITM provides strategic guidance on transport demands arising from the SUEs, more detailed modelling was still required to provide support to the operational assessment of key junctions and in particular to enable the identification of effective and targeted mitigation measures. In this regard, a revised and updated version of the Hinckley and Nuneaton Paramics Model was retained and used to provide this more detailed level of output. 1.13 Using this modelling framework, a full and highly detailed assessment has been undertaken considering the opportunities and constraints to access and connectivity between the existing settlements and the SUEs, and the wider strategic networks and surrounding towns such as
2
Earl Shilton and Barwell 1/ Introduction AAP April 2013
Hinckley. 1.14 Leading on from this, an outline movement strategy has been produced taking into account the following aspects:
• overall access strategy/approach (permeability to disperse impact, connectivity to centres, protection of bypass etc),
• physical means of getting into and around the SUEs, and between the SUEs and settlement centres by all modes of transport. 1.15 Special consideration has been given to how each of the proposed SUEs can be accessed by sustainable modes. Specific strategies have been developed to maximise bus, cycle and pedestrian travel within the SUEs and to the surrounding settlements and towns. 1.16 As part of the overall movement strategy, a proposed Bus Strategy has been developed in consultation with LCC and following discussions with local operators. Consideration has been given to the current level of service that is available to the existing settlements and how this can be improved and expanded to the SUEs. 1.17 A proposed strategy relating to the internal road hierarchy and car parking within the SUEs has been considered in order to ensure that the environment for residents and employees is not dominated by the private car and encourages sustainable modes of travel. 1.18 This report also looks at the strategic and local road networks to identify existing constraints and possible mitigation measures needed to support the proposed growth in residential and employment uses.
3
Earl Shilton and Barwell 2/ Previous Transport Assessment AAP April 2013 Work
2. Previous Transport Assessment Work
2.1 This chapter reviews the previous transport work undertaken from early 2007 that formed the basis for the work outlined in this STA. The following documents provide a background of the work and analysis undertaken to date with regards to the SUEs in terms of the relevant transport matters. Previous transport work includes:
• East Midlands Draft Regional Plan – Further Assessment of Highways and Transportation Implications of Sustainable Urban Extensions at Selected Broad Locations in Leicestershire - Technical report produced by Leicestershire County Council (April 2007);
• Hinckley Core Strategy Transport Review – Assessment of Highways and Transportation Implications of Sustainable Urban Extensions in Earl Shilton and Barwell by White Young Green on behalf of Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (HBBC) (August 2007);
• Directions for Growth produced by Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (September 2007); and
• Inspectors Report on the Hinckley and Bosworth Core Strategy and Revised Policy 5: Transport Infrastructure in the Sub-Regional centre (August 2009) 2.2 East Midlands Draft Regional Plan – Further Assessment of Highways and Transportation Implications of Sustainable Urban Extensions at Selected Broad Locations in Leicestershire - Technical report produced by Leicestershire County Council (April 2007) 2.3 The report was undertaken to build upon previous work to assess whether it would be possible in transport terms to accommodate five sustainable urban extensions (SUEs) in Leicestershire. The analysis had been more detailed than previous work, but still at a broad, strategic level. 2.4 On the basis of the analysis work, the conclusions previously reached regarding the deliverability of the SUEs in transport terms had been reviewed to determine whether there was any material cause to revise them. The findings of the study included the following: 2.5 There is no material cause to revise the original conclusions that the SUEs to the north and west of Leicester, and at Hinckley and Coalville could be accommodated in Transport terms; 2.6 Broadly supportive of the original conclusion that in transport terms the option for a larger SUE of 8,000 dwellings broadly to the east of Loughborough appears to provide the best opportunity to deliver a sustainable development that can be satisfactorily accommodated. 2.7 The conclusions were however, subject to important caveats. Including that each broad area required substantial packages of transport measures to support the development and mitigate potential impacts. The work indicated that the scale of the packages required should not render the respective developments financially unviable. However, there were other matters which needed to be taken into account when assessing the potential for developer funding. These Included:
• Up-front provision of measures
4 Earl Shilton and Barwell 2/ Previous Transport Assessment AAP April 2013 Work
• Planning Tests of ‘Reasonableness’
• Wider benefits afforded by measures 2.8 Furthermore assessment of transport measures affordability was based on costs estimated and on land value at the time. Additionally, it was noted there might be a requirement for ‘Growth Point’ funding to assist with providing upfront measures and/or if there were any cases where it would be unreasonable to require developers to provide the measures. 2.9 Hinckley Core Strategy Transport Review (April 2007)The Hinckley Core Strategy Transport Review considered the highway and transportation implications of options for possible sustainable urban extensions to help meet housing allocations in the draft Core Strategy 2001- 2026. The report details the outcomes and requirements for further work in the longer term. 2.10 Work undertaken by LCC provides that with regards to the Hinckley SUE, the LCC assessment considered the transport impact of 4,375 dwellings and 25ha of employment in two possible locations in North Hinckley or Burbage. The report summarised its findings that the package of highways and transportation to mitigate the impact and improve on the current transport infrastructure was affordable, taking into account other infrastructure costs, albeit that some ‘Growth Point’ funding or monies from other sources may be required. It concludes that a SUE could be accommodated in transport terms. The package of measures identified by LCC is shown in Table 1 of the Transport Review. 2.11 Work undertaken by HBBC considered eight ‘Growth Point’ Options within the borough. A description of the process undertaken by HBBC and the outcome of the finding are detailed in ‘Directions for Growth’ dated May 2007. 2.12 Of the eight options, four were promoted as worthy of further consideration. Two further growth point areas were concluded by HBBC to be worthy of further consideration at Barwell and Earl Shilton. These two sites combined are broadly equivalent size to the developments at North Hinckley and Burbage. The three development scenarios assessed were as follows:
Barwell Earl Shilton Scenario Residential Employment Residential Employment
1 2500 dwellings 25ha 2000 dwellings 10ha
2 2500 dwellings 12.5ha 2000 dwellings 25ha
3 2500 dwellings 12.5ha 2000 dwellings 10ha
2.13 The assumptions made and parameters set when assessing the impacts of the SUEs and considering potential mitigation measures where the same as those applied by LCC in their assessment of the previous project. 2.14 At that time no traffic model existed covering the entire area. The previous work considered only very broad traffic impacts in terms of simple directional splits of the development. These were derived from a gravity model, based on 2001 journey to work census data. The previous gravity
5 Earl Shilton and Barwell 2/ Previous Transport Assessment AAP April 2013 Work
model was used in the assessment of trips to and from the Hinckley and Barwell area and was extended to include the Earl Shilton ward for the assessment of the Earl Shilton area. In terms of further work at the time, it was not possible to build a full traffic model within the timescale and resource available. 2.15 The Earl Shilton site is adjacent to a site allocated in the local plan that will have a direct access onto the Earl Shilton Bypass (ESBP). It was anticipated that another direct access onto the ESBP would be required and these would be connected via a loop road. 2.16 It was assumed that the main vehicular access to the Barwell site would be via the A447. LCC advised that the northern Barwell site would require direct link through to the southern Barwell site in order to be able to provide a sustainable transport linkage to the road network.
Traffic Flows
2.17 The four option assessments did not take into account any potential benefits of sustainable transport measures to reduce car borne trips. The impacts of the development scenarios were therefore assumed to be robust assessments. 2.18 The assessment showed that whilst there was material difference between the scenarios in terms of site size, the traffic impacts across all three development scenarios were very similar for all locations. This was due to a number of factors, primarily: 2.19 Roads adjacent to the development (i.e. Hinckley Northern Perimeter Road (HNPR) and the A447) are already fairly close to capacity so any large development proposals would require improvement. 2.20 The impact of the scenarios dissipates quickly with distance from the site, so the relative differences quickly diminish. 2.21 Additionally, a large proportion of the forecast traffic was predicted to travel southwest to the A5, and so would have similar impact to earlier scenarios for North Hinckley. Large impacts were predicted in all three scenarios on the identified routes to Hinckley town centre of Roston Drive, Ashby Road and Leicester Road. 2.22 The ability of the road network to accommodate traffic impacts without resulting in unacceptable levels of congestion was reviewed. This identified a package of potential mitigating measures the emphasis of which was on improving the A5 / HNPR / ESBP road network to encourage the use of these routes in preference to the local road network to access areas outside Hinckley. Hence no major improvements on the local road network were promoted; but modest capacity improvements were identified to alleviate the additional traffic impacts. Additionally, it was noted that LCC’s Local Transport Plan included proposals to improve signal coordination within the town centre to mitigate development impacts.
Capacity Assessment
2.23 Capacity assessments were carried out at key junctions that were included in the earlier study, plus key junctions in Barwell and Earl Shilton area where material impact was predicted.
6 Earl Shilton and Barwell 2/ Previous Transport Assessment AAP April 2013 Work
2.24 The predicted flows for each of the development scenarios were broadly similar in the Hinckley area with only relatively minor differences around Barwell, Earl Shilton and ESBP. Therefore, the capacity assessments for the junctions within Hinckley were only undertaken for the largest development scenario (Scenario 2) with individual scenario capacity assessments undertaken at the junctions’ local to the two growth point sites, where impact would be greater. The results showed that the difference in queue lengths between scenarios was relatively small, and so each junction would be likely to require a similar scale of mitigation measures. 2.25 An assessment of the package of schemes and measures was outlined in Table 3 of the report. The main additions to the Hinckley and Burbage package following the assessment for Barwell and Earl Shilton included:
• Widening / dualling of A447 Ashby Road (north of A47) near Barwell plus associated junction improvements.
• Improvements to junction along the A47 between A447 Ashby Bypass and the proposed ESBP.
• Widening / dualling of the western end of proposed ESBP.
• New public transport access between the SUEs and adjacent villages.
• Improved public transport services between the villages and Hinckley town centre.
• New and improved footway and cycle way access between the SUEs and adjacent villages. Directions for Growth produced by Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (September 2007) 2.26 The Direction for Growth Study was undertaken in order to help inform the Core Strategy by identifying the most suitable directions for growth in Hinckley & Bosworth. 2.27 The report highlights that HBBC need to accommodate an additional 3,600 new dwellings in the period to 2026, over and above that which has already been committed and identified in the ‘Urban Housing Potential Study’ to meet the requirements of the Draft East Midlands Regional Plan. To meet these requirements seven options were considered for accommodating future growth. 2.28 Based on the analysis of 7 options, it was considered that a combination of 2 options (namely 4 & 6) would provide the most benefits for both urban and rural areas of the borough, socially, economically and environmentally. These options concentrated development in and around the main urban areas, including greenfield urban extensions, with a proportion in urban fringe settlements around Leicester and in key rural centres. 2.29 The next stage in the process was to determine where the most suitable location for an urban extension would be. This was undertaken through the analysis of 8 urban extension options around Hinckley urban area, including sustainability appraisals. 2.30 Areas 2 (Land South of Burbage), 4 (Land North West of Hinckley) 6 (Land South of Earl Shilton) & 8 (Land West of Barwell) were identified as being comparatively less constrained.
7 Earl Shilton and Barwell 2/ Previous Transport Assessment AAP April 2013 Work
The next stage of the study sought to identify, in broad terms, where development would most likely to make contribution towards the sustainability of the Hinckley Urban Area. 2.31 The report concludes that Area 6: Land South of Earl Shilton and Area 8: Land West of Barwell are considered to be most appropriate location for a mixed use urban extension as there are limited constraints, the Earl Shilton Bypass would provide a defensible boundary and development can contribute towards the regeneration of Earl Shilton and Barwell, two of the most deprived areas in Hinckley & Bosworth Borough. Hinckley & Bosworth Core Strategy Inspectors Report including revised Policy 5: Transport Infrastructure in the Sub-Regional centre (August 2009) 2.32 Policy 5 of the Core Strategy proposed a range of transport improvements which incorporated new and improved bus, cycle and pedestrian links between Hinckley and adjoining settlements, together with road improvements to the A47/A5 ‘Longshoot’ junction, the HNPR, the A447 Ashby Road, and the A47 east of Ashby Road and ESBP. However concerns were expressed by the Highways Agency (HA) and the Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) about the adequacy of the evidence base, and the balance between increases in the highway capacity and more sustainable transport options. 2.33 The evidence base for HBBC‘s submission was derived mainly from the Ptolemy model used by LCC for the EMRP studies, and a more focused analysis of transport implications for Barwell and Earl Shilton. The most current series of tests were run in April 2009, based on a rebalanced package of measures, and included tests to evaluate rail service improvements and ‘Smarter Choice’ measures. HBBC and LCC proposed to continue work to refine the detail of the measures, using the more sensitive Paramics model being built at that time.
A5/A47 ‘Longshoot’ Junction
2.34 The Inspector’s report noted that the housing proposals at the SUEs would have a detrimental impact on congestion at the ‘Longshoot’ junction, although the precise impact could not be identified until the Paramics model was available. The Inspector also concluded that it was likely that a quantum of development in the SUEs could be delivered in advance of the proposed improvements, but changes would be required to accommodate any substantial development. With regard to funding, the Inspector concluded that an element of funding would be sought from the developer contributions related to the main housing schemes. Housing growth at Nuneaton and Bedworth is also likely to impact on this junction and will provide other opportunities to secure contributory funding. 2.35 The proposed improvements to the junction were not primarily aimed at providing increased capacity, but intended to enable the introduction of additional public transport priority measures. Costs were estimated between £19.3m and £22.5m were identified, depending on the timing of implementation.
Sustainable Transport Package
2.36 The Core Strategy transport package also included proposals for improvements on other parts of the highway network. The original proposals indicated the partial dualling of the HNPR, the
8 Earl Shilton and Barwell 2/ Previous Transport Assessment AAP April 2013 Work
widening of the A447 from Barwell SUE to its junction with the A47, the dualling of the western end of the ESBP, and minor works to other junctions. 2.37 Following discussions at the Core Strategy Examination a revised package of measures was developed, which looked at reduced highway improvements, including junction improvements to the HNPR and ESBP as an alternative to dualling. In addition, the revised package looked at increased bus frequencies, rail service improvements, and the introduction of ‘Smart Measures’ which seek to influence travel choice through advice, information and incentives. The delivery of rail service improvements is complicated and therefore was not included in the preferred options, although implementation would provide additional sustainable benefits. 2.38 The Ptolemy Test of Revised Transport Measures in Hinckley indicated that the revised package, without rail improvements but including ‘Smart Measures’, would lead to a fall of up to 4% in the modal share of journeys to and from Hinckley by car, and a fall of up to 5% in 2026, when compared with the situation which would occur by 2016 if there were no transport interventions. 2.39 The revised package of transport measures put forward by the Inspector provides a more clearly defined and balanced approach to meeting the transport requirements of the SUEs. However he noted in his report that the full extent of the capacity improvements needed could not be finalised until more detailed assessments were available through the Paramics model. 2.40 The Inspector concluded that the final package of proposals for the AAP should be based on the outcomes identified by the Paramics model, and should reflect the priority to achieve significant improvements in bus services between Hinckley and Barwell / Earl Shilton, concentrating on bus priority measures along the A447, which currently carries the majority of bus traffic into Hinckley. Schemes along the A47 should be limited to those necessary to provide for improved bus services, rather than increasing capacity of the corridor and attracting more car movements. Measures to improve pedestrian and cycle access to Hinckley should also be a fundamental part of the SUE proposal. 2.41 In order to reflect the changes more closely, the Inspectors report proposed revisions to Policy 5 which would stress the sustainable nature of the proposals, and that final details of the improvements should be brought forward as part of the Earl Shilton and Barwell AAP. A copy of the Revised Policy 5 is attached at Appendix B. The Advent and Implications of the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) 2.42 Subsequent to the work outlined and discussed above Leicestershire County Council devised and developed a new multi-modal transport and land use modelling framework that is referred to as the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model or LLITM. 2.43 LLITM is a modelling framework that utilises a number of inter-connected simulation models that are able to predict transport and land use changes over time. A major benefit of the model is its ability to identify and react to changes in travel patterns brought about by the planned implementation of major residential and commercial developments across the county and in neighbouring counties.
9 Earl Shilton and Barwell 2/ Previous Transport Assessment AAP April 2013 Work
2.44 Thus, rather than relying on historic travel movement patterns, as in traditional transport models, LLITM is able to predict how those movement patterns will change as new opportunities for travel come to fruition as development plans and policies are implemented. A description of the LLITM modelling process is provided at Appendix D. 2.45 LLITM has been subject to a rigorous local validation to ensure that the base model is reflecting existing travel patterns and is thus capable of predicting future demands. The work culminated in a technical note produced by LCCs contractors, AECOM, in February 2012. This report demonstrated that the model was reproducing observed traffic flows within acceptable limits on a series of screenlines and at key selected sites on major routes.
10 Earl Shilton and Barwell 3/ Issues, Opportunities and AAP April 2013 Constraints
3. Issues, Opportunities and Constraints
3.1 This section of the report provides a summary of the transport opportunities and constraints for both Earl Shilton and Barwell. This information has been used to inform the masterplanning process and to guide the development of movement strategies for each settlement.
Earl Shilton - Opportunities
3.2 The key aspects that have been considered when identifying possible opportunities for vehicular access from the Earl Shilton by-pass are as follows:
• Level differences between the by-pass and the SUE;
• Preservation of the existing nature of the by-pass, this includes associated speed limits and general character of the road;
• Existing locations of junctions;
• Existing locations of Public Rights of Way; and
• Locations of different types of developments within the proposed SUE. 3.3 As a result of the points listed above three possible vehicular accesses have been identified directly from the by-pass, Clickers Way, into the SUE these options are as follows:
• Access through the Fox Meadows development to the south of the proposed SUE;
• Access approximately 250 metres northeast of Breach Lane: and
• Access just south of Mill Lane. 3.4 It should be noted that there is potential to provide points of access at other locations along the ESBP. However, this would require a considerable amount of re-grading works and could also necessitate a review of the speed limits in force along the ESBP, which may affect its function as a bypass to the settlement. 3.5 Potential also exists for a new vehicular access between the SUE and the town centre via Astley Road, through to Alexander Road and High Street. This will provide direct access to the town centre, and other facilities such as local schools. The use of other existing links (Thurlaston Lane, Mill Lane and Breach Lane) requires careful consideration so as not to encourage short distance vehicular trips or rat-running through the existing settlement. The primary use of these existing links should be for walking, cycling and where appropriate bus movements, with Clickers Way providing the main vehicular access to the SUE. 3.6 There are a number of opportunities for pedestrian and cycle access to the SUE along the by- pass. Currently there are three good quality accesses between the existing residential areas of Earl Shilton and the by-pass. Breach Lane and Mill Lane offer at grade signed cycleway and footway access in to Earl Shilton; Thurlaston Lane also offers a high quality link between Earl Shilton and the by-pass via a three stage ramp. These three routes offer good opportunities to link the proposed SUE with Earl Shilton and the surrounding areas.
11 Earl Shilton and Barwell 3/ Issues, Opportunities and AAP April 2013 Constraints
3.7 In addition to these cycle access points there are also footpaths and bridleways which run alongside and at one point underneath the by-pass. These routes provide very good opportunities to link Earl Shilton and the wider area with the proposed SUE. The SUE development process should also seek to improve the quality of the pedestrian and cycle routes. 3.8 Detailed site inspection has shown that there is very good potential pedestrian and cycle access between the existing settlement and the proposed SUE. Sections 6 and 7 of this report give full details of the possible pedestrian and cycle connectivity of Earl Shilton with the surrounding areas. 3.9 Earl Shilton settlement centre is located between 1km and 1.5km from the proposed SUE depending on the point of measurement and is therefore easily accessible by both walking and cycling. 3.10 The existing public transport routes in and around Earl Shilton provide access to the majority of properties within a 400m walk. As a result of the current routings and levels of service within Earl Shilton there are good opportunities to divert bus services through the SUE.
Earl Shilton - Constraints
3.11 The site is bounded by Earl Shilton residential areas to the north and west and the A47 by-pass to the south and east. Due to the local topography the bypass is a mixture of embankments and cuttings. The south western corner of the site is bounded by the Fox Meadows residential development of approximately 150 residential units, to the north of the SUE is the Montgomery Gardens residential development of 209 units. 3.12 As part of the construction process for the Earl Shilton by-pass, Mill Lane and Breach Lane have been stopped up, thus meaning that there is no connection to the by-pass at these points. Similarly there is no connection at Thurlaston Lane which passes over the by-pass. As noted earlier the use of these existing links requires careful consideration so as not to encourage short distance vehicular trips or rat-running through the existing settlement. 3.13 Breach Lane is a single track lane south of the existing properties. It is a narrow residential road which connects with Station Road by means of a simple priority junction. This route would not be appropriate for a main access in to the SUE due to the constrained location and visibility issues. Initial investigations have shown that there is only limited land available surrounding the junction with Station Road thereby limiting the scope for improvements. 3.14 Sports pitches are located adjacent to the Montgomery Road development, these will need to be retained or replaced in a suitable location within the proposed SUE, and these therefore represent a constraint which needs to be managed as part of the development process. 3.15 There is currently a Waste Water Treatment Works located within the site, which is operated by Severn Trent Water. Access is currently taken from Mill Lane at the north-eastern most point of the Montgomery Gardens residential development. 3.16 Due to the general topography of the land linking the existing settlement and the proposed SUE it is unlikely that there are any significant physical constraints for pedestrian and cycle
12 Earl Shilton and Barwell 3/ Issues, Opportunities and AAP April 2013 Constraints
connectivity. Consideration should be given to providing drop kerbs and tactile paving to assist vulnerable road users in getting between the proposed SUE area and the existing Earl Shilton settlement centre. 3.17 The key constraint which may adversely affect bus routes within the SUE and close-by in the rest of Earl Shilton is that the current residential roads are quite narrow and therefore, unsuitable for full-length single deck buses or double deck buses. This has the potential of restricting the type of bus route which could be used to link the proposed SUE to the existing settlement centre.
Barwell - Opportunities
3.18 Site inspection and discussions with LCC have highlighted that the most likely main access to the proposed Barwell SUE would be from Ashby Road (A447). Due to the topography of the land between the SUE and Ashby Road there are various locations where access could be gained. The final location of the access is likely to be influenced by the final layout of the proposed SUE. 3.19 There are also two possible opportunities for gaining access from Hinckley Road, the first is between 12 and 20 Hinckley Road with the second being just south of Barwell House Farm. In order to achieve access between 12 and 20 Hinckley Road there would also be a requirement to re-locate an existing bus stop. 3.20 There is good scope to upgrade Stapleton Lane which runs through the centre of the Barwell SUE site. Stapleton Lane currently provides a direct link through to the existing settlement centre from Ashby Road. 3.21 Potential also exists to provide vehicular access from Kirkby Road; however the amount of development served would need to be restricted due to the limited capacity and nature of the surrounding roads within this area of Barwell. 3.22 An access for pedestrians and cyclists and potentially public transport would be suitable in this location as it would provide a route through to the William Bradford Community College and into Earl Shilton town centre. 3.23 There are six Public Rights of Way which run through the proposed SUE site, with connections onto Charnwood Road, Kirkby Road, Stapleton Lane, Hereford Close and the Moat Way Industrial Estate in the south eastern corner. These connections offer the opportunity to be improved to provide footway/cycleway links to the settlement centre and to other local facilities. 3.24 Close examination of the existing Barwell residential and commercial areas has shown that they are highly permeable for pedestrians and cyclists and that the routes through the different areas are currently well used. Scope exists for improvements to these existing routes including their surfacing, lighting and signage. 3.25 The existing settlement centre of Barwell is between 1km and 1.6km from the proposed SUE, this demonstrates that it is within easy walking and cycling distance. 3.26 As with Earl Shilton, Barwell is well served by existing bus routes and there are opportunities to
13 Earl Shilton and Barwell 3/ Issues, Opportunities and AAP April 2013 Constraints
divert existing bus services through the proposed Barwell SUE.
Barwell - Constraints
3.27 To the west of the proposed Barwell SUE the A447 Ashby Road is currently rural in nature with limited footway provision and much of the route is derestricted (60mph). In order to take access from Ashby Road it is likely that the speed limit will need to be reduced and other improvements carried out. 3.28 Stapleton Lane runs through the centre of the proposed SUE and is also derestricted for a large section of its route. As this route passes through the centre of the SUE it will need to undergo significant improvement measures to ensure that it becomes suitable for all road users. 3.29 Within the proposed Barwell SUE area there are a number of physical constraints which will need to be taken into account when planning for the area, at the centre of the site is a Household Waste Recycling Centre, skate park, permanent Showperson Site and Little Fields Farm Meadow which is a site of important nature conservation. In the northern corner of the site existing allotments are present. 3.30 Due consideration should be given to ensuring that there are sufficient high quality links for pedestrians and cyclists between the proposed SUE and the existing Barwell settlement. Whilst there are few physical constraints to securing adequate connectivity, consideration will need be given to improving these routes and encourage walking and cycling between the proposed SUE area and the existing Barwell settlement centre. 3.31 As with Earl Shilton, the main factor which is likely to constrain future bus movements within Barwell is the relatively narrow network of residential streets which will limit the size of buses operating in this area.
14 Earl Shilton and Barwell 4/ Bus Strategy AAP April 2013
4. Bus Strategy
4.1 The suggested proposals for amended bus services and the existing availability of public transport is shown on Figures 15 and 16. Red lines indicate existing routes whereas blue lines indicate the current catchment, assuming an acceptable walking distance from a bus route is 400m.
Figure 2 : Existing bus services and catchments
15 Earl Shilton and Barwell 4/ Bus Strategy AAP April 2013
Figure 3 : Potential bus service amendments and extended catchments
4.2 A number of objectives have been set to guide the bus strategy as follows.
• To ensure all residents and employees have access to a bus service within 400m of their front door;
• Connectivity with major employment areas outside of Earl Shilton and Barwell, this includes Hinckley and Leicester;
• Providing connectivity between the SUEs and the existing settlement centres;
• Access to local facilities including leisure attractions and shopping areas.
Options
4.3 The options for providing bus services to the new SUEs and existing centres have been assessed having regard to the need to achieve good accessibility whilst at the same time ensuring that long term commerciality is realistic. With this in mind the focus has been on examining scope for the diversion or extension of existing public transport services. Consideration has also been given to bus service origin and destination information and journey to work Census data which indicates that Hinckley and Leicester are the two destinations in highest demand.
16 Earl Shilton and Barwell 4/ Bus Strategy AAP April 2013
4.4 The proposed Public Transport strategy has been developed in co-operation with LCC and following initial discussions with the bus operators. A key aim has been to ensure that good connectivity is achieved with the proposed housing and existing major employment areas and the existing facilities within Earl Shilton and Barwell settlement centres. 4.5 There are four bus routes which have the potential to be diverted through either the Barwell SUE or the Earl Shilton SUE.
• Divert Arriva Service 158 through Earl Shilton - (Leicester - Hinckley - Nuneaton)
• Divert Stagecoach Service 48 through Barwell - (Leicester - Hinckley - Nuneaton - Coventry)
• Centrebus Service 81 (Earl Shilton – Hinckley)
• Centrebus Service 82 (Barwell - Hinckley) 4.6 In view of the demand for current local residents to travel to Hinckley and Leicester for employment, the possibility of diverting Arriva service 158 and Stagecoach service 48 through the SUEs is seen to have very good potential. The proposed strategy therefore involves the diversion of the No 158 through Earl Shilton SUE and the No 48 through Barwell SUE. By operating these two diversions in combination, each service is then able to pick up the existing passengers that are missed by the other as well as the new passengers from the SUEs. A plan showing these routes is included in Appendix C. 4.7 In parallel with the above it is also proposed that existing Centrebus services 81 and 82 are extended and combined to provide linkages between the SUEs and between the existing settlements. Both routes would penetrate both SUEs with the No 82 travelling clockwise and the No 81 travelling anti-clockwise. Both of these services would also connect to the two local centres as well as Hinckley town centre thus maximising the number of trip destinations served. 4.8 It is proposed that both the circular bus routes (81 & 82) and through services (48 & 158) are operated on a minimum frequency of 20 minutes in each direction thus providing up to 6 services per hour for each SUE. A plan showing the proposed bus routings together with an initial assessment of likely patronage and revenue forecasts is included in Appendix C. 4.9 The proposed service amendments will need to be established early on in the development phasing (at least by 50th dwelling) in order to help develop modal shift behaviour patterns. This will necessitate some advanced funding to subsidise services during the initial phases of development. The initial cost and revenue forecasting demonstrates good potential for the long term viability of the services and scope to increase frequencies over time. Based on these forecasts an allowance for bus subsidies has been calculated for inclusion within the infrastructure implementation plan (see Chapter 9). The service options, costs and subsidy requirements will need to be kept under review as individual planning applications come forwards. 4.10 The masterplan process has identified the 'spine' of each SUE, the aim being that this can be constructed where possible as part of the first phase of works so that the Public Transport routes can be operational from the outset. In order to maximise bus patronage levels and thereby minimise early subsidy payments, it is recommended that the more high density living
17 Earl Shilton and Barwell 4/ Bus Strategy AAP April 2013
accommodation and other local services are located along these spines to maximise their accessibility to bus services. Copies of the proposed AAP masterplans for each SUE are included in Appendix A. 4.11 It is noted that in the minimum road width for public transport routes should be 6m, additional widening may be required on bends. Where on-street car parking is provided and public transport is proposed to use the road, additional carriageway width may be needed; this should be agreed with the local planning and highway authorities as part of the planning application process.
Pedestrian access to bus routes
4.12 Generally walking distances to bus stops within the SUEs should be a maximum of 400m and preferable no more than 250m. Pedestrian routes to bus stops are to be as direct, convenient and safe as possible to encourage use of public transport. Routes should be designed in line with the following principles:
• good natural observation from neighbouring buildings;
• well lit; and
• carefully designed so any landscaping minimises opportunities for crime. 4.13 Bus stops within the employment or commercial areas should be near building entrances and avoid locations where passing traffic speeds are high.
18 Earl Shilton and Barwell 5/ Cycle Strategy AAP April 2013
5. Cycle Strategy
5.1 The primary aim of the cycle strategy is to facilitate and encourage journeys by bicycle both within and between the SUEs and the existing settlement centres. This will be achieved by designing for permeability and accessibility and the provision of convenient, safe and attractive routes for cyclists. 5.2 The mixed use nature of the SUEs and their close integration with the existing settlements at Earl Shilton and Barwell will provide excellent opportunities for short distance journeys by bicycle. This will have a positive impact on reducing vehicle trips and the need for longer distance commuting. 5.3 Within the SUEs cycle parking for residents, employees and visitors shall be provided in accordance with the adopted parking standards set out in the LCC design guidance, The 6Cs Design Guide – Part 3 : Section DG16. The following table extracted from the document summarises the relevant minimum cycle parking standards.
6Cs Design Guide - Table DG14 : Minimum Provision for Cycle Parking
Use Class Description of Land Use Provision
A1 and A3 Shops and restaurants, pubs One space per 500m2 up to 4000m2 gross floor area (GFA) for and clubs staff and operational use. Parking to be secured and undercover. One space for every 1000m2 GFA for customer use to be in the form as shown in Figure DG19. Parking to be located in a prominent and convenient location.
A2 to B1 Financial and professional One space per 400m2 GFA for staff and operational use. Parking to services, and research and be secure and undercover. development and offices Customer parking to be assessed on a site by site basis.
B2 to B8 General Industry and storage One space per 400m2 GFA. Parking to be secure and under cover distribution
C3 Dwelling Houses For developments with common facilities, such as flats, one space for every five dwellings. Parking to be under cover and secure. Where spaces are allocated, there should be one space for each dwelling.
D1 and D2 Non residential institutions, Staff parking to be assessed on a site by site basis. assembly and leisure Sufficient cycle racks to accommodate five percent of the maximum number of visitors expected to use the facility at any one time. Racks to be in the form as shown in Figure DG19 (Sheffield Stands) and to be located in a prominent and convenient location.
5.4 Developments or circumstances not covered in the table will be assessed on a site by site
19 Earl Shilton and Barwell 5/ Cycle Strategy AAP April 2013
basis. 5.5 The provision of sufficient convenient and secure cycle parking is a major factor in encouraging people to cycle as an alternative to using the private car and is therefore critical to increasing the use of cycles within the SUEs. Access to cycle storage should at least be as convenient as access to car parking. Within the employment areas and at community facilities cycle parking should be conveniently located at entrances to buildings and for security purposes it should enjoy good natural observation, be well lit and located so it does not obstruct pedestrian and cycle routes. 5.6 The key elements of the cycle strategies for each SUE in terms of internal cycle routes and external connections to the existing settlements, are shown on the proposed development masterplans (Appendix A) and described in more detail below.
Key connections for Earl Shilton SUE
5.7 Earl Shilton benefits from direct access to the newly constructed, high quality cycle route alongside the A47 bypass (Clickers Way). This forms part of the longer distance cycle route between Hinckley 4 miles to the west and Leicester 11 miles to the north. 5.8 As outlined on the Earl Shilton masterplan, four dedicated cycle access points are proposed onto the by-pass. These comprise three existing connections at Thurlaston Lane, Mill Lane and Breach Lane plus a new connection mid-way between Breach Lane and Mill Lane. 5.9 Cycle access between Thurlaston Lane and Clickers Way is available via the new zigzag ramp constructed as part of the bypass scheme. Connections at Mill Lane and Breach Lane are at- grade. Both lanes have been stopped-up to vehicular traffic where they meet the bypass thus removing through traffic and enhancing the environment for cyclists and pedestrians. The proposed new connection to Clickers Way is approximately 500m northeast of Breach Lane and is also at-grade with the bypass. This location also provides access to the existing public bridleway which runs to the north of the bypass between Breach Lane and Mill Lane. Other bridleways exist to the south of the bypass, linked to the north via grade separated crossings and providing opportunities for off-road recreational cycling. 5.10 Four connection points are proposed between the SUE and the existing Earl Shilton settlement centre. These are located in the south at Breach Lane, centrally via Astley Road / Alexander Avenue and in the north via Mill Lane and Thurlaston Lane. These on-road, lightly trafficked routes provide convenient access to a wide range of retail, employment, education and community services available in Earl Shilton within 1km to 1.5km. The routes utilise existing residential streets which provide good natural surveillance and benefit from existing street lighting. The SUEs will however be required to provide additional signage for cyclists and additional cycle parking facilities within the town centre, for example adjacent to the Post Office. The details of these improvements will need to be examined more fully at the planning application stage. A provisional allowance for financial contributions towards off-site improvements has been included within the infrastructure implementation plan (Section 9 of this report).
20 Earl Shilton and Barwell 5/ Cycle Strategy AAP April 2013
5.11 The masterplan indicates a number of cycleways running through the Earl Shilton SUE, it should be noted that these are not the only places that cyclists will be encouraged to ride. The whole SUE will be fully permeable for cyclists and through the road hierarchy strategy and use of Home Zone principles, an environment will be created which actively promotes cycling as a mode choice.
Key connections for Barwell SUE
5.12 To maximise connectivity for cyclists between the SUE and surrounding networks a number of access points are proposed, as shown on the proposed Barwell masterplan (Appendix A). This includes two cycleway connections westwards onto the A447 Ashby Road and five connections eastwards linking to Barwell. 5.13 The southernmost connection to Ashby Road is proposed just north of Barwell House Farm and will run alongside the main public transport and vehicle access route travelling through the centre of the SUE. A second cycleway connection to Ashby Road is proposed 600m further north approximately mid-way along the Ashby Road frontage. Stapleton Lane will also provide an additional cycle route through the proposed Barwell SUE connecting to Ashby Road in the northwest and Barwell in the southeast. 5.14 Additional connections to the existing Barwell settlement centre are proposed at Kirkby Road in the north, Moat Way in the south and two central connections at Stapleton Lane and Hereford Close. The Kirkby Road access is located adjacent to Charnwood Road and will provide a key access route between the SUE and existing secondary school facilities as well as other facilities within the Earl Shilton settlement centre. Stapleton Lane provides direct access into central Barwell. The connection via Hereford Close (and Galloway Close) utilises existing lightly trafficked streets to provide access to existing facilities within Barwell. Finally the connection to Moat Way provides direct access to employment opportunities within the existing industrial estate as well as southern areas of the existing settlement. 5.15 As with Earl Shilton, all local facilities and services within Barwell are within 1km to 1.5km of the SUE thereby providing excellent opportunities for many local journeys to be undertaken by bicycle. The SUEs will however be required to provide additional signage for cyclists and additional cycle parking facilities within the town centre, for example within The Square. In addition, the section of existing footpath between Jersey Way and The Barracks should be converted to a cycleway to facilitate cycle access to the southern area of the SUE (via Galloway Close and Hereford Close). Details of these improvements will need to be examined more fully at the planning application stage. A provisional allowance for financial contributions towards off- site improvements has been included within the infrastructure implementation plan (Section 9 of this report). 5.16 Within the SUE a number of dedicated cycle routes are proposed as indicated on the masterplan. These include a cycleway along the main vehicular / public transport route passing through the centre of the SUE. This route will also provide direct cycle access into the proposed residential and employment areas as well as other cycle routes running through the SUE. Like Earl Shilton, the whole SUE will be fully permeable for cyclists and through the road hierarchy
21 Earl Shilton and Barwell 5/ Cycle Strategy AAP April 2013
strategy and use of Home Zone principles an environment will be created which actively promotes cycling as a mode choice.
22 Earl Shilton and Barwell 6/ Pedestrian Strategy AAP April 2013
6. Pedestrian Strategy
6.1 The primary aim of the pedestrian strategy is to facilitate and encourage journeys on foot within the SUEs and to the existing settlement centres. As with the cycling strategy, this will be achieved by designing for permeability and accessibility and through the provision of convenient, safe and attractive routes for pedestrians. 6.2 Again the mixed use nature of the SUEs and their close integration with the existing settlements at Earl Shilton and Barwell will provide excellent opportunities for short distance journeys on foot. This will have a positive impact on reducing vehicle trips and the need for longer distance commuting. 6.3 The proposed masterplans outline the key elements of the pedestrian strategy for each SUE in terms of internal pedestrian routes and external connections to footpaths within the existing settlements. Copies of the proposed masterplans are included in Appendix A.
Earl Shilton Pedestrian routes
6.4 The key elements of the pedestrian access strategy for the Earl Shilton SUE are:
• Access between the SUE and the Earl Shilton town centre; • Access between the existing residential and the new employment areas; • Access between the new residential and the existing employment areas; • Access between the new and existing residential and recreational facilities; and • Overall permeability of the SUE. 6.5 The proposed masterplan indicates seven pedestrian access points into and out of the development which link towards the existing settlement centre. These points are located along the north-western boundary of the SUE. Other opportunities for pedestrian access may exist along the existing settlement edge and should be explored further at the planning application stage. Two further access points for pedestrians are available via the proposed cycleway connections to Thurlaston Lane in the north and Astley Road at the centre of the SUE. 6.6 Three of the proposed pedestrian access points are located along the perimeter of the recent Montgomery Gardens development. These extend up to the edge of the Montgomery Gardens site and will simply need to be extended into the SUE. The remaining four access points are located at Mill Lane, The Leecrofts, Meadow Court Road and Breach Lane as shown on the masterplan. 6.7 The current permeability of Earl Shilton is very good; there are a number of direct pedestrian routes along existing quite residential streets which provide good natural surveillance and benefit from existing street lighting. There is however some scope for improvement in terms of signage, improved lighting and improved crossing facilities. There are a number of junctions along Astley Road, Meadow Court Road and Alexander Avenue with partial or no dropped kerb crossings or tactile paving. These junctions will need to be improved to facilitate and encourage pedestrian movements between the SUE and the town centre. It is also proposed that the
23 Earl Shilton and Barwell 6/ Pedestrian Strategy AAP April 2013
existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing of the High Street at the junction with Alexander Avenue is upgraded to a signalised (pelican) crossing. A further signal controlled crossing (pelican) is proposed on Station Road immediately to the north of Equity East Road. The details of these improvements will need to be examined more fully at the planning application stage. A provisional allowance for financial contributions towards these off-site footway enhancements has been included within the infrastructure implementation plan (Section 9 of this report).
Barwell Pedestrian Links
6.8 As at Earl Shilton, the key aspects of the pedestrian access strategy for the Barwell SUE are as follows:
• Access between the SUE and the Barwell town centre;
• Access between the existing residential and the new employment areas;
• Access between the new residential and the existing employment areas;
• Access between the new and existing residential and recreational facilities: and,
• Overall permeability of the SUE. 6.9 There are a number of existing public footpaths crossing the site of the SUE which are to be retained and enhanced to serve the development. There is also good permeability for pedestrians within Barwell with links connecting to the town centre via existing lightly trafficked streets and existing public footpaths. The masterplan for the Barwell SUE shows seven pedestrian links between the SUE and the existing village of Barwell. Other opportunities for pedestrian access may exist along the existing settlement edge and should be explored further at the planning application stage. The southernmost access point gives direct access into the Moat Way Industrial Estate. This is proposed to operate as a shared cycle/footway. Also at the southern edge of the site, the opportunity exists to divert part of the Leicestershire Round through the SUE. 6.10 Between Moat Way and Stapleton Lane, three further pedestrian access points are proposed to serve the southern area of the SUE. These connect with existing footways and footpaths in Boston Way, Hereford Close and Galloway Close, as indicated on the proposed masterplan. To the north of Stapleton Lane, three more pedestrian access points are proposed to serve the northern area of the SUE. These are positioned where existing public footpaths join Harvey Close and Kirkby Road. From this northern area of the SUE, pedestrians also have access to existing footways along Stapleton Lane and Kirkby Road. 6.11 As with Earl Shilton, permeability within the existing settlement is good with a number of direct pedestrian routes between the SUE and town centre facilities utilising either off-road footpaths or footways alongside existing residential streets. The former offer a quiet traffic free environment but do not enjoy the levels of natural surveillance or street lighting available along the public highways. All these routes will need to be upgraded in terms of new signage, enhanced street lighting (where practicable) and improved crossing facilities. 6.12 There are a number of junctions along Hereford Close, Galloway Close, Fairacre Road,
24 Earl Shilton and Barwell 6/ Pedestrian Strategy AAP April 2013
Stapleton Lane and Kirkby Road with partial or no dropped kerb crossings or tactile paving that will need to be improved to facilitate and encourage pedestrian movements between the SUE and the town centre. In addition, a new signal controlled crossing (pelican) should be provided on Kirkby Road just to the south of Charnwood Road. 6.13 The details of these improvements will need to be examined more fully at the planning application stage. A provisional allowance for financial contributions towards these off-site footway enhancements has been included within the infrastructure implementation plan (Section 9 of this report).
25 Earl Shilton and Barwell 7/ SUE Highway Access Strategy AAP April 2013
7. SUE Highway Access Strategy
7.1 All current proposals for vehicle access for both the Barwell and Earl Shilton SUEs are illustrated on Figure 14.
Figure 4 : SUE Site Access Proposals
7.2 This section of the report sets out proposals for connecting the SUEs to the adjoining local road networks such that permeability is achieved without encouraging short distance car journeys or unwanted through traffic. The SUEs are located and designed to encourage short distance local journeys to be undertaken by non-vehicle modes. The primary focus of the vehicle access strategy is therefore to facilitate connections to and from longer distance destinations. Given the scale of the SUEs a further aim is to disperse development traffic by providing a choice of access points. 7.3 Year 2026 peak period traffic flow forecasts for the surrounding highway network, including SUE traffic, have been derived using the Hinckley & Nuneaton Paramics traffic model. The outputs from this model have been used to inform the transport infrastructure implementation plan (in Chapter 9 of this report) and also to confirm the access arrangements for the SUEs based on the proposed masterplans (Appendix A).
26 Earl Shilton and Barwell 7/ SUE Highway Access Strategy AAP April 2013
Earl Shilton Proposed Vehicle Access:
7.4 The primary means of vehicular access to the Earl Shilton SUE will be from the A47 Clickers Way which provides links north-eastwards towards Leicester and south-westwards towards Hinckley, Nuneaton the A5 corridor and the M69. Access to Clickers Way needs to be restricted to ensure that the strategic function of this route is not undermined through a proliferation of new junctions. 7.5 The proposed masterplan identifies two connections to Clickers Way, one to the south via the Fox Meadows development utilising Masefield Drive and one to the north adjacent to Mill Lane. The southern access will necessitate extending Masefield Drive across Breach lane and into the SUE. The design of this connection will need to ensure that vehicle movements between the access road and Breach Lane are prohibited so as not to allow a connection between Breach Lane and the Bypass or between the SUE and Breach Lane. 7.6 The current proposals for the Clickers Way/ Masefield Drive junction comprise a three arm traffic signal controlled junction. This junction has been assessed in the LLITM/Paramics models and shown to be able to accommodate all predicted traffic movements satisfactorily. 7.7 The proposed northern access to Clickers Way is located at Mill Lane at the point adjacent to where the eastern section of Mill Lane joins the bypass. The current proposals for this junction are for a new three arm roundabout on Clickers way with a new connection to Mill Lane on the western side of the A47; this location provides good junction spacing between Masefield Drive (1.6km to the south) and Leicester Road (1.6km to the north). The proposed layout has been assessed in the LLITM/Paramics modelling and the results of this work indicate that this form of junction is capable of accommodating predicted future traffic flows satisfactorily. Firm details of the roundabout design will need to be progressed through the Transport Assessment process at the planning application stage. 7.8 Two further vehicular accesses are proposed at Mill Lane and Astley Road to link the SUE to the existing settlement. The design of these connections and the internal road network will need to ensure that extraneous through traffic is appropriately discouraged. It is proposed that these accesses will comprise simple priority junctions and again this is supported by the traffic forecasts derived from the Paramics modelling.
Barwell Proposed Vehicle Access:
7.9 Access to the SUE is proposed westwards to the A447 Ashby Road and eastwards towards the town centre via Stapleton Lane. As indicated on the proposed masterplan two vehicular accesses are proposed onto Ashby Road, one in the southwest corner of the SUE and one further north, approximately mid-way between the existing junctions at Hinckley Road and Stapleton Lane. These locations have been selected as ground levels are favourable and good visibility can be achieved along the highway. 7.10 Ashby Road is rural in character in this area with no footways, street lighting or frontage development and is subject to a 60mph speed limit. It is proposed that pedestrian and cyclist movements along the western boundary of the SUE are catered for by means of a new, lit,
27 Earl Shilton and Barwell 7/ SUE Highway Access Strategy AAP April 2013
shared footway/cycleway within the development and parallel to Ashby Road. This will provide a pleasant high quality pedestrian and cyclist environment that is segregated from high speed traffic on Ashby Road. It is further proposed that there should be no direct frontage access to any dwellings from Ashby Road. In view of these proposals pedestrians and cyclists will be discouraged from using Ashby Road and the need for urbanising treatments such as footways and street lighting can be minimised and limited to the site access junctions only. 7.11 It is proposed that the most northerly of the two accesses will take the form of a three-arm ghost-island priority junction whereas the southern access is proposed to be a three arm roundabout. 7.12 Two further vehicular accesses will be provided on Stapleton Lane to provide access into the northern area of the SUE. Current proposals favour a four arm traffic signal controlled layout for the northern access whereas the more southerly access is proposed as a three arm simple priority junction. 7.13 These junction layouts have been modelled and assessed in LLITM/Paramics and have been found to operate satisfactorily at the design year horizon of 2026. 7.14 In conjunction with the development of the SUE, Stapleton Lane will be improved to include high quality footways and street lighting throughout, consistent with the rest of the SUE. Additionally, the current 30mph speed limit commencing at Cumberland Way will be extended throughout the SUE frontage. 7.15 Consideration has been given to the creation of an additional access onto Kirkby Road. This is not shown on the proposed masterplan but remains a possible option for a small number of dwellings subject to further examination at the planning application stage. It is an objective of the masterplan to achieve a high quality pedestrian and cycle access between the SUE and the existing education facilities in Charnwood Road. Therefore any proposals which significantly increase vehicular traffic flows along Charnwood Road will be resisted.
28 Earl Shilton and Barwell 8/ Internal Road Hierarchy & Car AAP April 2013 Parking
8. Internal Road Hierarchy & Car Parking
8.1 This section of the report sets out the proposed approach for satisfactorily accommodating vehicular movement within the Earl Shilton and Barwell SUE areas in terms of an internal road hierarchy and arrangements for car parking. 8.2 Additional guidance on design aspects is set out in the AAP and also available within the Department for Transport document Manual for Streets – Parts 1 and 2 and in LCC’s design guidance, the 6Cs Design Guide. This guidance is intended to assist in the design of development layouts that provide safe and free movement for all road users. 8.3 A fundamental principle is that the developments should include a permeable network of streets linking individual neighbourhoods to each other and to local community facilities. Other important aims are to:
• Provide road layouts which meet the needs of all users and do not allow vehicles to dominate;
• Create an environment that is safe for all road users and in which people are encouraged to walk, cycle and use public transport and feel safe doing so; and
• Help create quality developments in which to live, work and play.
Road Hierarchy
8.4 Within the SUEs a hierarchy of routes and streets is proposed. The design and character of these routes will vary according to their importance and function. The widest streets will be the primary routes designed for through traffic and public transport while local streets on which pedestrians have priority will be the narrowest. 8.5 The design of residential streets should accord with Leicestershire County Council guidance (The 6Cs Design Guide – Part 3 : http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/6csdg.htm) and Manual for Streets – Parts 1 and 2 (DfT, CLG, CIHT, March 2007 and September 2010). In order to guide future development, a suggested hierarchy of street types for the SUEs is set out below. 8.6 Avenues – These are the main routes through development accommodating public transport. These routes should include tree planting on both sides of the street, grass verges and footways delineated by kerbs. Non allocated on street parking bays should be provided close to the local centres. Direct access to the carriageway from individual dwellings should be permitted but in some locations parking will need to be provided in semi–private rear courtyards. The carriageway will be wide enough to accommodate buses and cycleways (combined footway / cycleways could be provided off street as an alternative) along with private vehicles. Surface treatments will commonly be asphalt for the carriageway and footways although alternatives such as block paving could be used in locations such as the local centres. Where these routes pass through the local centres traffic speeds should be reduced through horizontal or vertical shift. 8.7 Streets – Streets are the secondary level of circulation within residential development. They will
29 Earl Shilton and Barwell 8/ Internal Road Hierarchy & Car AAP April 2013 Parking
typically consist of a carriageway with a footway on both sides of the street – delineated by a kerb – although this could be provided on a single side only in some locations. Surface treatments will commonly be asphalt for the carriageway and footways although alternatives such as block paving could be used in some locations. Direct access to the carriageway from individual dwellings should be permitted on all streets. Occasional visitor parking spaces should be provided. Forward visibility should be restricted and horizontal shift introduced to reduce traffic speeds. 8.8 Lanes – Lanes are more informal vehicular routes where the space between buildings can be shared by pedestrians and vehicular users. There will be less delineation between carriageway and footway and the use of kerbs will be reduced – although they may be used in some locations. Alternative surface treatments to asphalt such as block paving and setts will be more common. Direct access to the carriageway from individual dwellings should be permitted on all streets. Occasional visitor parking spaces should be provided. Forward visibility should be restricted and horizontal shift introduced to reduce traffic speeds. 8.9 Mews – These are shared spaces for pedestrians and vehicular users. There will be no kerbs and the space between buildings will be at a single ‘grade’ creating a level, ‘shared surface’ for all users. Alternative surface treatments to asphalt such as block paving and setts should used in these spaces. Direct access to the carriageway from dwellings will be possible and there will be frequent on street parking bays. Access to garages and parking courtyards will also be common. 8.10 Driver behaviour is directly affected by the design of the physical environment. Changes in road width, alignment, materials and landscaping can be used to significantly reduce vehicle speeds and deter through traffic. The SUEs will adopt these principles together with the suggested road hierarchy and appropriate design of the streetscape to create an environment where traffic speeds are naturally slowed with streets that are safe and pleasant for all road users. 8.11 In addition to providing for vehicular movement the designs for the SUEs will also need to include high quality provision for pedestrians and cyclists. This will be achieved using a combination of dedicated and shared routes. The proposed SUE masterplans (Appendix A) identify a number of segregated, car-free pedestrian and cycle routes. Pedestrian and cycle links may also be used to connect between sections of vehicular routes to improve permeability and connectivity for these non-motorised modes of travel. Pedestrian and cycle links should be designed to benefit from passive surveillance by surrounding development. Their character can be formal or informal depending on their location and function within the development
Car Parking
8.12 A range of parking solutions will be employed including on and off plot parking areas together with on-street parking. The aim will be to fully integrate car parking within the overall design of the development such that it is convenient for users but does not become visually intrusive or dominate the streetscape. 8.13 Within the SUEs car and service vehicle parking shall be provided in accordance with the adopted parking standards set out in The 6Cs Design Guide – Part 3, DG14, et. seq. In addition
30 Earl Shilton and Barwell 8/ Internal Road Hierarchy & Car AAP April 2013 Parking
to identifying the required levels of parking within developments, the LCC guidance also contains advice on the design and layout of parking and servicing areas. 8.14 The main design considerations are that parking should be located as conveniently as possible to the buildings it serves. Good natural surveillance is also a priority in order to ensure that parking areas are pleasant and secure for users and that the risk of crime and anti social behaviour is minimised. In certain circumstances it may be necessary to design measures to prevent parking in unsuitable areas and to ensure parking bays are used correctly. This may include the use of landscaping features or waiting restrictions supported by traffic regulation orders.
Residential Car Parking
8.15 The required levels of car parking within the residential areas will depend on a range of factors including dwelling size, type and tenure. LCC’s design guidance does not specify standard levels of provision for individual house types, but instead sets out a methodology for calculating parking demand, based on these factors and including allowance for visitor parking.
Non Residential Car Parking
8.16 The normal maximum parking requirements for non residential development are set out in the following table, which has been extracted from LCC’s design guide.
6Cs Design Guide – Table DG11 : Normal Maximum Parking Standards in Leicestershire
Threshold for Normal maximum parking standard based on one space for every Use applying the sq.m of gross floor space unless otherwise stated standards
Food Retail One space for every 14m2 1000m2
Non Food Retail One space for every 20m2 1000m2
Urban town Rural town Office and Warehousing centre or Rest of centre of Rest of Out of any
edge of urban town edge of rural town town One space for every... centre centre
B1 Offices 60m2 - 40m2 30m2 30m2 2500m2
B1 non Office and B2 130m2 80m2 90m2 65m2 55m2 2500m2 general Industry
B8 Warehousing 300m2 180m2 200m2 150m2 120m2 2500m2
8.17 For development below the stated thresholds, Leicestershire County Council will continue to apply standards contained in the previous guidance document ‘Highway Requirements for
31 Earl Shilton and Barwell 8/ Internal Road Hierarchy & Car AAP April 2013 Parking
Development’.
Disabled Parking Provision
8.18 For all non residential developments, the SUEs will provide disabled parking to the minimum standards shown in the following table, which has been extracted from LCC’s standards and is in accordance with DfT Traffic Advisory Leaflet TAL 05/95. Disabled parking is additional to general parking provision and should be provided as close as possible to main entrances of buildings.
DfT Traffic Advisory Leaflet 05/95 – Table 2 : Minimum Provision for Disabled Parking spaces
Car park size Car parked used for Up to 200 spaces Over 200 spaces
Individual bays for each disabled Employees and visitors to employee plus two bays or 5% of total Six bays plus 2% of total parking spaces business premises parking spaces whichever is greater
Shopping, recreation and Three bays or 6% of total parking spaces Four bays plus 4% of total parking leisure whichever is greater spaces
Parking for Motor Cycles
8.19 Motorcycles and mopeds can provide an alternative to the private car for certain trips. There is a growth in the popularity of motorcycles and mopeds both for leisure and as a means of transport. Within public car parks and employment areas, parking for motorcycles should be provided in accordance with LCC’s standards at a rate of one space, plus an additional space for every 10 car parking spaces.
32 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
9. Assessment of Highway Impacts
Background to the Assessment Process 9.1 A key principle of the SUEs is that they are designed to maximise opportunities for sustainable travel. This is achieved through a combination of complementary design factors including site location, the disposition of land uses and access to sustainable transport networks. Thus the majority of local daily needs can be met within or adjacent to the SUEs within walking and cycling distance or by public transport for longer distance journeys. 9.2 Notwithstanding the emphasis on the promotion of sustainable travel, it is recognised that private car journeys will continue to account for a significant proportion of overall trips to and from the SUEs. As set out in Section 2 of this report a number of previous studies into the transport implications of the SUEs have been carried out, in particular the work underpinning the Core Strategy and feeding into Policy 5 ‘Transport Infrastructure in the Sub-Regional Centre’ (see Appendix B). 9.3 Most importantly, the recent work carried out using LLITM has identified the key strategic movements between the SUEs and major employment centres, including those (such as MIRA) that are committed for development but are as yet unimplemented. 9.4 Prior to the implementation of LLITM, the assessment of the strategic transport impact of the AAP was expected to be based on the original Hinckley and Nuneaton Paramics Model. The Core Strategy Inspectors Interim Report (August 2009) noted the existence of the Paramics model (then under construction) and further noted that the SUE transport impacts and Policy 5 transport mitigation package should be reviewed using that model. 9.5 Once LLITM was made available and accepted by LCC as the preferred tool for the evaluation of strategic transport impacts of major proposals and local authority planning policy frameworks, work on the Paramics model ceased and outputs were refocused on those to be provided by LLITM. 9.6 However, it was recognised that, as a strategic model, LLITM may not be suited for the detailed evaluation of local traffic impacts such as those witnessed at key junctions. Thus there was still a requirement for a second tier model that could inform the identification of highway mitigation measures. At this point it was agreed that a revised and update Paramics model would be utilised for this purpose. This model (a derivative of the Hinckley and Nuneaton Paramics Model) was based on the approved Warwickshire CC Paramics model used to assess the options for the MIRA development and is subsequently referred to as the HNPR. 9.7 The process undertaken to derive future traffic flows for the AAP and SUEs is shown in Figure 5 below and discussed subsequently.
33 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
LLITM Paramics Reporting
LLITM Validation HNPM Preparation
LLITM DM + DS Modelling (No Mitigation)
(Phase 2)
HNPM DM + DS Modelling (No Mitigation) (Phase 2) Draft Infrastructure Schedule
HNPM DS Modelling (With Mitigation) Draft STA (Phase3) Preparation
LLITM DS Modelling (With Mitigation) (Phase 3)
Final STA `Preparation
Figure 5 : Modelling Framework Process
34 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
The Highway Impact Modelling Process
9.8 The process illustrated in Figure 5, above, identifies two inter-connected transport modelling streams that provide both strategic and local data on highway traffic demands at the AAP horizon of 2026. 9.9 With the advent of LLITM, LCC advice was to base all strategic modelling for AAPs and major development proposals on the outputs from the integrated land use and transport model. To this end a brief was devised to satisfy the needs of the AAP strategic transport assessment and the modelling needs of the two SUEs at Earl Shilton and Barwell. 9.10 Prior to full modelling in LLITM some local model validation was required to improve the performance of the LLITM highway model. This procedure used independent traffic data to ensure that modelled outputs were replicating observed conditions in key areas within the AAP area. 9.11 Once this was achieved, the full LLITM land use and transport model was run under a number of scenario to provide the inputs needed to inform the Do Minimum (i.e. without SUE development) and the Do Something (i.e. with SUE development but no mitigation) scenario prior to more detailed local modelling in Paramics.
The Do-Minimum Model (With SUEs but NO Mitigation)
9.12 The Do Minimum or DM included committed development proposals within and around Leicestershire. Committed developments are those development schemes that have approval through the planning process but are yet to be implemented. Each development within this category will have its own set of particular transport mitigation measures and these are included within the modelling of the transport networks. 9.13 The Do Something or DS1 included all committed development (i.e. the Do Minimum) plus the particular set of additional developments according to the assessment being carried out. Initially each DS1 included development but without mitigation of transport impacts. Thus the increase in congestion and delays could be assessed at all significant junctions in the modelled area, prior to the identification of particular measures to offset development related traffic demands. 9.14 The DS options modelled related to three substantive development schemes:
• The full implementation of the AAP proposals
• The Barwell SUE in isolation
• The Earl Shilton SUE in isolation 9.15 All scenario were modelled at the Core Strategy Horizon year of 2026. 9.16 Concurrent with the initial LLITM work, the HNPR Paramics modelling was commissioned and local modification carried out to ensure compatibility with the LLITM and to confirm the local validation of the base model. Subsequently, detailed traffic movement data was transferred to the Paramics Model from LLITM and the HNPR was run to provide detailed assessments of all
35 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
major junctions within the study area for both the DM and DS1 scenario. 9.17 The LLITM method provides comprehensive information on the strategic distribution of traffic emanating from the SUEs as well as predicted volumes in each of the peak hours. The land- use planning element of the modelling framework ensures that the distribution of traffic on the network takes account of predicted increases in residential and commercial development in the region. 9.18 The most significant finding is the dominance of traffic demand between the SUEs and the area to the south-west. This is illustrated in the following diagram, where the colour and width of the lines (the bandwidth) represents the traffic volume from the SUEs in the morning peak hour. This diagram is produced by the Paramics model.
Figure 6 : Bandwidth Diagram - SUEs Traffic Demands - AM Peak 2026
9.19 The above diagram represents the scenario with SUEs included but without any mitigation for the demands caused by the additional traffic. Hence there is some evidence of increased rat- running through Higham on the Hill. Nonetheless the clear dominant path is via the A47 to Dodwells, Longshoot and towards Nuneaton. 9.20 Traffic into Hinckley has a tendency to utilise Leicester Road instead of Ashby Road, possibly owing to the presence of delays at the Normandy Way/ Ashby Road junction. 9.21 There were 44 junctions considered as part of the tranche of work and these are shown on
36 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
Figure 7 and described in the list below.
Figure 7 : Junction Locations and Do Minimum Assessment
Junction Junction Description Description No. No.
1 A5 / Drayton Lane 23 A47/A447 Ashby Rd signals
2 A5 / Woodford Lane 24 A47/The Common Barwell
3 A5 / A444 Atherstone Rd 25 A47/Leicester Rd
4 A5 / A444 Weddington Ln 26 B4667 Ashby Rd/Derby Rd
5 A5/MIRA 27 B4667 Upper Bond St/Hollycroft
6 A5/Wood Lane 28 B590 Leicester Rd / Derby Rd
7 A5/Higham Ln roundabout 29 B590 Spa Ln/Leicester Rd
8 A5/Long Shoot 30 B590 Park Rd/London Rd
37 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
Junction Junction Description Description No. No.
9 A5/A47 Dodwells roundabout 31 B576 Hinckley Rd/Burbage Rd
10 A5 / Nutts Lane roundabout 32 Sapcote Rd / Aston Flamville Rd
11 A5 / Logix Rd Roundabout 33 B4667 Lower Bond St/B590 Stockwell Head
12 M69 J1 34 Mansion St / Trinity Ln
13 A5 / Lutterworth Rd 35 B590 Rugby Rd/Coventry Rd
14 M69 J2 36 B590 Rugby Rd / Hawley Rd
15 A47 Hinckley Rd/A4254 37 B4109 Rugby Rd / Brookside
16 A47 Hinckley Rd / Higham Ln 38 A444 Newton Rd / Bond St
17 Weddington Rd / Old Hinckley Rd 39 A444 Back St / Leicester Rd
18 Weddington Rd / Leicester Rd 40 A444 Vicarage St / Church St
19 Coventry Rd / Long Meadow Dr 41 A444 Vicarage St / Coton Rd
20 A47/Roston Dr roundabout 42 A444 Roanne Ringway / Queens Rd
21 A47/Wykin Rd roundabout 43 A444 Roanne Ringway / Corporation St
22 A47/Stoke Rd roundabout 44 B4111 Mancetter Rd / Camp Hill Rd
9.22 Paramics provided reports on the extent of queuing at these junctions (by arm and time period) and this enabled the worst affected junctions to be identified quickly and studies to be implemented into potential mitigation solutions. 9.23 The metric used in determining whether a junction should be assessed for potential mitigation was the increase in queuing between the 2026 DM and 2026 DS1 model runs. (2026 situation with committed development vs. 2026 situation with committed development and AAP but no mitigation). 9.24 Where queuing increased by more than 10 vehicles on any arm in any time period, further study was carried out. The full output from this assessment is shown in Appendix E. The principal issues identified in the DS1 assessment of the AAP scenario are discussed briefly below with a description of the first tranche of proposals for testing in the DS2 assessment (2026 situation with committed development and AAP with mitigation).
38 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
The Mitigation Strategy 9.25 An over-riding principle adopted in the identification of the most appropriate highway impact mitigation strategy for the Earl Shilton and Barwell AAP is that key strategic traffic movements to and from the SUEs should be encouraged to utilise the primary highway network. 9.26 Currently, however, it is acknowledged that, contrary to that strategy, certain traffic movements are using less suitable, minor routes to bypass existing known congestion hotspots. This is particularly true of movements between northern Hinckley and the A5 north of The Longshoot, where there is a tendency for some traffic movements to rat-run through local villages via, for example, Rogue’s Lane and Stapleton Lane, creating unnecessary and unwanted traffic impacts in Stoke Golding and Higham on the Hill, amongst others. 9.27 The imposition of additional traffic generated by the SUEs and the predicted growth in background traffic will only serve to exacerbate this situation. 9.28 The central thrust of the mitigation strategy, therefore, is focussed on the identification of improvement measures at key junctions along the primary highway corridors that are highlighted as displaying significant congestion in the existing and predicted traffic scenario. 9.29 These measures will serve to provide the necessary capacity along the main strategic corridors for SUE generated traffic and also have the added benefit of encouraging existing rat-running traffic to divert from their current undesirable routes. 9.30 The Do-Minimum Process described above highlighted the areas of greatest concern and provided a technical and operational basis for the identification of improvements that are focused on providing additional highway capacity to accommodate the SUEs. 9.31 The key junctions identified for improvement are:
• A5 Longshoot and Dodwells Junction
• A47 Normandy Way/ Ashby Road Junction
• Rugby Road/ Hawley Road Junction
• Rugby Road/ Brookside
• Ashby Road/ Stapleton Lane
• A47/ B582 Desford Crossroads 9.32 The mitigation works identified at these locations is discussed below.
39 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
Do-Something Schemes Junctions 8/9 : A5 Longshoot and Dodwells Junctions
Figure 8 : Longshoot and Dodwells Proposals
9.33 The A5 Longshoot and Dodwells junctions are critical junctions on the A5 and both are extremely sensitive to additional traffic movements. Because of the extent of interaction between them they are considered together. 9.34 It should be noted that the current layout of these junctions is due to be modified as part of the MIRA proposals and thus the scheme tested in the DS1 assessment is not that as seen on the ground today. 9.35 The scheme as tested is shown in Appendix F. In brief, the Longshoot junction is to be modified to incorporate improved pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities which necessitates removal of the dedicated east to south segregated lane. 9.36 The Dodwells roundabout is also modified to incorporate traffic signalisation and a through lane from west to east. 9.37 In the AM peak period queuing at Longshoot was predicted to increase by up to 102 vehicles on the A5 western approach and by up to 44 vehicles in the PM Peak on The Long Shoot approach. At Dodwells AM queues increased by 16 on Dodwells Road and PM queues by up to 38 on the A5 eastern approach although increased queuing was witnessed on all
40 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
approaches. 9.38 A mitigation was devised to ameliorate these increased queues at both Longshoot and Dodwells and also provide a improved situation for all road users. This scheme was based largely on the assumption that the proposed MIRA improvements would be implemented in the meantime. 9.39 This scheme is shown in Appendix F as Capita Symonds drawing CS/053084/T/012. The key aspects of this scheme are as follows. 9.40 At Longshoot:
• The dedicated left tune lane from the A5 east to The Long Shoot is retained/ re- implemented;
• The A5 eastern approach is widened to 2 lane straight-ahead with a merge to one lane to the west of the junction;
• The A5 western approach is retained. 9.41 At Dodwells
• The A5 west to east through lane is retained;
• The circulatory carriageway is widened to the south of the roundabout to provide for two east to west straight-ahead lanes with a dedicated third lane approach from the east for traffic turning to Dodwells Rd and Coventry Rd;
• The Dodwells Rd approach is widened to two lanes for a distance of 200m to provide for increased throughput to the west. 9.42 In addition, the A5 is widened in the westbound direction to provide two lanes through to The Longshoot junction.
41 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
Junction 23 : Normandy Way/ Ashby Road
Figure 9 : Normandy Way/ Ashby Road & Ashby Road/ Rogue’s Lane proposals
9.43 This traffic signal controlled junction is important as it forms the primary access point into Hinckley and the wider highway network from the Barwell SUE. Ensuring satisfactory operation here is essential to remove the potential for traffic to seek alternative cross-country routes using minor roads such as Rogue’s Lane and Stapleton Lane. 9.44 The DS1 assessment identified increased queuing in the AM Peak on both Ashby Rd north and south with up to 31 additional vehicles queuing, whilst in the PM peak increased queues were witnessed on Ashby Rd north of up to 26 vehicles. 9.45 The junction is moderately constrained and there are few opportunities for wholesale changes to the layout but there are options for widening the approaches on both the affected arms. 9.46 On Ashby Rd north, the southbound approach is widened to two lanes for a distance of approximately 100m by displacing the western kerbline and reducing the existing verge. On Ashby Rd south a similar solution has been applied to provide a three lane approach northbound with a dedicated left turn lane (also signal controlled). 9.47 This solution is shown on Figure 9 on Capita Symonds drawing CS/053084/T/009.
42 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
Junction 36 : Rugby Rd/ Hawley Rd
9.48 The Do-Minimum scenario does not include any modification to the Rugby Road/ Hawley Road junction. Thus, any mitigation required to serve the on-going developments within Hinckley are not taken into account. 9.49 Currently, the Rugby Road/ Hawley Road junction is being reconfigured as part of the Sketchley Brook proposals and these changes are included in the Do-Something scenario and are predicted to increase capacity sufficiently to accommodate any traffic demand increases arising from the SUEs.
Junction 37 : Rugby Road/ Brookside
Figure 10 : Rugby Road/ Brookside Improvements
9.50 The improvements required at the Rugby Road/ Brookside junction involve increasing capacity in the straight-ahead movement at the traffic signal stopline. This is provided by creating a widened exit to accommodate two lanes of through traffic. These proposals are being provided as part of the Sketchley Brook scheme and illustrated in Figure 13.
43 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
Ashby Road/ Stapleton Lane
Figure 11 : Ashby Road/ Stapleton Lane
9.51 Whilst not specifically highlighted in the LLITM/Paramics detailed junction assessment there is a requirement to improve the existing simple priority junction formed by Ashby Road and Stapleton Lane. This junction serves as a primary access / egress to the Barwell SUE developed area and, coupled with a potential increase in bus movements, is expected to come under stress under future traffic demand conditions. 9.52 Current proposals are illustrated in Figure 10 and comprise the implementation of a traffic signal controlled junction, with improved pedestrian facilities to accommodate potential increased use between the Barwell SUE and existing facilities in Stapleton, to the north.
44 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
A47/ B582 Desford Crossroads
Figure 12 : A47/ B582 Desford Crossroads
9.53 Currently a staggered four-arm traffic signal controlled junction, Desford crossroads is expected to come under increasing pressure from additional traffic movements generated by the New Lubbesthorpe development as well as the Earl Shilton SUE. 9.54 The Lubbesthorpe developers have produced a scheme to replace the existing traffic signal arrangement with a four-arm roundabout, illustrated in Figure 12. This layout has been tested in LLITM/Paramics and found to satisfactorily accommodate predicted future traffic flows. 9.55 The design is at a preliminary stage and will need further evaluation to refine the layout and provide adequate access to adjacent properties including the petrol filling station in the north- west quadrant. 9.56 The arrangement requires acquisition of third-party land in the north-east quadrant.
45 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
Barwell Village Centre
Figure 13 : Proposed Traffic Signal Control – Barwell Village Centre
9.57 The imposition of Barwell SUE traffic demands on the existing village streets in Barwell needs to be controlled and managed to prevent undue congestion and conflict. As part of these control measures, it is proposed to replace the existing mini-roundabout with a traffic signal controlled junction.
46 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
Figure 14 : Barwell Village Centre Scheme
9.58 The promoters of the Barwell SUE are proposing a widespread environmental improvement scheme for Barwell Village Centre and this is shown in Figure 11a. This scheme incorporates the replacement of the mini-roundabout with a traffic signal controlled junction and enhanced pedestrian facilities.
Rural Lanes
9.59 The Do Minimum LLITM model (2026 with committed development and SUEs but no mitigation) highlighted a number of issues of potential rat-running through rural lanes which was considered to be mainly as a result of heavy congestion on the A47/ A5 corridor between Hinckley and Nuneaton. 9.60 In the main, these movements affected Stapleton Lane and Rogue’s Lane between Ashby Road and Stoke Road and the minor route between A47 and A5 through Higham on the Hill. In addition, there was evidence of longer distance diversion via the Fenn Lanes in the PM peak to avoid potential delays at Longshoot. 9.61 Where the identified mitigation measures, particularly at Dodwells and Longshoot are predicted to remove much of the increasing congestion at these two locations, the Paramics model is not able to adequately predict the potential reduction in rat-running traffic as the modelled area is limited to the immediate surrounding area of Hinckley and Nuneaton.
47 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
9.62 However, the with mitigation run of LLITM identified a further reduction in rat-running through rural lanes. 9.63 Any residual rat-running traffic that remains will need to be discouraged by the targeted implementation of traffic calming measures to remove unnecessary traffic from sensitive rural areas. Do-Something Modelling Results (with SUEs plus Mitigation) 9.64 The above schemes have been determined through an iterative process that has tested the developing options for mitigation through the Hinckley and Nuneaton Paramics Model. 9.65 The primary aim of the mitigation improvements has been to remove or control queuing on key arms of each junction to enable strategic movements to be accommodated more readily. This is particularly true of those junctions along the A47, the primary route between the SUEs and the A5 and areas to the south, such as Nuneaton. 9.66 The provision of additional traffic capacity on this route reduces queuing and delays at each junction and also provides encouragement for existing rat-running traffic to use the main route rather than the rural network. As queues and delays at main junctions reduce, the advantage to be gained by using less suitable rural lanes diminishes and results in a lower incidence of rat- running. 9.67 Data extracted from the Paramics model has been evaluated and queues at modified junctions predicted. This forms a comparison with the Do-Minimum results shown in paragraph 9.19 and results in the following diagram.
48 Earl Shilton and Barwell 9/ Assessment of Highway Impacts AAP April 2013
Figure 15 : Do-Something Assessment : Residual Queues at Key Junctions
9.68 The above diagram shows a dramatic reduction in queuing at key junctions in the network for the majority of locations. In particular, the Dodwells roundabout and The Longshoot signal controlled junction are shown to have dramatically reduced queues. 9.69 The Normandy Road/ Ashby Road junction (Node 23) still displays unacceptable queuing and this junction is being investigated further to identify additional opportunities for improvement. 9.70 All other junctions within Hinckley and on the A47, with the exception of Normandy Way/ Leicester Road (Node 24) experience queues that fall below the 10 vehicles threshold chosen as the key indicator for delay.
49 Earl Shilton and Barwell 10/ Transport Infrastructure AAP April 2013 Implementation Plan
10. Transport Infrastructure Implementation Plan
10.1 Each element of the mitigation measures described previously have been costed at September 2012 prices to provide a broad estimate of capital cost of the various schemes put forward for consideration. 10.2 Current estimates for the principal elements are as follows:
Transport Improvements to support SUEs
Infrastructure Required Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Funding Phasing (£) Barwell Earl Shilton (£) (£)
Transport improvements to support Barwell and £13.87m £8.497m £4.768m 2011- 2026 Earl Shilton AAP (As detailed below)
1. Improvements to £2.72m 60% 40% Longshoot and Dodwells (assuming the Barwell SUE, as shown on Capita MIRA scheme £1.632m £1.088m Earl Shilton 2016/ 2017 Symonds drawing has already SUE CS/53084/T/012. been constructed) 2. Improvements to £0.39m 50% 50% Normandy Way/ Ashby Barwell SUE, Road Traffic Signal £0.195m £0.195m Earl Shilton 2014/ 2015 Controlled Junction as SUE detailed on Capita Symonds Drawing CS/53084/T/009. 3. Improvements to £1.21m 0% 50% Desford Crossroads – (excluding Earl Shilton provision of a roundabout land £0.0m £0.605m SUE, 2015/ 2016 as detailed on WSP acquisition) Lubbesthorpe Drawing 1693-P-30. (50% contrib. Development from Lubbesthorpe)
50 Earl Shilton and Barwell 10/ Transport Infrastructure AAP April 2013 Implementation Plan
Infrastructure Required Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Funding Phasing (£) Barwell Earl Shilton (£) (£)
4. Improvements to Ashby £0.5m 100% 0% Road/ Stapleton Lane to (Provisional) Barwell SUE incorporate traffic signal £0.5m £0.0m 2014 control as shown on PBA Drawing No. 25287/012/006 5. Improvements to Ashby £0.5m 100% 0% Road/ Rogue’s Lane (Provisional) Barwell SUE junction as shown on PBA £0.5m £0.0m 2014 Drawing No. 25287/003/SK06 6. Improvements to Rugby £0.3m 60% 40% Road/ Brookside junction (Provisional) Barwell SUE, as shown on BWB £0.18m £0.12m Earl Shilton 2015/ 2016 Drawing No. SUE NTH/089/SK23. 7. Improvements to £1.05m 100% 0% Barwell Village Centre as (As PBA Barwell SUE shown on PBA Drawing costings – Feb £1.05m £0.0m 2014-2016 No. 25287/003/SK08. 2013)
8.Links to existing urban £1.2m 60% 40% area for buses Barwell SUE, (particularly the railway £0.72m £0.48m Earl Shilton 2013- 2018 station), walking, cycling SUE and local traffic 9. Improvements to the £2.0m 60% 40% A47 Earl Shilton Bypass Barwell SUE, and Hinckley Northern £1.2m £0.8m Earl Shilton 2014-2019 Perimeter Road (HNPR): SUE this will include at least junction improvements, including bus priority measures as required but may also include some widening of the route
51 Earl Shilton and Barwell 10/ Transport Infrastructure AAP April 2013 Implementation Plan
Infrastructure Required Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Cost Estimate Funding Phasing (£) Barwell Earl Shilton (£) (£)
10. Improvements on £0.2m 60% 40% linkages into town centre, Barwell SUE, including alterations to £0.12m £0.08m Earl Shilton 2014- 2019 signal operation at SUE Leicester Road/ New Buildings Junction 11. New public transport £2.0m 50% 50% linkages from new Barwell SUE, developments to Barwell £1.0m £1.0m Earl Shilton 2013- 2018 and Earl Shilton and SUE improved public transport linkages between Barwell, Earl Shilton, Hinckley town centre and HNPR employment areas (to provide 10 minute local service and real time information at interconnecting bus stop links for Hinckley and Leicester) 12. New pedestrian and £0.3m 50% 50% cycle linkages from the Barwell SUE, urban extensions into £0.15m £0.15m Earl Shilton 2013- 2018 Barwell and Earl Shilton SUE
13. Traffic calming £0.5m 50% 50% measures in Barwell & Barwell SUE, Earl Shilton, traffic £0.25m £0.25m Earl Shilton 2013- 2018 calming and traffic SUE management measures along The Common and routes through Earl Shilton/ Barwell 14. Improvements to £1.0m 100% 0% A447 Ashby Road to Barwell SUE facilitate introduction of £1.0m £0.0m 2014-2019 bus priority measures.
52 Earl Shilton and Barwell Appendix A AAP April 2013
Appendix A SUE Masterplan Layouts
Earl Shilton and Barwell Appendix B AAP April 2013
Appendix B Core Strategy – Policy 5 Transport Infrastructure in the Sub-Regional Centre
Earl Shilton and Barwell Appendix C AAP April 2013
Appendix C Proposed Bus Route Changes
Earl Shilton and Barwell Appendix D AAP April 2013
Appendix D LLITM Modelling Process
Earl Shilton and Barwell Appendix E AAP April 2013
Appendix E Junction Analysis Summary Results
Earl Shilton and Barwell Appendix F AAP April 2013
Appendix F Mitigation Measures
Capita Symonds Ltd Clarendon House Clarendon Road Cambridge CB2 8FH
Tel +44 (0)1223 326640 Fax +44 (0)1223 326650 www.capitasymonds.com