Strategic Transport Assessment of Oakham and Uppingham

Rutland County Council

Oakham and Uppingham

Strategic Transport Assessment Black

FINAL VERSION

Rutland County Council

Oakham and Uppingham

Strategic Transport Assessment

September 2010

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third Ove Arup & Partners Ltd party 3rd Floor, The Frontage, Queen Street, Nottingham, NG1 2BL

Tel +44 (0)115 9484711 Fax +44 (0)115 9484185 www.arup.com Job number 212049-00

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

CONTENTS

Page Executive Summary i Glossary vii 1 Introduction 1 1.2 Study Context 1 1.3 Information Sources 1 1.4 Report Structure 2 2 Background 5 2.2 Location 5 2.3 Strategic Highway Links 5 2.4 Public Transport Services 6 3 Strategic Policy Compliance 15 3.2 Alternative Development Options 15 3.3 Assessment Approach 16 3.4 Development of Assessment Criteria 17 3.5 Summary Appraisal Tables 19 3.6 Summary Observations & Conclusions 25 4 Traffic Analysis 29 4.2 Observations of Existing Conditions 29 4.3 Review of Accident Data 31 4.4 Background Traffic Flows 35 4.5 Committed Development 36 4.6 Corby Growth Point 37 4.7 Development Phasing 37 4.8 Trip Generation 37 4.9 Trip Distribution 38 5 Development Scenarios & Forecast Impacts 42 5.2 Development Scenarios 42 5.3 Network Implications of Development 45 6 Summary Issues and Possible Mitigation 56 6.2 Oakham 56 6.3 Uppingham 62 7 Uppingham Bypass Assessment 66 7.2 Development of Outline Corridor Options 66 7.3 Specific Route Options 67 7.4 Route Alignment Development 74 7.5 Preliminary Route Comparison 76

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND ISSUE Final Issue 13-09-2010 FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

7.6 Route Evaluation 84 7.7 Initial Discussion of Potential Funding Sources 85 7.8 Scope for New Bypass to Deliver Additional Growth 91

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Tables Table 2.1: Passenger Rail Services from Oakham Station Table 2.3: Bus Services Operating in Oakham and Uppingham Table 3.1: Assessment Criteria Testing Matrix Table 3.2: Accessibility Assessment Matrix Table 3.3: Accessibility Assessment Scoring Criteria Table 3.4: Sustainability Assessment Score Summary Table 3.5 Oakham Site Summary Table 3.5 Oakham Residential Site Score / Ranking Table 3.6 Oakham Employment Site Score / Ranking Table 3.7 Uppingham Residential Site Score / Ranking Table 3.8 Uppingham Employment Site Score / Ranking Table 4.1: Residential and Employment TRICS Trip Rates Table 4.2: Oakham Residential & Employment Trip Generation Table 4.3: Uppingham Residential Trip Generation Table 4.4: Oakham Census Travel to Work Distribution Table 4.4: Uppingham Census Travel to Work Distribution Table 5.1: Oakham Potential Development Scenarios Table 5.2: Predicted Maximum One-way Flows Including Existing 2026 Base + Committed Traffic Table 5.3: Predicted Maximum One-way Flows Including Existing 2026 Base + Committed Traffic Table 5.4: Oakham Development Scenarios: Predicted Capacity on Key Links within the Network Table 5.5: Oakham Development Scenarios: Absolute Change in Traffic on Key Links over 2026 Base Flows Table 5.6: Oakham Development Scenarios: Absolute Change in Traffic at Key Junctions over 2026 Base Flows Table 5.7: Indicative Scenario Ranking Table 5.8: Uppingham Development Scenarios: Predicted Capacity on Key Links within the Network Table 5.9: Uppingham Development Scenarios: Absolute Change in Traffic on Key Links over 2026 Base Flows Table 5.10: Indicative Scenario Ranking Table 5.10: Predicted Impact of Corby Growth Point on Maximum Anticipated Flows Table 7.1: Environmental Assets within 5 km Study Area Table 7.2: Quantum and Estimated Cost of Land Take Table 7.3: Comparative Lengths and First Order Cost Estimates of Bypass Route Options Table 7.4: Comparative Cut and Fill Estimates of Bypass Route Options Table 7.5: Route Option Comparison Matrix Table 7.6: Effects of S106 Developer Contribution on Capital Costs of Initial Bypass Segment Table 7.7: Effects of S106 Developer Contribution on Whole Scheme Capital Costs

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 7.8: DfT Requirements for Qualification as Major Scheme Business Case Table 7.9: DfT Requirements at each stage of Major Scheme Business Case Table 7.10: Trip Generation based on Further Development Zones Table 7.11: Uppingham Census Travel to Work Distribution Table 7.12: Existing A6003 / Possible Uppingham Bypass Route Comparison Table 7.13: Predicted Future Year Impact on Selected Junctions

Figures Figure 2.1: Regional Setting of Rutland Figure 2.2: Principal Highways Links serving Rutland County Figure 2.3: Bus Routes in Oakham Figure 2.4: Bus Routes in Uppingham Figure 3.1: Alternative Possible Development Locations in Oakham Figure 3.2: Alternative Possible Development Locations in Uppingham Figure 4.1: Key Junctions and Areas of Highway in Oakham Figure 4.2: Key Junctions and Areas of Highway in Uppingham Figure 4.3: Oakham Accident Data (2005 – 2009) Figure 4.4: Uppingham Accident Data (2005 – 2009) Figure 4.5: 2026 Base + Committed Traffic Flows (Oakham) Figure 4.6: 2026 Base + Committed Traffic Flows (Uppingham) Figure 5.1: Potential Development Sites in Oakham Figure 5.2: Potential Development Sites in Uppingham Figure 6.1 Cross-town Routes Available to Development Traffic Figure 6.2: Bus Routes in Oakham Figure 7.1: Outline Bypass Corridor Options Figure 7.2: Setting of Uppingham in Relation to the Wider Highways Network Figure 7.3: Setting of Uppingham in Relation to Local Highways Figure 7.4: Potential Development Sites in Uppingham Figure 7.5: Topographic Model of Uppingham and its Surrounding Hinterland Figure 7.6: Locations of Selected Environmentally Sensitive Features around Uppingham Figure 7.7: Uppingham Bypass: Initial Route Alignments Figure 7.8: Estimated Land Take Requirements for Bypass Alignment Options Figure 7.9: Uppingham Bypass Alignment Options and Known Environmental Assets Figure 7.10: Initial Segment of the Uppingham Bypass Figure 7.11: Potential Future Development Zones in Uppingham

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Executive Summary Ove Arup and Partners Ltd. Were appointed by Rutland County Council (RCC) to prepare a Strategic Transport Assessment evaluating the impact of a number of proposed residential and employment development sites in Oakham and Uppingham. The Study was also commissioned to assess the feasibility and broad cost implications of providing for a north – south bypass of Uppingham.

Background

Oakham and Uppingham are market towns located in Rutland, a county of approximately 40,000 inhabitants located in the English East Midlands region. Oakham is the largest settlement in the County with a population of approximately 10,000 and the administrative centre. Uppingham is a lower order settlement located approximately 10 km to the south of Oakham of approximately 4,000 inhabitants. Existing major highways in the vicinity of the towns include the A1 approximately 10 km to the east of Oakham that provides a link to the strategic highway network and linkages to national destinations in both the north and south of the country. The A47 is a major highway of regional importance that connects the County to key east – west links within the Midlands and towards East Anglia. Other links of local importance include the A6003 that connects Oakham to Uppingham and beyond to Corby and the A606 that connects Oakham to Stamford. Both bus and rail based public transport services provide internal services within the County and connect both Oakham and Uppingham to more distant local, regional and to a lesser extent national destinations. Over 100 bus services operate out of the John Street interchange in Oakham throughout the course of a typical weekday with additional services operating via Uppingham. Passenger rail services operate out of Oakham Station (the County’s only link to mainline rail services) Pedestrian amenity within both towns is generally good as each town is of an appropriately small scale to encourage walking (and cycling) as practical means of travel. Services and facilities are largely located towards the central areas of each town with residential areas more outlying. No part of the existing built up area of Oakham lies further than 1,200 m from the central area. In Uppingham, the entire built up area of the town is contained within a 1,000 m radius.

Strategic Policy Compliance

Following the study of all land around Oakham and Uppingham, a number of alternative development options have been identified for further detailed study. This included an evaluation of the capacity of the road network to accommodate further development, and to allow comparison between the different areas in terms of transport and highway impacts, and to identify any mitigation measures that would be required. RCC has previously undertaken a substantial amount of analysis to inform decisions regarding the suitability of a number of potential development sites. This study builds upon previous work and therefore a number of key assumptions have been made:

• The overall levels of proposed residential and employment development as set out by the Core Strategy 1 have not been altered.

• The proposed split of residential development between Oakham and Uppingham will remain as set out within the 2009 Core Strategy Preferred Options report and forms the basis of assessment. As set out by the study brief, in broad terms this requires the assessment of 1,000 residential units to be brought forward on previously undeveloped sites in Oakham and 250 units in Uppingham.

1 RCC, 2009. Rutland County Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Preferred Options, May 2009 J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page i Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• As indicated by the Core Strategy Preferred Options report, it is generally assumed that the proposed five hectare allocation of additional employment land would be delivered on sites in the vicinity of Oakham in preference to Uppingham. For the purpose of study, a limited number of alternative possible development locations were included within the assessment. In Oakham three alternative possible locations to accommodate residential development were identified along with two possible employment land allocations. In Uppingham three alternative residential sites were included. Assessment of the suitability of alternative development locations in both towns was conducted according to a three-stage process:

• Selection of a number of transport criteria against which to assess sites focussed upon objectives to minimise vehicular journeys, maximise opportunity for non-motorised transport and secure access to public transport.

• Testing assessment criteria to ensure general compliance with relevant policy drivers;

• Appraisal of the alternative development locations against the various criteria; The results of the assessment indicate that of three possible sites to accommodate residential development in Oakham, land to the north-west of the existing built up area of the town demonstrates the best scope to promote sustainable patterns of travel behaviour. When compared to alternative sites to the north-east and south-east of the town, the site is particularly well located in relation to key services and both access to and quality of public transport networks and services. The assessment of residential sites in Uppingham indicates very similar performance between the three sites with regard to sustainable travel and accessibility scoring. Of three alternative employment sites assessed in Oakham, once again land to the north- west of the town demonstrates the best scope to promote sustainable patterns of travel behaviour demonstrating good scope to connect to existing walking, cycling and public transport networks. Only one potential employment site was identified for assessment in Uppingham to the north of the town. The resulting analysis indicates the site scores averagely in terms of its sustainability and accessibility performance and would score less favourably than alternative sites in Oakham.

Traffic Analysis

In order to inform the understanding of issues requiring further consideration, comprehensive site visits were undertaken to observe existing conditions and patterns of travel throughout the entire weekday period in February and March 2010. Additionally a review of existing data made available to the study team including information regarding accidents and existing parking activity in each town was undertaken. In order to assess the existing level of traffic in each town, a picture of base traffic flows covering key sections of the existing network in both Oakham and Uppingham during the 2010 AM peak were assembled. Prior to commencement of the study, RCC identified that the network implications of a number of committed developments should be included within the assessment as their delivery is anticipated in the period to 2026. Such developments include the ongoing Catmose Campus secondary school redevelopment in Oakham, a proposed extension to the existing Tesco store located on South Street in Oakham and residual allocated development not included as part of the development sites directly evaluated as part of the study. As specific individual applications concerning the majority of anticipated development in the County have yet to be brought forward, locally adjusted growth factors were applied to the 2010 counts data in order to generate anticipated future flows. Background growth was only applied to background traffic flows up to 2016 in order to generate base traffic flows for the J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page ii Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

future planning period considered (to 2026) and avoid the potential for double counting traffic. Trip rates applicable to both residential and employment allocations in each town have been generated through interrogation of the TRICS database, industry standard software for calculating predicted traffic flows resulting from specific land uses. In order to ensure a robust approach to assessment, trip rates applicable to privately owned housing were applied to residential sites whilst TRICS rates applicable to a mix of B1 & B2 uses were applied to commercial elements of the development. Sites were selected to be broadly representative of the edge of town locations of the various possible development sites under consideration in Oakham and Uppingham. Trips generated by the proposed development scenarios for each town were manually assigned to the network in accordance with 2001 Census information detailing the existing origin and destination patterns of employment based trips associated with each town.

Development Scenarios and Forecast Impacts

A number of development scenarios covering both Oakham and Uppingham have been developed following consideration of the study brief, supporting information provided and in consultation with RCC Officers. Assessment was undertaken using desktop study, primarily informed through the use of bespoke MS Excel assignment models. As described in Section 3, regional and local policy establishes a requirement for broad levels of development on green field land in both Oakham and Uppingham as follows: • 1,000 residential units (approx.) in Oakham • 250 residential units (approx.) in Uppingham • 5 hectares of employment land (specific location as yet unspecified) In order to ensure a broad evaluation of the options available to accommodate development, a total of five development scenarios utilising different combinations of the sites available covering Oakham were developed for testing following the advice of RCC officers. In Uppingham, each of the three residential sites assessed are of a sufficient size to accommodate the full residential allocation of 250 units. Each site was therefore assessed on a stand-alone basis. For the purpose of this study it was assumed that any additional employment allocation would be identified in Oakham as the principal settlement in the County. A broad evaluation of existing conditions and capacity available on the network has been undertaken to assess the likely impact of development traffic associated with each development scenario on the existing and possible future network within each town. To provide a basis for analysis an initial classification of the network was undertaken using Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) typical link capacity standards as set out with Volume 5: Assessment and Preparation of Road Schemes; Section 1, TA 79/99 that indicates the maximum (one-way) sustainable flow of traffic passing in one hour, under favourable road and traffic conditions. Key conclusions drawn from the analysis include:

• scenarios resulting in the containment of development onto fewer sites would be preferable to those which would disperse development around the town.

• all key links in and around both Oakham and Uppingham would continue to operate comfortably within their theoretical capacity with the addition of anticipated background growth in the period to 2026;

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page iii Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• a substantial amount of spare capacity would remain on the existing A606 Oakham bypass that could be appropriately utilised to both accommodate additional traffic resulting from the allocated development and to divert existing traffic along alternative routes around the town, avoiding sensitive areas of the network, particularly areas of the town centre;

• anticipated increases in the frequency of barrier closures at the High Street / Melton Road level crossing coupled with an increase in traffic through the adjacent road links are likely to result in issues with operational performance of the junction for all scenarios tested. Such impacts are likely to be of a sufficient scale to require effective mitigation.

• the A6003 Ayston Road corridor through Uppingham would be expected to continue operating comfortably within its theoretical capacity with the addition of anticipated background growth in the period to 2026;

• the addition of traffic along the A6003 Ayston Road corridor might prove to have unacceptable negative impacts on other key factors determining acceptability such as increasing the incidence of injury accidents or significantly reducing air quality along the corridor;

• results of a sensitivity analysis testing the impact of disproportionately high growth in the adjacent Corby Growth Area indicated that the impact on levels of traffic in both Oakham and Uppingham would be expected to be negligible. The results of the analysis were used to draw out key conclusions and recommendations concerning the future direction for development in each town (further details of which are presented within section 5 of the main report)

Summary Issues and Possible Mitigation

As a result of the analysis a number of key recommendations concerning possible mitigation measures have been developed and recommended for further consideration and evaluation. In general terms the measures set out seek to both simultaneously maximise opportunities to enhance existing and provide for new sustainable transport measures in each town, including consideration of feasible bus service improvements and measures to enhance both pedestrian and cycling amenity within each town in line with ‘best practice’ set out within Manual for Streets guidance whilst seeking suitable mitigation measures designed to make limited improvements to the operational performance of the highway network where identified as necessary. In brief, measures recommended for further investigation include:

• undertaking further, more detailed analysis of the predicted future operation of the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road level crossing junction to determine the impact of a combination of additional traffic and anticipated increases in barrier closures;

• possible creation of an alternative route between the B640 Barleythorpe Road and Cold Overton Road to the south in order to provide an effective alleviation of pressure on the level crossing junction It should be noted that the construction of any new link would likely run across and have a direct impact on the existing Catmose Campus playing fields and, as such may not be considered favourably. The planning and environmental issues would need further consideration;

• possible enhancement of existing informal “gateway” features towards the western end of Oakham town centre in the vicinity of the level crossing and Hudson’s House pinch point to regulate vehicular access to and through the town centre and encourage use of alternative modes / bypass;

• reallocation of road space within both town centres and on major routes in favour of promoting sustainable alternatives including pedestrians, cyclists and public transport;

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page iv Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• rearranging existing parking availability and provision to discourage motorists from accessing central areas of each town;

• mitigating the impact of residual traffic remaining on the town centre networks through the implementation of additional safety features such as physical measures to reduce vehicle speeds, notably in areas of significant pedestrian activity, plus the possible introduction of additional access and manoeuvre restrictions;

• implementation of dedicated, secure cycle parking facilities within each town centre and at key locations including bus and rail interchanges and other key facilities (including educational and healthcare facilities);

• enhancement of bus infrastructure including information, shelter and boarding facilities within the town centre;

• using the scale of the proposed development as a catalyst to enhance quality of existing bus services in each town by improving frequency and network coverage;

• possible implementation of a north-south bypass of Uppingham, a further more specific discussion of which is provided within section 7 of the main report and summarised below.

Uppingham Bypass Assessment

Section 7 of the main report provides details of the high-level studies conducted regarding the preliminary study of selected issues associated with construction of a bypass around the town of Uppingham. Reflecting the wishes of RCC, consideration has been given to the potential opportunities for bypass route options for the purpose of safeguarding land for construction which could in turn impact the availability of developable land. The study has been conducted according the following outline methodology:

• Development of outline corridor options;

• Specific routing issues including understanding of key local physical constraints and opportunities for route alignments with reference to national design standards;

• Route alignment development;

• Preliminary route comparison including consideration of cost implications and benefits and limitations for key transport users;

• Route evaluation including identification of a preferred route option;

• Initial discussion of potential funding sources;

• Scope for new bypass to deliver additional growth. Through an iterative process, involving examination of Ordnance Survey mapping, publicly available satellite / aerial photographs and from our knowledge of the site based on site visits and reconnaissance, two primary outline route alignment options have been developed. These comprise an eastern and a western route option. The assessment of both alignment options resulted in a broadly comparable cost implication for each option (c. £37M for the eastern option and £36M for the western option). However, due to the undulating land topography to the east of Uppingham, it is estimated that a number of large bridging structures and substantially more earthworks would be required to accommodate the highway corridor of the eastern route option. It is considered that this would significantly increase the broad quantum of risks associated with pursing the eastern route in preference to the western alternative. Additionally, physical constraints imparted by both the land topography and available space would result in an inferior alignment that would require an off-line connection to the A47 to the north-east of the town, approximately 600m east of the A47 / A6003 roundabout. In contrast, results of the initial feasibility work indicate it should be possible to tie the northern end of the western alignment directly into the A47 / A6003 junction. In addition, the

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page v Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

proposed vertical alignment of the eastern route would present significant engineering challenges to ensure that local roads to the east of the town (including both Glaston Road and Seaton Road) were adequately connected to the bypass. It is not anticipated that such significant challenges would be encountered in linking local roads to the western alignment. Finally, the analysis demonstrated clear potential for an initial link of the bypass between the A47 / A6003 junction to the north of the town and the old Leicester Road to the north-west to serve as a local distributor road in advance of the long-term delivery of the complete bypass. Analysis demonstrates that it would be feasible in engineering terms to deliver an initial link that would adequately serve as an access to open up potential development land to the north-west of the town that would subsequently form the first link in any future bypass. The results of the analysis demonstrate a clear distinction in favour of a western bypass alignment option. An evaluation of potential for developer funding to contribute to the construction costs has been undertaken and demonstrates that whilst a potentially significant funding contribution might prove feasible, it is likely that additional funding from other sources would be required to complete the initial link. Other funding sources identified as offering potential to lever or contribute towards providing the necessary funds include:

• Section 106 Developer Contributions;

• Local Transport Plan (LTP);

• Department for Transport Major Scheme Business Case; and,

• Community Infrastructure Funding. A further evaluation was undertaken to investigate scope for the bypass to accommodate future development beyond the scale of that proposed within the current planning horizon. In addition to operational considerations, the analysis included a broad feasibility investigation of the scale of future development required to provide substantial funding required in order to complete construction of any future bypass. The results of the analysis indicate potential for further large-scale future residential development that might be used to lever sufficient funds to complete construction of the bypass without substantially exacerbating traffic conditions upon the existing network beyond the currently observed level. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the scale of development required would likely be very significant and would be likely to have substantial, wide ranging implications for the future of the town and wider region.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page vi Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Glossary DfT Department for Transport DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DPD Development Planning Document IHT Institute of Highways and Transport LDF Local Development Framework MAGIC Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside NTEM National Trip End Model ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now Communities and Local Government) PPG Planning Policy Guidance note RCC Rutland County Council SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SOA Super Output Area TEMPRO Trip End Model Presentation Programme TRICS Trip generation and analysis database (used to generate trip rates applicable to new development)

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page vii Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

1 Introduction

1.1.1.1 Ove Arup and Partners Ltd (Arup) has been commissioned by Rutland County Council (RCC) to conduct a Strategic Transport Assessment of alternative development options around Oakham and Uppingham in order to help determine the most appropriate directions for future development of the emerging Local Development Framework (LDF). In addition, Rutland County Council further require consideration of the most appropriate route for a bypass of Uppingham, and of whether or not a bypass would be a viable option. This would subsequently contribute to determining the most appropriate location for new development in Uppingham.

1.2 Study Context

1.2.1.1 In order to assist the development of its LDF, RCC is currently undertaking a review of the options available to accommodate allocated growth in the order of 3,000 additional residential units to be delivered in the County in the planning period to 2026 as set out within the Core Strategy Preferred Options report 2 that also identifies a broad requirement for five hectares of additional employment land to accommodate anticipated growth in the period to 2016. 1.2.1.2 Additionally, the study brief included for an initial feasibility assessment to be undertaken investigating the deliverability of a north–south bypass around Uppingham. Results of consultation undertaken on the Core Strategy Issues and Options in 2008 indicated some support for the scheme in principle and the County Council’s 20 year vision statement is supportive of the development of a scheme to the west of the town.

1.3 Information Sources

1.3.1.1 A number of previous studies have already been undertaken that have helped inform the general direction of future growth in the County, including the following: 3 • Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) prepared jointly by Rutland County Council with the neighbouring South Holland District and South Kesteven District Councils, that identified a limited number of sites in the vicinity of Oakham and Uppingham as suitable for further consideration.

• Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation (2008) that indicated clear support for a high proportion of allocated growth in Rutland to be located within or adjoining the settlements of Oakham and Uppingham and some support for the delivery of a north – south bypass around Uppingham. 4 • RCC Directions of Growth Appraisal (2009) that assessed options for delivery of allocated development around Oakham and Uppingham against a range of environmental, social and economic measures.

• Core Strategy Preferred Options report (2009) resulting from the outcome of public consultation undertaken as part of the Core Strategy Issues & Options report and Directions for Growth Appraisal. The results indicate a clear preference for the development of sustainable urban extensions of approximately 1,000 and 250 residential units adjoining the north-west of Oakham and Uppingham respectively alongside a need to deliver an additional 5 hectares of employment land.

• LDF Employment Land Assessment (July 2008) that summarises the results of a review of employment land demand and supply. Key conclusions indicate that the

2 RCC, 2009. Rutland Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Preferred Options, May 2009 3 Rutland County Council, South Holland District Council, South Kesteven District Council: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Report, November 2008 4 RCC, 2009. Rutland Local Development Framework: Directions of Growth Appraisal May 2009 J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 1 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

existing residual supply of employment land allocated within the County would be sufficient to meet requirements in the planning period to 2026 but that a small amount of additional potential employment land should be identified for contingency purposes. 1.3.1.2 Whilst the 2009 Directions of Growth Appraisal included an assessment of the alternative development options against a range of sustainability criteria including accessibility and impact on the wider road network, results of consultation regarding the Core Strategy Preferred Options indicated the need for a further, more detailed and refined assessment to be undertaken as part of this study, further details of which are provided within Section 3.

1.3.1.3 In addition to documentary data sources described above, study has also been conducted with regards to the following information: • Observations made during field surveys by Arup, to understand the nature of Oakham and Uppingham’s road transport network and levels of traffic observed;

• Ordnance Survey mapping, provided by Rutland County Council;

• Ordnance Survey mapping, provided by Ordnance Survey’s Opendata system;

• Aerial imagery provided by Google Maps and Bing Maps;

• Databases of environmental designations provided by the MAGIC website, and by Natural England and English Heritage;

• The Department for Transport’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. 1.3.1.4 Quantitative traffic modelling has also been conducted to inform understanding of forecast baseline and predicted future traffic flows. This has utilised the following information and materials: • TEMPRO traffic growth forecasts;

• Trip generation information drawn from the TRICS database;

• Census data from the Office for National Statistics;

1.4 Report Structure

1.4.1.1 This report provides the findings of the study conducted to investigate issues described above. In doing so, the report is structured as follows: Section 2 : Provides a discussion of the local context to Rutland, together with a commentary on levels of and access to transport infrastructure; Section 3 : Presents a summary appraisal of the strategic compliance of the various strategic allocation sites proposed for Oakham and Uppingham, in terms of their accessibility and sustainability in transport terms; Section 4 : Provides a discussion of the traffic conditions across the highway network serving Oakham and Uppingham, It provides a discussion of the current situation and also seeks to project an understand of future baseline conditions; Section 5 : Considers the proposed allocation sites for Oakham and Uppingham and the potential effects that development at these may have on the highways network; Section 6 : Presents a broad summary of issues resulting from the study and proposes a range of potential opportunities for management and mitigation of impacts; and, Section 7 : Provides a summary of the high level assessment of a potential bypass for Uppingham. It describes the broad evaluation of alternative route options

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 2 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

to inform the development of a preferred outline alignment and includes consideration of corridor requirements, possible funding sources and potential for the bypass to allow the accommodation of development beyond 2026.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 3 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 4 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

2 Background

2.1.1.1 Oakham and Uppingham are market towns located in Rutland, a county of approximately 40,000 inhabitants located in the East Midlands region. Of the countywide population, approximately 10,000 (25%) reside in Oakham; Rutland’s largest town and administrative centre. 2.1.1.2 Uppingham is the second largest settlement in the County with a population of approximately 4,000 inhabitants (10% of the County’s total population)

2.2 Location

2.2.1.1 Rutland is located in the East Midlands region of England positioned between Lincolnshire to the north-east, Leicestershire to the north and west and Northamptonshire to the south. Figure 2.1: Regional Setting of Rutland

Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2010 2.2.1.2 Oakham is located approximately 30 km east of Leicester and 40 km west of Peterborough. Other nearby settlements of note include Melton Mowbray approximately 15 km to the north-west, Stamford approximately 20 km to the east and Corby approximately 25 km to the south. Uppingham is located approximately 10 km to the south with access provided between the two towns via the A6003.

2.3 Strategic Highway Links

2.3.1.1 As outlined above, major settlements are relatively distant. The region is well located in relation to north-south strategic highway links via the A1 that runs through the north-east of the County however, existing east – west linkages provided by the A47 are not of the

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 5 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

same quality or as convenient. Principal highways serving Rutland are described below, and illustrated in Figure 2.2 . Figure 2.2: Principal Highways Links serving Rutland County

Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2010 2.3.1.2 The A1 runs along a north / south alignment approximately 10 km to the east of Oakham and 22 km east of Uppingham, providing strategic highway links to destinations to the north and south including Cambridge, London, eastern ports, Yorkshire, the north of England and Scotland.

2.3.1.3 The A47 runs along an east - west alignment approximately one km to the north of Uppingham and 9 km to the south of Oakham providing important local, regional and national highway connections to Leicester, the wider Midlands region and heart of the strategic road network to the west and Peterborough and East Anglia to the east. 2.3.1.4 The A6003 connects Oakham and Uppingham and provides important regional connections to Melton Mowbray and Nottingham to the north-west and the key growth points of Corby, Kettering and wider areas of North Northamptonshire to the south.

2.3.1.5 Finally, the A606 branches off of the A6003 adjacent to the eastern suburbs of Oakham and connects to Stamford and the A1 approximately 20 km to the east of the town.

2.4 Public Transport Services

2.4.1 Rail Services

2.4.1.1 CrossCountry operates existing passenger rail services out of Oakham station located adjacent to the western periphery of the town centre. Direct hourly weekday services run in each direction between the town and key regional destinations including Leicester, Birmingham, Stamford, Peterborough, Cambridge and Stansted Airport. Access to the

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 6 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

longer-distance strategic rail network is provided via connections to long-distance mainline services operating out of Peterborough and Leicester. 2.4.1.2 East Midlands Trains operates a single early morning direct service between Melton Mowbray and London St. Pancras calling at Oakham with a corresponding direct return service operated in the early evening. 2.4.1.3 There is no direct connection to the rail network within Uppingham. The closest access is provided via Oakham station approximately 9 km to the north. Regular daily bus services operate between the two towns throughout a typical weekday. Existing services from Uppingham do not call directly at Oakham station but terminate at the John Street interchange located approximately 400m to the south-east of the station. 2.4.1.4 Summaries of the existing rail services, destinations, frequencies and journey times are provided in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 . Table 2.1: Passenger Rail Services from Oakham Station Services per day Operator Route Weekday Saturday Sunday

Birmingham New Street, Coleshill Parkway, Nuneaton, Hinckley, 18 Narborough, South Wigston, (9 in each Leicester, Melton Mowbray, 32 direction) (15 eastbound, No Service Oakham, Stamford, 17 westbound) *services Peterborough, March, Ely, originate / terminate at Ely CrossCountry Cambridge, Audley End, Stansted Airport

Ely, March, Peterborough, 32 (16 eastbound, 16 Stamford, Oakham, Melton No Service westbound) No service Mowbray, Leicester, Derby

Melton Mowbray, Oakham, East 2 Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough, (1 AM Midlands No Service No Service Bedford, Luton, London St. southbound, Trains 1 PM Pancras northbound)

2.4.2 Oakham Station Facilities

2.4.2.1 Oakham Station is located on Station Approach approximately 300m to the north-west of the town centre and 400 m from the town’s main bus Photo 2.1: Oakham Station interchange located on John Street. 2.4.2.2 The station ticket office is manned between 0630 and 1245 Monday to Friday, 0745 and 1410 on Saturdays and between 1200 and 1900 on Sundays. Timetable information is clearly displayed adjacent to seated, indoor waiting facilities that are provided on both north and southbound platforms.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 7 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

2.4.2.3 Secure cycle parking facilities are provided adjacent to the main station building on Platform 1 (southbound) although locking points are old fashioned and do not allow cyclists to secure the main frame of the cycle. 2.4.2.4 A limited number of unrestricted parking spaces are located immediately outside the main station entrance on Station Approach with a further limited number of unrestricted on- street spaces provided on the western side of Station Road to the south of the station entrance. A taxi rank is located between the main station building and Station Road to the south and scheduled Hopper bus services operate past the station entrance along Station Road on an hourly basis. A further ten off-street parking spaces are provided adjacent to the west of the station complex accessed from the B640 Main Road. Table 2.2: Weekday Rail Services from Oakham (direct journeys only)

Destination Frequency of Service Journey Time Audley End Hourly 99 minutes Bedford 1 per day 55 minutes Birmingham New Street Hourly 78 minutes Cambridge Hourly 85 minutes Coleshill Parkway Hourly 64 minutes Corby 1 per day 22 minutes Ely Hourly 67 minutes Hinckley Infrequent 47 minutes Kettering 1 per day 32 minutes

Leicester Hourly 26 minutes London St. Pancras 1 per day 102 minutes Luton 1 per day 72 minutes March Hourly 49 minutes Melton Mowbray Hourly 11 minutes Narborough Infrequent 38 minutes Nuneaton Hourly 47 minutes Peterborough Hourly 31 minutes South Wigston Infrequent 34 minutes Stamford Hourly 15 minutes Stansted Airport Hourly 120 minutes Wellingborough 1 per day 41 minutes

2.4.2.5 1A total of 105 weekday bus services operate into / out of Oakham between the hours of 0700 and 1900 on weekdays providing regular connections throughout the day to key destinations including Stamford, Peterborough, Melton Mowbray, Nottingham, Leicester, Uppingham and Corby. A similar level of services operate on Saturdays. 2.4.2.6 The 146 Oakham Hopper service operates a total of twelve hourly services internally within Oakham throughout the daytime period between Mondays and Saturdays. Each service completes three loops connecting the town centre, rail station and central bus interchange with residential suburbs to the south-west and north-east, key local employment areas along Land’s End Way to the north-west plus various other key retail, education and healthcare facilities within the town. The existing route runs on an hourly

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 8 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

timetable that is currently operated through the deployment of a single vehicle thus minimising fleet operation and staffing costs. 2.4.2.7 The 66 weekday and Saturday bus services operate into / out of Uppingham between the hours of 0700 and 1900, connecting to key destinations including Stamford, Leicester, Oakham and Corby. 2.4.2.8 A total of 24 services operate between Uppingham and Oakham on weekdays and Saturdays providing interchange opportunities with onward services to destinations including Melton Mowbray, Nottingham and Peterborough plus access to the rail network via Oakham station. 2.4.2.9 Existing network coverage around Uppingham is relatively limited with most routes operating north-south along the A6003 Ayston Road corridor plus a limited stretch of North Street East. The only exception to this is the 747 service between Uppingham and Leicester that currently operates along Leicester Road to the west of the town. Unlike Oakham that benefits from the operation of a dedicated Hopper service around the town, there is currently no dedicated internal bus service operating within Uppingham. 2.4.2.10 No evening services operate in either Oakham or Uppingham beyond 1900 on weekdays and Saturdays. There are no scheduled services on Sundays. 2.4.2.11 Details of the destinations served by routes out of both Oakham and Uppingham together with a summary of the number of daily services is provided by Table 2.3 . Plans of service routes in both Oakham and Uppingham are provided by Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 respectively.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 9 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 2.3: Bus Services Operating in Oakham and Uppingham No. of buses per day Service Route Destinations Served No. Weekday Saturday Sunday

Oakham (John Street) - 18 14 Rutland Water - Stamford Bus (9 in each (7 in each No 9 direction) direction) Station - Wittering – *20 between *17 between Service Oakham & Oakham & Peterborough Stamford Stamford 22 22 (11 in each (11 in each Oakham (John Street) - Melton direction) No 19 direction) *24 between Mowbray – Nottingham *24 between Service Oakham & Oakham & Melton Melton

Clipsham – Stretton – Barrow 2 2 No 20 (1 in each (1 in each – Oakham (Rail Station) direction) direction) Service

Ridlington – Braunston – 2 2 No 20A (1 in each (1 in each Oakham (Market Place) direction) direction) Service Hambleton – Oakham (John 2 No 20B No Service (1 in each Oakham Street) direction) Service Oakham (John Street) – No 113 Melton Mowbray (via Burrough 9 9 Service Hill) No 146 Oakham Hopper 12* 12* Service Rutland Oakham (John Street) – Corby No 24 24 Flyer (1) (via Uppingham) Service Rutland Oakham (John Street) – No 14 14 Flyer (2) Cottesmore – Melton Mowbray Service Rural Oakham (John Street) – 2 2 No (1 in each (1 in each Rider 5 Leicester direction) direction) Service Oakham (John Street) – Rural 2 No Market Harborough (via No Service (1 in each Rider 10 Service Uppingham) direction) Rural Oakham (John Street) – 2 No No Service (1 in each Rider 11 Leicester direction) Service Total 105 107 0 Uppingham, Edith Weston, No 12 14 14 Ketton, Stamford Service Uppingham, Leicester (via No 747 26 26 Houghton) Service 2 No No R47 Uppingham - Peterborough (1 in each direction) Service Service Uppingham 2 Rural Leicester – Uppingham (via (1 in each No No Rider 12 Tilton on the Hill) direction) Service Service Friday Only Rutland Oakham (John Street) – Corby No 24 24 Flyer (1) (via Uppingham) Service Oakham (John Street) – Rural 2 No Market Harborough (via No Service (1 in each Rider 10 Service Uppingham) direction) Total 66 66 0 *Includes three routes per service

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 10 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 2.3: Bus Routes in Oakham

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 11 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 2.4: Bus Routes in Uppingham

2.4.3 Interchange Facilities

2.4.3.1 The majority of bus services operating out of Oakham originate / terminate from the John Street bus interchange located adjacent to the western side of the town centre between High Street / Melton Road and the Tesco store on South Street. Photo 2.2: John St. Bus 2.4.3.2 On-street bus flags provide limited timetable Interchange, Oakham information regarding services and toilet facilities are located adjacent to the main stops along with a limited shelter providing seating facilities. An off- line bus lay-by allows vehicles to pull in to the kerb off of the main carriageway to permit passengers to board and alight from services.

2.4.3.3 The location of the John Street interchange is relatively peripheral to the town centre, the heart of which is located approximately 250 m to the east. Pedestrian connections between the bus interchange and town centre via High Street / Melton Road are however direct and in good condition. Signalised pedestrian crossing facilities along the length of High Street / Melton Road provide frequent crossing opportunities.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 12 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

2.4.3.4 The majority of bus services operating out of the John Street interchange run through the central area of the town via High Street / Melton Road where they serve additional stops in both directions located in the vicinity of Market Street in the heart of the town centre. 2.4.3.5 The principal bus interchange facilities in Uppingham are located on-street along North Street East approximately 100m to the north of the town centre. Sheltered waiting facilities and timetable information are provided on both north and south sides of the road. Currently all bus services operating within the town make use of the North Street East interchange although limited additional stops are also provided along the north – south A6003 Ayston Road route through the town.

2.4.4 Walking and Cycling

2.4.4.1 Consideration of local assets and facilities with regards to walking and cycling has been drawn from discussions with RCC Officers, together with observations made during an audit of facilities during a site visit. 2.4.4.2 Pedestrian amenity within both towns is generally good as each town is of an appropriately small scale to encourage walking and cycling as practical means of travel. Services and facilities are generally located towards the central areas of each town, with residential areas located towards the more outlying parts of each town. In Oakham, no part of the existing built up area of the town lies any further than 1,200m from the main retail centre, while in Uppingham the entire built up area of the town is contained within a 1,000m radius of the retail centre. 2.4.4.3 The historic layout and street pattern evident in 3: Hudson’s House each town creates an environment conducive to , Oakham walking and cycling. Levels of motorised traffic along many routes are low and permeability between routes is generally good. A substantial number of virtually traffic free alternatives to major routes through each town provide opportunities for segregated pedestrian and cycling activity. Existing pedestrian footways are typically in good condition, of an appropriate width and well lit although there are notable exceptions along High Street / Melton Road towards the west end of Oakham town centre where footway widths are inadequate, particularly in the vicinity of Hudson’s House. 2.4.4.4 Signalised pedestrian crossing facilities are positioned on busier main routes within both towns including High Street / Melton Road – the principal retail centre within Oakham and the A6003 junctions with North Street and High Street in Uppingham. Despite these facilities current levels of traffic along both High Street / Melton Road in Oakham and the A6003 Ayston Road in Uppingham impose a substantial barrier to more informal pedestrian crossing activity. Existing parking activity coupled with the substantial width of High Street restricts opportunities to cross informally and hinders J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 13 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

interaction between both sides of the Town’s principal shopping street.

2.4.4.5 Carriageway widths of key roads within Oakham town centre in particular tend to be Photo 2. 4: Dean’s Street , excessive. This is particularly true in the vicinity of a number of junctionsOakham where pedestrian crossing demand is highest resulting in an unnecessary and undesirable domination of the street scene by motorised traffic. 2.4.4.6 There are few dedicated on and off-street cycling facilities in evidence within both Oakham and Uppingham although, as stated above, the substantial number of quietly trafficked routes around each town provide an appropriate network wide coverage of suitable routes for cyclists in each case. Secure cycle parking facilities (locking points) are located at both Oakham rail station and the existing Tesco store on South Street. No further cycle parking facilities were noted in the centre of either Oakham or Uppingham.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 14 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

3 Strategic Policy Compliance

3.1.1.1 Continuing from Rutland County Council’s Directions of Growth Appraisal 5, which examined all the land around Oakham and Uppingham in terms of a range of environmental, social and economic factors, the need has been identified for a more detailed appraisal of the development options around Oakham and Uppingham. This involves an evaluation of the capacity of the road network to accommodate further development, and to allow comparison between the different areas in terms of transport and highway impacts, and to identify any mitigation measures that would be required. 3.1.1.2 This Section provides a summary of selected development locations and reviews these with regard to the sites’ broad alignment with strategic aspirations and drivers.

3.2 Alternative Development Options

3.2.1.1 Following the study of all land around Oakham and Uppingham, a number of alternative development options have been identified for further detailed study. These areas are shown in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 below. Figure 3.1: Alternative Possible Development Locations in Oakham

5 Local Development Framework: Directions of Growth Appraisal, May 2009 J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 15 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 3.2: Alternative Possible Development Locations in Uppingham

This information includes map data reproduced with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. License Number 1000018056 3.2.1.2 A substantial amount of analysis has previously been undertaken to inform decisions regarding the suitability of a number of sites. In order that this study avoids repeating work already completed and builds on the results of previous analysis, a number of key assumptions have been made: • The overall levels of proposed residential and employment development as set out by the Core Strategy 6 will not be altered.

• As indicated by the Core Strategy Preferred Options report, (and unless specifically stated otherwise by the scenarios assessed, further details of which are provided within section 5) it is generally assumed that the proposed five hectare allocation of additional employment land would be delivered on sites in the vicinity of Oakham in preference to Uppingham in order to achieve ‘ more sustainable commuting patterns ’.

3.3 Assessment Approach

3.3.1.1 Assessment of the suitability of the various alternative development locations under consideration for Oakham and Uppingham has been conducted according to a general three stage process: • Selection of a number of criteria against which to assess sites;

6 RCC, 2009. Rutland County Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Preferred Options, May 2009 J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 16 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• Testing assessment criteria to ensure general compliance with relevant policy drivers;

• Appraisal of the alternative development locations against the various criteria. 3.3.1.2 As a result of this process, the appraisal has provided a summary of the relative performance of each of the alternative development sites against the various indicators, which are demonstrated to represent performance against the relevant policy framework.

3.4 Development of Assessment Criteria

3.4.1.1 In order to assess the suitability of the alternative development sites in terms of transport accessibility, a number of indicators have been proposed. Reflecting the modal transport options available within Oakham and Uppingham, these have been generally focussed with the objectives of minimising vehicular journeys, maximising opportunity for non motorised transport and securing access to public transport. 3.4.1.2 Reflecting these general themes, broad criteria selected as relevant to transport and accessibility assessment include the following categories: • Category 1: Location of the site in relation to key services and facilities;

• Category 2: Quality of existing walking and cycle infrastructure;

• Category 3: Ease of access to existing public transport networks; and,

• Category 4: Quality of existing public transport services.. 3.4.1.3 For each of these categories, more specific measurable indicators have been developed, against which performance of each of the sites can be measured.

Category 1: Location of the Site in relation to Key Services and Facilities

3.4.1.4 The proposed location of residential development is a key measure within the assessment framework as it is considered to be the key determining factor affecting accessibility and likely to influence people’s travel choices. Whereas improvements to transport infrastructure (including walking and cycling linkages and, to a lesser extent, public transport network coverage and service provision) could be effectively employed to mitigate and accommodate the impact of large scale development on a given site, the location of key services and amenities in relation to each site would only ever be significantly altered over the course of a long-term planning horizon, if at all. 3.4.1.5 The following services have been selected to represent a broad cross-section of key sites and facilities with related transport implications. Equally weighted scoring has been applied based on the sites’ proximity to the following services: • Commercial centre;

• Primary employment sites;

• Healthcare facilities; and,

• Secondary (state) education facilities.

Category 2: Quality of Walking and Cycling Amenity

3.4.1.6 In order to provide a meaningful assessment of existing walking and cycling infrastructure in the vicinity of each site, the quality of existing connections between each site and key services and amenities identified in Category 1 has been undertaken. The assessment includes a high level analysis of route quality, pedestrian / cycle prioritisation and route continuity / severance in each instance. 3.4.1.7 The assessment has been limited to consider the quality of links to only two of the four key services and amenities identified in Category 1 in order to ensure an effective differentiation between the scores allocated to each site. Due to the spatial spread of

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 17 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

services and facilities throughout the two towns and their limited geographical area, the consideration of connections to all key services would not be feasible without resulting in each site being allocated an equal weighting for this category.

Category 3: Ease of Access to Public Transport Networks

3.4.1.8 Access to the existing public transport networks serving Oakham and Uppingham in the vicinity of each potential development site is relevant to the strategic assessment undertaken.

3.4.1.9 The distance between each site and bus and rail network access have been broadly based upon thresholds guided by reference to Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) guidance that indicates maximum walking distances of 400m and 800m to access bus and rail services respectively. The assessment of each site’s access to the existing bus network is based upon the distance to the nearest bus route operating an hourly service or better regardless of the potential disparity of service frequency and / or number of destinations served. 3.4.1.10 The sole access to rail services in either town, indeed within Rutland as a whole is provided via Oakham station and as a consequence service quality is therefore uniform across all possible development sites. It was therefore not necessary to include a grading of the quality of passenger rail services for each site as the attractiveness of rail as a mode choice will be governed primarily by the distance between each site and Oakham station and, to a lesser extent the quality of sustainable transport linkages between the two, e.g. a direct, frequent bus service or direct pedestrian route that have been accounted for in other assessment criteria.

Category 4: Quality of Existing Public Transport Services

3.4.1.11 The assessment framework includes a consideration of the quality of existing public transport services operating within 400 m of the site, consistent with current IHT guidance concerning maximum walking distances as set out in Category 3 above.

3.4.1.12 The analysis includes only routes operated by an hourly frequency of service or better in order to ensure that the beneficial impact of a number of infrequent services also in operation is not overstated. 3.4.1.13 The assessment has been based on existing service patterns in order to ensure development site scores reflect their location in relation to existing service provision in order to avoid the need to make assumptions regarding the feasibility of introducing potentially costly extra services. Subject to a more detailed assessment of spare capacity on existing services it is anticipated that the close integration of development in each town with existing services would assist by both strengthening the viability of existing services and, where necessary assisting the business case to introduce service enhancements.

3.4.2 Policy Compliance Appraisal

3.4.2.1 An initial policy compliance exercise has informed development of various indicators described above, and also tested these against the broad policy framework. 3.4.2.2 A matrix has therefore been developed summarising key transport related priorities identified within primary national, regional and local development policy instruments. Consideration of these against the assessment criteria has identified the extent to which each indicator is relevant to supporting the various policy priorities.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 18 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

3.4.2.3 As all sites under consideration are located on greenfield land (all previously developed land in each town having been allocated) it was not considered necessary to incorporate wider policies concerning the use of previously developed land into the evaluation.

3.4.3 Site Specific Transport and Access Sustainability Appraisal

3.4.3.1 Using the broad criteria identified by the results of the initial compliance exercise, a more detailed assessment framework has been developed in order to evaluate the suitability of each proposed development site based upon sequential test principles. Within the framework, each site has been allocated a nominal score for each criterion, based on quantitative indicators, in order to provide an indication of the hierarchy of favourable sites to bring forward for development. These are by definition, those well located in relation to existing services, amenities, sustainable transport infrastructure and with good access to the existing public transport network and services. 3.4.3.2 Both proposed residential and employment sites have been included within the assessment however, the location of employment sites in relation to key services (notably retail, education and healthcare facilities) is not considered to be relevant to the determination of the likely adoption of sustainable travel patterns. For this reason the service location categories have been excluded from the assessment of employment sites.

3.5 Summary Appraisal Tables

3.5.1.1 The following section provides a summary of the findings of the appraisal process described above: • Table 3.1 provides a summary of observations and findings from the policy compliance matrix, demonstrating to what extent the adopted criteria satisfy priorities of national, regional and local development policy;

• Table 3.2 illustrates the evaluation of the alternative development sites with regards to their accessibility to transport and facilities, as described above;

• Table 3.3 describes the scoring attributed to criteria adopted by Table 3.2.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 19 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 3.1: Assessment Criteria Testing Matrix Assessment Criteria under Test

Walking & Strategic Location Public Transport Cycling Level of Policy Key Priorities Quality of Quality of Planning Site location in linkages existing Policy Site location relation to Access to between site services in relation to existing public existing and key within key services transport networks services / vicinity of services facilities site Promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant freight PPG13: Transport Promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant transport, walking and cycling Reduce the need to travel, especially by car Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Address accessibility (both in terms of location and physical access) for all members of the community to jobs, health, housing, education, shops, leisure Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant and community facilities; Provide improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space, sport and recreation, by ensuring that new PPS1: Delivering development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Sustainable bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car, while Development recognising that this may be more difficult in rural areas. National Reduce the need to travel and encourage accessible public transport provision to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development. Planning should actively manage patterns of urban growth to make the fullest use of public Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant transport and focus development in existing centres and near to major public transport interchanges. Housing developments in suitable locations, which offer a good range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant infrastructure. PPS3: Housing Is easily accessible and well-connected to public transport and community facilities and services, and is well laid out so that all the space is used efficiently, Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant is safe, accessible and user-friendly. Deliver more sustainable patterns of development, reduce the need to travel, Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant PPS4: Planning especially by car and respond to climate change 8 for Sustainable Promote the vitality and viability of town and other centres as important places Economic Growth Relevant Relevant Relevant for communities.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 Page 20 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX Final Issue 13-09-2010

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Assessment Criteria under Test

Walking & Strategic Location Public Transport Cycling Level of Policy Key Priorities Quality of Quality of Planning Site location in linkages existing Policy Site location relation to Access to between site services in relation to existing public existing and key within key services transport networks services / vicinity of services facilities site Identifies, protects and promotes key distribution networks, and locates or co- locates developments which generate substantial transport movements in Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant locations that are accessible (including by rail and water transport where feasible), avoiding congestion and preserving local amenity as far as possible Encourage less (unsustainable) travel Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant East Midlands Regional DaSTS Study Encourage more effective and efficient travel Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant (Stage 1) Encourage energy efficient travel Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Strategic Objective 1: Broad locations for Development To identify broad locations for sustainable development that will give access for all to services and facilities, minimise the impact on climate change and need to Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant travel and promote the efficient use of land while protecting the natural environment, landscape, the unique character and identity of the towns, villages and countryside. Strategic Objective 9: Sustainable transport Local Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Development To develop integrated and sustainable forms of transport including better public Framework – transport, walking and cycling facilities. Core Strategy Strategic Objective 10: Transport and infrastructure Preferred Options Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Local To develop a strong and vibrant community by developing communication and transport infrastructure and links throughout the county and beyond. Strategic Objective 14: Resources, waste and climate change To reduce the impact of people and development on the environment by sustainable design and construction, reducing pollution, encouraging the prudent Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant uses of resources, waste management and recycling, renewable energy, green infrastructure and addressing the implications of flood risk and climate change To improve access to local services (improve rural transport) and reduce social Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant exclusion Rutland Local Transport Plan 2 To integrate all transport & land use policy Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant To reduce congestion, promote sustainable forms of travel and transport, and Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant Relevant reduce car use

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 Page 21 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX Final Issue 13-09-2010

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Assessment Criteria under Test

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 Page 22 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX Final Issue 13-09-2010

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 3.2: Accessibility Assessment Matrix

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 Page 23 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX Final Issue 13-09-2010

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 Page 24 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX Final Issue 13-09-2010

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 3.3: Accessibility Assessment Scoring Criteria

3.6 Summary Observations & Conclusions

3.6.1.1 The assessment criteria testing process, illustrated in Table 3.1 , demonstrates significant compliance of the assessment criteria considered with the general framework of national, regional and local policy priorities.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 25 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

3.6.1.2 Within the accessibility assessment matrix presented within Table 3.2 , the following observations and conclusions may be made with a summary score and ranking provided for each site with reference to the scoring matrices set out within Tables 3.3 and 3.4 .

Table 3.4: Sustainability Assessment Score Summary

Table 3.5 Oakham Site Summary

Oakham Residential Sites

3.6.1.3 The highest cumulative score is awarded to Site A , indicating strong performance in terms of sustainable transport principles. Of the three sites evaluated, the location of Site A scores particularly well in relation to its proximity to key services and both access to and quality of public transport networks and services.

3.6.1.4 Sites B and C demonstrate poorer performance than Site A, with Site C performing marginally better than Site B.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 26 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 3.5 Oakham Residential Site Score / Ranking

Oakham: Employment Sites

3.6.1.5 Site D provides the highest cumulative score, suggesting that it performs strongest with regards to sustainable transport principles. This site scores particularly well in relation to its existing walking and cycling amenity and access to the existing public transport network. 3.6.1.6 Sites E and F score lower than Site D, with the resulting Site F score marginally below that of Site E. Site F scores marginally better with regard to its walking and cycling amenity and access to the rail network however, this is substantially outperformed by Site E in terms of the quality of access to the existing bus network and services. Table 3.6 Oakham Employment Site Score / Ranking

Uppingham: Residential Sites

3.6.1.7 The three residential sites perform similarly, without significant difference in cumulative scores; 3.6.1.8 Site H returns the highest cumulative score, partly as it is the best connected and serviced in relation to bus routes. Site G scores similarly, although bus routes in the vicinity of the site are judged to offer a lower quality of services; 3.6.1.9 While site I is located closest to key facilities, it is poorly connected to public transport routes. Table 3.7 Uppingham Residential Site Score / Ranking

Uppingham: Employment Sites

3.6.1.10 Only one site is proposed for Uppingham. The location of the site scores averagely in relation to its walking and cycling amenity. Access to the existing bus network is good however existing bus services serving the town are not well developed. The resulting overall site score is therefore average in terms of its sustainable transport ranking.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 27 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

3.6.1.11 No alternative employment sites are considered in the vicinity of Uppingham. Alternative sites in Oakham score more favourably. Table 3.8 Uppingham Employment Site Score / Ranking

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 28 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

4 Traffic Analysis

4.1.1.1 This Section provides a summary and discussion of both initial on-site observations recorded during site visits to each of the towns and a review of existing data provided by RCC relating to parking sufficiency and accidents. It further interpolates future baseline traffic forecasts based on background traffic flows and the application of TEMPRO growth factors, and considers estimates of development trip generation based on the industry standard TRICS database.

4.2 Observations of Existing Conditions

4.2.1.1 In order to inform the understanding of issues requiring further consideration, comprehensive site visits were undertaken to observe existing conditions and patterns of travel throughout the entire weekday period in February and March 2010. In addition to informal observations of existing patterns of behaviour, more formal surveys of traffic were undertaken by Arup in March 2010. 4.2.1.2 The following section details the broad observations of existing patterns of travel behaviour and condition of transport infrastructure observed in both Oakham and Uppingham during the site visits and informed through liaison with RCC Planning and Highways Officers that formed the basis for further investigation and consequently the focus for attention of any resulting mitigation measures that might be considered appropriate.

4.2.2 Primary Observations – Oakham

4.2.2.1 Based on the information sources described above, the following primary observations have been made for the road traffic network in Oakham: • Broad observations of existing patterns of traffic within the town centre suggest that whilst levels of traffic are slightly higher during peak periods, constant activity associated with the retail function of the town coupled with the ready availability of parking within the central area leads to a relatively substantial and constant movement of traffic throughout the daytime period.

• Turnover of short-stay parking within the town centre was observed to be reasonably high, maintaining volumes of traffic throughout the daytime period. As detailed further in the discussion on parking sufficiency, such observations are supported by conclusions drawn from the 2010 study of parking activity in both Oakham and Uppingham 7 that indicated a 70% compliance with one hour limited waiting restrictions currently in force. 4.2.2.2 Key junctions and sections of the network observed comprise the following (illustrated in Figure 4.1 ): • The A606 Burley Park Way (Oakham bypass) corridor;

• High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction , where its existing operation is substantially impacted by the regular closures of an existing level crossing on the Peterborough – Birmingham rail line throughout the day, leading to extensive, localised queuing on all approaches during periods of barrier closure at the crossing;

• High Street / Melton Road / Burley Road / Mill Street four arm mini-roundabout at the eastern extremity of the town centre;

7 Savills, 2010. Oakham and Uppingham Parking Sufficiency Study, Final Report – 11 Feb 2010 J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 29 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• The High Street / Melton Road corridor that runs through the commercial centre of the town, including an existing pinch point in the vicinity of Hudson’s House towards the west end of the town centre. Figure 4.1: Key Junctions and Areas of Highway in Oakham

4.2.2.3 Formal surveys of traffic conditions along the A606 bypass were not undertaken although, a number of informal observations undertaken during site visits clearly indicated that the bypass is currently operating well within capacity throughout the daytime period. This is supported by analysis of results taken from a number of traffic surveys covering key sections of the bypass. These were presented within a transport assessment submitted in 2009 to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) by Wormald Burrows Partnership on behalf of Hawksmead Ltd. concerning a proposed mixed use development on land to the north-west of Oakham.

Primary Observations: Uppingham

4.2.2.4 Based on the information sources described above, the following observations have been made concerning existing network conditions in Uppingham illustrated by Figure 4.2 : • The A6003 forms the principal route both into and through the town providing an important link between Oakham and the A47 to the north of the town and Corby approximately 15 km to the south. The existing A6003 alignment runs directly through the central area of the town and observations indicate that traffic flows are significantly more substantial during AM and PM peak periods.

• An informal number plate survey of existing traffic on the A6003 corridor through the town indicated that approximately 40% of traffic on the A6003 constitutes through- traffic. J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 30 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• There are a number of physical alignment constraints on the route of the A6003 within the town centre. Notable points include limited space availability in the vicinity of its junctions with both North Street and High Street where the close proximity of buildings to the highway corridor places substantial constraints on the available highway width and cause’s larger vehicles to swing out across the opposing traffic flow in order to avoid overhanging buildings. Figure 4.2: Key Junctions and Areas of Highway in Uppingham

4.3 Review of Accident Data

4.3.1.1 Analysis of accident data provided by RCC indicates that a total of 90 accidents have been recorded within and in the immediate vicinity of Oakham over the course of the most recent five year period (2005 to 2009). Of the 90 recorded accidents, 78 resulted in slight injury with the remaining 12 indicated as serious injury accidents. In the immediate vicinity of Uppingham, 35 injury accidents were recorded throughout a similar period, 32 of which resulted in slight injury, the remaining three resulting in serious injury. 4.3.1.2 Accident data for both Oakham and Uppingham is illustrated in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 respectively.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 31 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 4.3: Oakham Accident Data (2005 – 2009)

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 32 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 4.4: Uppingham Accident Data (2005 – 2009)

This information includes map data reproduced with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. License Number 1000018056 4.3.1.3 Further, detailed analysis of key links and junctions within both towns has been undertaken to broadly identify any key patterns or causation factors. Locations have been selected to reflect areas where existing accident clusters can clearly be identified from the available data and to cover areas of the network identified as being of importance to the study as set out below. Such areas of the network include:

Oakham • The A606 Burley Park Way (Oakham bypass) corridor;

• The High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road level crossing junction;

• The High Street / Melton Road / Burley Road / Mill Street mini-roundabout;

• High Street / Melton Road corridor through the town centre;

• Barleythorpe Road to the north-west of the level crossing

Uppingham • A6003 Ayston Road / North Street signalised junction

• A6003 Ayston Road / High Street junction

Review of Oakham Accident Data

4.3.1.4 A total of 41 slight injury accidents and 7 serious injury accidents have been recorded on the key sections of the existing network in Oakham as highlighted above. The largest

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 33 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

concentration of accidents (14 slight, 3 serious) were recorded along the High Street / Melton Road / High Street corridor through the town centre, followed by 12 (10 slight, 2 serious) along the A606 Oakham bypass and 10 (9 slight, 1 serious) at the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road level crossing junction.

4.3.1.5 Driver error would appear to be the primary causation factor in the overwhelming majority of cases (40 of the 41 slight injury accidents and 6 of the 7 serious injury accidents) however, a number of supplementary factors are hinted at resulting from analysis of the causation factors in the accident data forms provided by RCC. This suggests that the existing provision of cycle and pedestrian prioritisation measures in place had an impact in the cases of 11 slight injury accidents and 4 serious injury accidents in the network considered.

Review of Uppingham Accident Data

4.3.1.6 Accident data for Uppingham suggests the presence of a cluster located at the A47 / A6003 roundabout, principally shunt accidents caused by drivers failing to stop when vehicle ahead brakes. A further cluster is located at the junction of the A6003 and North Street, with a total of three slight injury accidents recorded, all of which were apparently caused by collisions between conflicting vehicle turning movements. Three further accidents are identified in the vicinity of the junction, which are reported as resulting in serious injury and appear to result from conflicting movements of vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of an adjacent garage forecourt. Finally, a small cluster of three slight injury accidents is also located towards centre of the town in the vicinity of the Ayston Road / High Street junction, generally relating to pedestrians struck by vehicles whilst attempting to cross the A6003.

4.3.2 Parking Sufficiency

4.3.2.1 A comprehensive review of information contained within the Oakham and Uppingham Parking Sufficiency Study originally conducted in November 2008 and further updated in 2010, has been undertaken 8. Broad summaries and conclusions drawn from the review are presented below and have been used to supplement the collection and collation of first-hand data, inform the analysis of existing travel behaviour patterns and focus attention on appropriate mitigation.

Key Conclusions - Oakham

4.3.2.2 Key conclusions indicate that existing supply of on-street parking currently meets demand however off-street parking provision approaches capacity during the weekday period. Approximately 30% of parking activity in existing, one hour limited waiting bays on-street exceeds the one hour time restriction, the majority of which remains for a period of between 1 and 2 hours. This has the effect of reducing the availability of short-stay parking in on-street areas and encourages traffic to undertake short-stay parking activity within long-stay off-street facilities preventing their effective utilisation to accommodate long-stay parking events. This is a particular problem during the AM period, when demand for short-stay parking within the town is at its highest. 4.3.2.3 Approximately 13% of parking activity is undertaken by residents who live within 500m of the town centre. 30% of parking events are undertaken by individuals who live within 400m of the existing hourly Oakham Hopper bus route although the existing service frequency offers no realistic competitive incentive to use the bus as opposed to travelling by car where available.

8 Savills, 2010. Oakham and Uppingham Parking Sufficiency Study, Final Report – 11 Feb 2010 J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 34 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

4.3.2.4 The report makes a number of key recommendations for implementation within Oakham including: • increasing off-street parking charges;

• implementing 2 hour limited waiting in the vicinity of Northgate / Church Street in order to both satisfy demand for medium-term parking and encourage greater footfall in the west end of the town supporting regeneration efforts;

• implementing short-stay restrictions within the existing long-stay car park at South Street to provide additional town centre parking and discourage long-stay ‘commuter’ parking by RCC staff to be consistent with the introduction of travel planning measures covering RCC’s offices;

• encouraging the use of alternative modes of travel through improvements to the frequency of existing Hopper services to every 20 minutes or better and

• further exploration of opportunities to introduce a park and ride facility to serve the town that might also link to Hopper service as part of a package of improvements to bus service operations within the town.

Key Conclusions - Uppingham

4.3.2.5 Key conclusions presented in the Parking Sufficiency Study Report relevant to Uppingham include the following: • Demand for on-street and ‘pseudo’ on-street parking in centre of town exceeds supply although combined residents’ bays and two hour limited waiting to west of the A6003 on High Street and towards the eastern extremity of High Street East currently work effectively.

• Long-stay parking demand within the town is generally accommodated without the need for motorists to pay.

• 30% of parking activity is undertaken by residents living within 1km of Market Place (approximately half of whom live within 500m).

• Existing bus service frequency and route coverage around the town is very limited restricting opportunities for residents to use alternative modes of travel to access the town centre. 4.3.2.6 The report makes a number of further key recommendations for implementation within Uppingham including: • Implementation of a charging strategy (P&D) to encourage use of more outlying parking bays and reduce pressure on central areas.

• Extending the coverage of pay & display parking to more outlying locations to deter unnecessary car based trip making.

• Further consideration of demand responsive bus services, employee shuttle buses. The report clearly identifies no realistic scope for the introduction of park & ride.

4.4 Background Traffic Flows

4.4.1.1 In order to assess the existing level of traffic in each town, a picture of base traffic flows covering key sections of the existing network in both Oakham and Uppingham during the 2010 AM peak were constructed through the use of data from a variety of sources. 4.4.1.2 The County Council held no up to date survey data covering sections of the network of interest to the study therefore a variety of alternative sources were used to build up 2010 base flows including; • Survey data contained within the 2007 transport assessment (TA) submitted alongside the ‘Catmose Campus’ (Oakham Secondary School) planning application. J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 35 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• Surveys of traffic along Oakham High Street undertaken by Savills as part of the Oakham West Town Centre Regeneration study undertaken in 2009.

• Surveys of key town centre junctions in both Oakham and Uppingham undertaken by members of Arup’s Transport Planning section during the AM peak hour period in March 2010; and

• Surveys of traffic conditions at various locations on the network within Oakham as set out within the 2009 Hawksmead TA. 4.4.1.3 In order to ensure uniformity of data, TEMPRO adjusted NTM growth factors were applied to both the 2007 and 2009 data in order to provide validated 2010 figures that were then supplemented by the addition of the directly collated 2010 data in order to provide a snapshot of existing traffic on the network.

4.5 Committed Development

4.5.1.1 Discussions were held with representatives of both RCC’s Planning and Highways sections in order to determine the extent of committed developments that would need to be considered within the study. RCC officers identified a number of developments that are either ongoing or likely to come forward at some point during the course of the planning period to 2026. Such developments include the ongoing Catmose Campus secondary school redevelopment in Oakham, a proposed extension to the existing Tesco store located on South Street in Oakham and residual allocated development not included as part of the development sites directly evaluated as part of this study including: • Approximately 300 additional residential units to be brought forward on assorted previously developed sites within Oakham;

• Approximately 50 additional residential units to be brought forward for development on assorted previously developed sites in Uppingham;

• Residual allocated employment land to the north-west of Oakham town centre adjacent to the A606 bypass; and

• In the order of 600 additional residential units to be brought forward for development in various other locations around the County other than Oakham and Uppingham through the LDF. st • 500 dwellings committed development at 1 April 2010 4.5.1.2 Additionally RCC officers advised that account should be taken of anticipated growth in neighbouring authorities most notably around the Corby Growth Point located in Northamptonshire approximately 15km to the south of Oakham.

4.5.1.3 As specific individual applications concerning the majority of anticipated development in the County have yet to be brought forward, locally adjusted TEMPRO / NTM growth factors were applied to the 2010 counts data in order to generate anticipated future flows. As TEMPRO factors account for a substantial amount of planned future development it was necessary to ensure that the impact of residual future development within the County was accounted for whilst simultaneously ensuring that specific developments considered as part of the detailed assessment undertaken in this study were not inadvertently ‘double counted’. TEMPRO growth was therefore only applied to background traffic flows up to 2016 in order to generate base traffic flows for the future planning period considered (to 2026). 4.5.1.4 By 2016 it is assumed that known committed and imminent forthcoming developments will have been completed together with a substantial proportion of residual development on brownfield sites within both Oakham and Uppingham and around the wider County.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 36 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

The adopted approach ensures that development levels used in the assessment scenarios represent new development required by 2026; above levels currently delivered and existing committed development. 4.5.1.5 Traffic network diagrams summarising 2026 Base + Committed predicted traffic flows in both Oakham and Uppingham town centres are presented in Figures 4.5 and 4.6 (appended to the report) respectively.

4.6 Corby Growth Point

4.6.1.1 RCC Officers advised that the anticipated level of residential and employment growth in the Corby region over the course of the current planning period will likely be delivered at a rate over and above the anticipated level of development within Rutland and the wider East Midlands as a result of the area having been granted Growth Point status. Officers therefore requested that sensitivity analysis be undertaken to test the potential for disproportionate growth around Corby to impact on the existing highway network and traffic flows in both Oakham and Uppingham. Of particular interest was the need to assess the potential for onward impact on the network through central Uppingham and potential implications for flows on any future bypass of the town. 4.6.1.2 A separate methodology has been developed to assess the potential impact of Corby Growth Point development allocations, further details of which are provided in Section 5.

4.7 Development Phasing

4.7.1.1 Decisions regarding the future phasing of development have not yet been taken therefore, for the purpose of the strategic analysis undertaken as a part of this study a robust approach has been adopted to test the 2026 ‘worst-case’ scenarios incorporating full development delivery and maximum additional background growth.

4.8 Trip Generation

4.8.1.1 Trip rates applicable to both residential and employment allocations in each town have been generated through interrogation of the TRICS database. No final decisions have been taken regarding the mix of housing type and tenure likely to be brought forward on residential sites. In order to ensure a robust approach to assessment, trip rates applicable to privately owned housing have therefore been extracted from TRICS. Sites were selected to be broadly representative of the edge of town locations of the various possible development sites under consideration in Oakham and Uppingham. 4.8.1.2 As with the proposed residential elements of the development, decisions regarding the type of commercial development likely to be pursued have yet to be taken and may be subject to future market changes. To ensure a robust approach to assessment, TRICS rates selected reflect the assumption that a mix of office based and light industrial activity would be accommodated within any future development and have therefore been generated using a combination of sites containing a mix of B1 & B2 uses. A build out rate of 35% has been assumed on commercial land development within the site.

4.8.1.3 On the advice of RCC Officers detailed assessment has been limited to consider the AM peak period only as the most pronounced, busiest period of the day. As the assessment has been undertaken to provide a very broad, strategic summary of the existing situation rather than a detailed assessment of specific operational performance of the highway and wider transport networks, it is concluded that the AM peak period represents very much the worst-case scenario that could be anticipated. 4.8.1.4 It is recognised that including trips resulting from both proposed residential and employment developments would likely lead to an element of double counting, i.e. some J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 37 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

departures observed from proposed residential areas would also register in the employment site arrival figures. Nevertheless, both land use classifications have been included within the assessment for the following reasons: • As the key centre within the County, employment development within Oakham has the potential to generate significant movements from outside the immediate area;

• The inclusion of both land uses within the assessment was considered to be robust, avoiding the risk of under-estimating trips resulting from the proposed development;

• The approach adopted was consistently applied to all development scenarios assessed.

4.8.1.5 No account has been taken of the potential for internalisation of trips, i.e. trips departing from residential areas that would be destined for services and facilities located within the development itself. Given the proposed scale of the development under consideration (particularly within Oakham), it is likely that a limited provision of local retail and service facilities would be included as part of the development itself. It is anticipated that such facilities would be restricted to an appropriate scale to serve the everyday needs of the local residential population without being of sufficient size to attract trips from outside the immediate area. Trip rates are shown in Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 . Table 4.1: Residential and Employment TRICS Trip Rates

Land Use Unadjusted TRICS Trip Rates Private Residential (per dwelling) Arrivals Departures AM 0.138 0.477 B1 / B2 Commercial (per 100m2) Arrivals Departures AM 2.107 0.475

Table 4.2: Oakham Residential & Employment Trip Generation Land Use Trip Generation

Private Residential (1000 units) Arrivals Departures AM 138 477 B1 / B2 Commercial (5 Ha) Arrivals Departures AM 369 83

Table 4.3: Uppingham Residential Trip Generation Land Use Trip Generation

Private Residential (250 units) Arrivals Departures AM 35 119

4.9 Trip Distribution

4.9.1.1 Trips generated by the proposed development scenarios for each town have been manually assigned to the network in accordance with 2001 Census information detailing the existing origin and destination patterns of employment based trips associated with each town.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 38 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

4.9.1.2 The Census data is based on a 10% sample of all Census responses and is used by the Census Office to collate information on the origin and destination of work related journeys as well as the mode of travel based on Super Output Areas (SOAs). Data relating to the SOAs covering the entire built up areas of both Oakham and Uppingham and the wider region beyond each town was used to generate a profile of existing trip origins and destinations covering each town and beyond. This profile was applied to the anticipated trips generated by the development scenarios to provide a sound basis upon which to distribute development trips. 4.9.1.3 A summary of the profile used to distribute development trips in Oakham is provided within Table 4.4 , with an equivalent distribution for Uppingham provided by Table 4.5 below. Table 4.4: Oakham Census Travel to Work Distribution

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 39 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 4.4: Uppingham Census Travel to Work Distribution

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 40 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 41 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

5 Development Scenarios & Forecast Impacts

5.1.1.1 A number of development scenarios covering both Oakham and Uppingham have been developed following consideration of the study brief, supporting information provided and in consultation with RCC Officers. Assessment was undertaken using desktop study, primarily informed through the use of bespoke MS Excel assignment models. 5.1.1.2 The following section provides a summary of the scenarios tested and the rationale behind them before moving on to consider the wider predicted impact that might be anticipated on the highway network. The analysis includes specific consideration of key sections of the network including key junction locations identified as a result of discussions with RCC Officers and on-site observations as presented within Section 4. Additionally, a broader sensitivity analysis has also been conducted to understand the potential impact of additional growth resulting from the Corby Growth Point on the local highways network.

5.2 Development Scenarios

5.2.1.1 As described in Section 3, regional and local policy establishes a requirement for broad levels of development on green field land in both Oakham and Uppingham as follows: • 1,000 residential units (approx.) in Oakham

• 250 residential units (approx.) in Uppingham

• 5 hectares of employment land (specific location as yet unspecified) 5.2.1.2 Decisions regarding the preferred split of employment land between the Oakham and Uppingham have yet to be taken however, previous work undertaken to inform the development of Rutland’s LDF indicates a clear preference towards the delivery of suitable employment sites in the vicinity of Oakham over Uppingham reflecting the existing hierarchy of the two main settlements.

5.2.2 Oakham Development Scenarios

5.2.2.1 Potential development sites considered in Oakham are illustrated in Figure 5.1 . The various combinations of these contributing to meeting the development requirements identified above is described by the five scenarios defined in Table 5.1 . 5.2.2.2 In order to ensure a broad evaluation of the options available to accommodate development, a total of five development scenarios covering Oakham were developed for testing following the advice of RCC officers.

5.2.2.3 With reference to Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1, three scenarios (2, 4 and 5) have been specifically designed in order to assess the impact of concentrating the maximum amount of both residential and employment land on an individual site. Of the three residential sites under consideration, only one (Site A to the north-west of the town) is of sufficient size to accommodate the full allocation of 1000 residential units as set out by the Core Strategy Preferred Options report. This is reflected in Scenario 2 where delivery of the entire allocation within a single site has been assumed without resulting in a shortfall requiring use of additional land on alternative sites. As there are no proposed employment sites on the western side of the town, the full delivery of the proposed 5 Ha employment allocation has been assumed on Site E, adjacent to the bypass to the east of the town.

5.2.2.4 Scenarios 4 and 5 maximise the residential development to be delivered on Sites B and C respectively. Neither site is of a sufficient size to accommodate the full allocation therefore, following the advice of RCC Officers; each scenario assumes any resulting shortfall should be accommodated within Site A for the purpose of maintaining J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 42 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

consistency within the assessment. Both employment sites E and F are of a sufficient size to accommodate the entire employment land allocation individually. Scenario 4 assumes that the full employment allocation would be delivered on Site E to the east of the town while Scenario 5 includes the full allocation on Site F adjacent to residential site C. 5.2.2.5 Two further scenarios have been developed following consultation with RCC Officers to reflect alternative delivery options that might prove feasible. The first (Scenario 1) assumes a broadly even split of residential development across the three sites alongside a mixed distribution of employment land across both sites E and F within Oakham plus an allocation in Uppingham in order to assess the impact of dispersing development. The second (Scenario 3) assumes an even split of both residential development between Sites B and C and employment land on sites E and F to assess the impact of concentrating all development on sites to the east of the town centre. Figure 5.1: Potential Development Sites in Oakham

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 43 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 5.1: Oakham Potential Development Scenarios

5.2.3 Uppingham Development Scenarios

5.2.3.1 In Uppingham, each of the three residential sites assessed are of a sufficient size to accommodate the full residential allocation of 250 units set out by the Core Strategy Preferred Options report. Given the limited scale of the development proposed and following discussion with RCC Officers it was agreed that there would be no requirement to consider delivery of development on a combination of more than one site and that each site should therefore be assessed on a stand-alone basis.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 44 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 5.2: Potential Development Sites in Uppingham

This information includes map data reproduced with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. License Number 1000018056 5.2.3.2 As indicated through discussions with RCC Officers, it is understood that the general preference emerging from the ongoing LDF process is for the five hectares of employment allocation emerging from the LDF Core Strategy to be accommodated in either Oakham, Uppingham or Local Service Centres. This will be determined through the LDF Site Allocations and Development Control Policies DPD. It is assumed for the purpose of this study that this additional employment allocations will be identified in Oakham as the principal town in the County. As a consequence, none of the Uppingham development scenarios assessed within this study assume the inclusion of any additional employment land within the town. 5.2.3.3 With reference to Figure 5.2 above, should a future decision be taken to pursue the development of 2 ha outstanding employment allocation to the north of the town or any small additional employment allocation in Uppingham (ie less than 2 – 3 Ha), it is not considered that this would result in any additional material impact on the operation of the town’s existing network. An initial analysis of distribution patterns based on the 2001 Census results indicates that the majority of additional employment trips resulting would originate from / be destined for areas to the north of the town. Such traffic would not impact on the operation of the existing network within the town centre.

5.3 Network Implications of Development

5.3.1.1 A broad evaluation of existing conditions and capacity available on the network has been undertaken in order to assess the likely impact of development traffic associated with each development scenario on the existing and possible future network within each town. To provide a basis for analysis an initial classification of the network was undertaken using Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) typical link capacity standards as

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 45 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

set out with Volume 5: Assessment and Preparation of Road Schemes; Section 1, TA 79/99 that indicates the maximum (one-way) sustainable flow of traffic passing in one hour, under favourable road and traffic conditions. 5.3.1.2 A summary of the classification of key sections of the network, as identified through discussion with RCC Officers and resulting from on-site observations as set out within section 4.1 together with the predicted 2026 Base + Committed base traffic, is provided by Tables 5.2 and 5.3 below. Table 5.2: Predicted Maximum One-way Flows Including Existing 2026 Base + Committed Traffic

Table 5.3: Predicted Maximum One-way Flows Including Existing 2026 Base + Committed Traffic

5.3.1.3 From Tables 5.2 and 5.3 above it is concluded that all key links in and around both Oakham and Uppingham would continue to operate comfortably within their theoretical capacity with the addition of anticipated background growth in the period to 2026. Significantly, it is noted that a substantial amount of spare capacity would remain on the existing A606 Oakham bypass that could be appropriately utilised to both accommodate additional traffic resulting from the allocated development assessed within this study and to divert existing traffic along alternative routes around the town, avoiding sensitive areas of the network, particularly areas of the town centre. 5.3.1.4 It should be noted that conclusions drawn from the initial assessment undertaken within this report based upon DMRB link capacities are of a strategic nature. Whilst the assessment broadly indicates that the existing Oakham bypass should not experience any difficulty in accommodating a substantial additional level of traffic, previous more detailed assessment (contained within the Hawksmead TA submitted to the Authority in 2009) indicates that some key junctions on the bypass would require mitigation work to

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 46 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

ensure satisfactory operational performance. It is therefore recommended that a more detailed analysis of both link capacity and key junctions along the bypass should be undertaken to both evaluate the impact of further development within the town along with any necessary design of effective mitigation interventions required.

5.3.1.5 Table 5.3 indicates that the existing A6003 Ayston Road corridor through Uppingham would be expected to continue operating comfortably within its theoretical capacity with the addition of anticipated background growth in the period to 2026 however, it should be noted that the route runs directly through the town centre and, as such forms a sensitive link within the network. Whilst the route would continue to function operationally purely in terms of capacity, the addition of a level of traffic of the scale considered within the assessment might prove to have other unacceptable negative impacts on other key determining factors such as increasing the incidence of injury accidents or significantly reducing air quality along the corridor. Consideration of some possible mitigation measures are presented within section 6.

5.3.2 Oakham – Broad Conclusions

5.3.2.1 Tables 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 use DMRB theoretical capacity standards in order to provide a key summary of the anticipated impact on the network of the five development scenarios evaluated in Oakham. The report then moves to draw some key conclusions regarding the relative merits of each scenario in order to identify those that would offer the best potential to avoid impact on sensitive areas of the network in the first instance. Where additional impact would prove unavoidable, a high level assessment of the potential for the existing network to absorb additional development traffic has been undertaken and scope for the implementation of suitable mitigation measures is explored. Finally a broad summary of key recommendations for further, more detailed work is identified. Table 5.4: Oakham Development Scenarios: Predicted Capacity on Key Links within the Network

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 47 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 5.5: Oakham Development Scenarios: Absolute Change in Traffic on Key Links over 2026 Base Flows

Table 5.6: Oakham Development Scenarios: Absolute Change in Traffic at Key Junctions over 2026 Base Flows

5.3.3 Oakham – Conclusions Common to all Scenarios

5.3.3.1 Table 5.4 demonstrates that all key links assessed would be expected to continue operating within capacity with the addition of anticipated background growth to 2026 plus the anticipated development traffic resulting from each scenario. 5.3.3.2 It should be noted that capacity along both the Barleythorpe Road and Cold Overton Road links is substantially affected by the continual operation of a level crossing on the Peterborough / Birmingham line. An initial assessment indicates that anticipated future closures of the level crossing would result in a ‘typical’ closure pattern of 24 minutes (40%) in the hour. An initial assessment of the factored capacity of both routes (i.e. the theoretical capacity as set out by the DMRB standards reduced by 40% to reflect the worst-case impact of the increased frequency of level crossing closures) has been

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 48 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

undertaken, reducing the maximum sustainable one-way capacity of each link to 666 vehicles. 5.3.3.3 Whilst by no means a detailed assessment of the future operation of the network, the results would appear to indicate that the predicted future increase in frequency with which the level crossing is expected to operate coupled with the addition of traffic resulting from each of the scenarios would be likely to have a substantial enough detrimental impact on the operation of the capacity on both links. Such impacts are likely to be of a sufficient scale to require effective mitigation.

5.3.4 Scenarios

5.3.4.1 As a general guideline it has been assumed that scenarios resulting in a lower relative impact on sensitive areas of the network, notably the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction and High Street / Melton Road corridor through the town centre would be preferred. As discussed in more detail below, in most instances the minimisation of predicted increases to traffic on the more sensitive areas of the network is accompanied by a more substantial predicted increase in traffic on the A606 Oakham Bypass in relative terms. With reference to Table 5.4 , it is concluded that the bypass would have sufficient spare capacity to accommodate development traffic of the scale predicted by any of the scenarios tested and has been constructed for the specific primary purpose of providing an alternative route for traffic avoiding the town centre network. It is therefore concluded that any predicted increase in traffic on the bypass should be considered as broadly neutral in terms of its impact. Instances where a higher level of development traffic routeing via the bypass would result in a lower impact on more sensitive central areas of the network are to be preferred.

5.3.4.2 In circumstances where results indicate an identical predicted impact on sensitive central areas of the network between two scenarios it would appear sensible to favour the scenario that resulted in a lower predicted impact on the bypass in order to avoid unnecessarily using capacity where it is of no discernible benefit to sensitive areas of the network.

5.3.4.3 With reference to Tables 5.4 to 5.6 , the following paragraphs set out a number of key conclusions drawn from the analysis of each of the five scenarios:

Scenario One – Key Conclusions

5.3.4.4 The following conclusions have been drawn with regard to Scenario One: • All key links assessed are predicted to remain operating within capacity.

• The predicted increase in traffic using the A606 Oakham bypass is the lowest of any of the five scenarios considered.

• An 11% predicted increase in traffic at the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction is the second lowest predicted impact of all scenarios tested (although it is identical to the predicted impact of both Scenarios Four and Five).

• The predicted increase in traffic on the High Street / Melton Road link through the town centre of 23% is the second lowest of the five scenarios tested (although similar to predicted increases resulting from Scenarios Four and Five).

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 49 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

The results of Scenario 1 demonstrate that the predicted impact on the High Street / Melton Road corridor within the town centre and the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction would be reasonably substantial at +23% and + 11% respectively. Additionally results indicate that the scenario has the lowest scope to accommodate additional traffic resulting from proposed development on the A606 bypass (+39%) of the five scenarios tested.

Scenario Two – Key Conclusions

5.3.4.5 The following conclusions have been drawn with regard to Scenario Two: • All key links assessed are predicted to remain operating within capacity.

• The predicted increase in traffic using the A606 Oakham bypass is the second highest of the five scenarios considered (+57%).

• The predicted increase in traffic at the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction of 19% is the highest of the five scenarios tested. It should however be noted that a substantial proportion of the increase would constitute flows between Barleythorpe Road and Cold Overton Road avoiding the level crossing, i.e. the level of increased traffic running across the level crossing itself is in broad terms no more significant than for other scenarios tested).

• The lowest predicted increase in traffic along the High Street / Melton Road corridor through the town centre of any scenario tested (+9%).

Scenario 2 results in the least significant predicted impact on the High Street / Melton Road corridor within the town centre of the five scenarios tested (+9% increase). Scope to accommodate additional traffic resulting from the proposed development via the A606 bypass is high relative to alternative scenarios tested (+57%). However, the predicted impact on the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction is the most significant of the 5 scenarios tested at +19%.

Scenario Three – Key Conclusions

5.3.4.6 The following conclusions have been drawn with regard to Scenario Three: • All key links assessed are predicted to remain operating within capacity.

• The predicted increase in traffic using the A606 Oakham bypass is the second lowest of the five scenarios considered.

• The lowest predicted increase in traffic at the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction at +7%

• The highest predicted increase in traffic along the High Street / Melton Road corridor through the town centre of any scenario tested (+35%)

Scenario Three would result in the least significant impact on the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction leading to a predicted increase in total traffic of only 7%. However the predicted impact on the High Street / Melton Road link within the town centre is the highest of the scenarios tested (+35%) and scope for additional use of the bypass to accommodate traffic is low (+46%) when compared to alternative development scenarios.

Scenario Four – Key Conclusions

5.3.4.7 The following conclusions have been drawn with regard to Scenario Four: • All key links assessed are predicted to remain operating within capacity. J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 50 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• Significant predicted increase in traffic using the A606 Oakham bypass (+53%), substantially higher than anticipated as a result of Scenarios One (+39%) and Three (+46%) although lower than both Scenario Two (+57%) and Five (+60%)

• The second highest predicted increase in traffic along the High Street / Melton Road corridor through the town centre of all scenarios tested (+27%).

Scenario Four would result in a relatively substantial predicted impact on both the High Street / Melton Road corridor within the town centre and the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction, + 27% and +12% respectively. Predicted increases in traffic on the bypass would remain reasonably high when compared to alternative development scenarios at +53% but would not deliver significant associated reductions in predicted traffic on sensitive areas of the central highway network.

Scenario Five – Key Conclusions

5.3.4.8 With reference to Tables 5.4 to 5.6 above, the following conclusions have been drawn with regard to Scenario Five: • All key links assessed are predicted to remain operating within capacity.

• The predicted increase in traffic using the A606 Oakham bypass is the highest of the five scenarios considered (+60%).

• The second highest predicted increase in traffic along the High Street / Melton Road corridor through the town centre of all scenarios tested (+27%).

Scenario Five would result in an identical predicted increase in traffic along both the High Street / Melton Road corridor within the town centre (+27%) and at the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction (+12%) to Scenario Four. Predicted increases along the A606 bypass would be the highest of all scenarios tested (+60%) but this would not deliver significant associated reductions in predicted traffic on sensitive areas of the central highway network.

Indicative Ranking

5.3.4.9 Table 5.7 below uses the information derived from the assessment of alternative development scenarios as summarised above to provide a justified and reasoned hierarchy of the development scenarios tested. It should be noted that the hierarchy is simply included to provide an indication of the general performance of each scenario in terms of its broad predicted impact on key links and junctions. It should be noted that more detailed feasibility work would need to be undertaken to test that appropriate mitigation is possible.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 51 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 5.7: Indicative Scenario Ranking

5.3.5 Uppingham – Broad Conclusions

5.3.5.1 Tables 5.8 and 5.9 provide a key summary of the anticipated impact on the network of the three development sites assessed in Uppingham.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 52 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 5.8: Uppingham Development Scenarios: Predicted Capacity on Key Links within the Network

Table 5.9: Uppingham Development Scenarios: Absolute Change in Traffic on Key Links over 2026 Base Flows

5.3.5.2 Table 5.9 demonstrates that the A6003 Ayston Road link through the town would continue to operate comfortably within its theoretical capacity (as set out by DMRB standards) for each of the three development options tested. Furthermore the results indicate that each development scenario is broadly predicted to have a similar impact on the operation of the A6003 Ayston Road corridor assuming the existing highway network remained unchanged. The predicted impact of developing Site G would be slightly higher than would be the case for either Site H or Site I as the existing configuration of the highway network would result in increased flows through the A6003 Ayston Road / North Street junction.

Indicative Ranking

5.3.5.3 Table 5.10 uses the information derived from the assessment of alternative development scenarios as summarised above to provide a justified and reasoned hierarchy of the development scenarios tested. It should be noted that the hierarchy is simply included to provide an indication of the general performance of each scenario in terms of its broad predicted impact on key links and junctions and a more detailed feasibility work would need to be undertaken to test that appropriate mitigation is possible.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 53 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 5.10: Indicative Scenario Ranking

5.3.6 Impact of Corby Growth Area

5.3.6.1 RCC Officers requested a sensitivity analysis be undertaken to test the impact of disproportionately high growth scheduled for delivery as part of the Corby Growth Point over the course of the current planning period. 5.3.6.2 A stand-alone methodology has been developed to compare locally adjusted TEMPRO factors covering Corby with the wider East Midlands region. The results indicate that the anticipated TEMPRO growth rate factor applicable to Corby in the period to 2026 is 1.401. For the wider East Midlands region the anticipated TEMPRO growth rate factor to 2026 is 1.2863. 5.3.6.3 The resulting Corby TEMPRO growth factor was applied to the surveyed southbound traffic on the A6003 immediately south of Uppingham that has been used as a proxy for the level of traffic destined for Corby. Clearly it is unrealistic to expect that all existing traffic heading south on the A6003 is destined for Corby however the assumption does have the advantage of resulting in an extremely robust estimate of the absolute worst- case impact on the network that would be anticipated.

5.3.6.4 Additional growth associated with the proposed Corby Growth Point has only been applied to southbound traffic during the AM peak period. It is assumed that such growth would only be applicable to commuter traffic destined for new employment opportunities in Corby. No additional growth beyond the wider background growth anticipated has been applied to northbound traffic on the A6003.

5.3.6.5 The results (indicated within Table 5.10) demonstrate that southbound traffic through Uppingham would be expected to grow between 2010 and 2026 by just under 200 vehicles during the AM peak assuming Corby growth rates were applied. Alternatively, if the anticipated TEMPRO growth rate between 2010 and 2026 across the East Midlands

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 54 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

as a whole (1.2863) were applied then this growth in traffic would be in the order of 140 vehicles, approximately 60 less. 5.3.6.6 Locally adjusted TEMPRO rates have been applied to the 2010 surveyed traffic to estimate the anticipated background growth in traffic in the vicinity of Uppingham between 2010 and 2026. The results indicate a predicted southbound traffic flow along the A6003 immediately to the south of Uppingham of 555 vehicles by 2026. It has therefore been assumed that the maximum predicted difference in traffic assuming additional growth prompted by the Corby Growth Point and ‘normal’ background growth would be in the order of 135 vehicles (or 24%). Table 5.10: Predicted Impact of Corby Growth Point on Maximum Anticipated Flows Max. TEMPRO Origin Destination Existing Flow Anticipated Factor Flow A6003 South of Towards 492* 1.401 689 Uppingham Corby

5.3.6.7 A further sensitivity analysis has been undertaken to adjust the census based distribution of development traffic to reflect the additional predicted influence of growth around Corby. The analysis demonstrates that growth in the interaction between both Oakham / Uppingham and Corby would be less than 1% different to the existing distribution. It is therefore concluded that any resulting redistribution of traffic arising from additional growth in Corby would have a negligible impact on the redistribution of traffic associated with the development of approximately 1,000 residential units in Oakham and 250 units in Uppingham and would have a negligible impact on traffic levels on the A6003 through Uppingham.

Conclusions

5.3.6.8 The following key conclusions have been drawn from the sensitivity analysis undertaken to investigate the impact on key links of the Uppingham highway network brought about by additional growth in Corby: • The worst-case predicted impact would result in growth of approximately 40% in southbound traffic flows on the A6003 through the town centre during the AM peak period between 2010 and 2026. • This represents an approximate growth of 24% above the ‘normally’ anticipated background growth in southbound traffic along the A6003 that would be expected to occur in any case over the same period assuming the application of locally adjusted TEMPRO growth. • It is not anticipated that additional growth would occur in northbound traffic flows as it is assumed additional traffic brought about by the Corby Growth Point status would simply be as a result of commuter traffic flows to access additional employment opportunities around Corby and North-Northamptonshire. • Overall traffic flows on the A6003 within Uppingham town centre would therefore be predicted to be a maximum of approximately 11% higher as a result of Corby being awarded Growth Point status than would be the case if a more conventional level of predicted growth occurred.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 55 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

6 Summary Issues and Possible Mitigation

6.1.1.1 The following section draws some broad conclusions from the results of the network analysis undertaken in order to provide an indication of how an appropriate mitigation strategy might be developed and employed in each town. Any further development of the strategy employed would need to be informed through the results of further, more detailed analysis of the impact of development traffic on the network therefore the following measures should only be considered as options that display early potential as being suitable to ensure appropriate use of the existing network and possible enhancements that might prove feasible. In general terms the measures set out below seek to both simultaneously maximise opportunities to enhance existing and provide for new sustainable transport measures in each town, including consideration of feasible bus service improvements and measures to enhance both pedestrian and cycling amenity within each town in line with ‘best practice’ set out within Manual for Streets guidance whilst seeking suitable mitigation measures designed to make limited improvements to the operational performance of the highway network where identified as necessary.

6.1.1.2 An interesting example of what might be achievable is provided by the case study of Ashford in Kent where a radical redesign of the town’s ring road has recently been undertaken. The scheme is based on shared-space principles and aimed to radically transform “the environment around the town centre, to allow it to ‘breathe’ and expand, to re-introduce streets for people whilst allowing essential car access to and around the town centre.” 9 6.1.1.3 In the case of each town, measures identified seek to minimise the impact of development traffic on sensitive areas of the network and are therefore informed through the analysis of various scenarios set out within earlier chapters of the report. In the case of Oakham, link capacity analysis indicates clear potential for the existing A606 bypass to accommodate substantial additional traffic provided development is appropriately sited in order to ensure use of the bypass is both suitable and convenient for the resulting journey patterns. In Uppingham, the absence of an existing suitable alternative route in the form of a bypass is likely to result in little apparent differentiation between the development scenarios under consideration in terms of their predicted network impact, nevertheless a number of measures offering potential to provide some mitigation of the scale of development anticipated are outlined. 6.1.1.4 In the longer-term the possible construction of a north – south bypass around Uppingham would offer clear potential for a significant reduction of traffic currently routeing via the town centre. Further details of potential route alignments plus a high-level evaluation of the scope for any such link to accommodate existing and possible future traffic is contained within section 7. No explicit consideration of its potential to allow improvements to the existing network is therefore contained within this section.

6.2 Oakham

6.2.1.1 Results of the analysis evaluating the likely impact of development traffic broadly indicate that scenarios that seek to contain development onto fewer sites would be preferable to those which would disperse development around the town. Of the scenarios tested it is clear that scenario 2 (that largely seeks to accommodate development to the north-west of the town) would result in the lowest predicted impact on the town centre (High Street / Melton Road corridor) as there is clear scope for development traffic to utilise spare capacity on the A606 Burley Park Way bypass in order to undertake the anticipated journey patterns resulting from the census based distribution of traffic around the

9 Taken from the CABE website: http://www.cabe.org.uk/enabling/examples/ashford-ring-road J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 56 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

network. It should be noted however that the analysis results are not entirely conclusive in that they indicate that concentrating development to the north-west of the town would result in the most significant impact on the operation of the High Street / Melton Road / level crossing junction towards the west end of the town centre. This would largely occur as a result of traffic flows between the site and town centre routing via the junction.

6.2.2 High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road / “Level Crossing” Junction

6.2.2.1 All scenarios tested are likely to have reasonably significant implications on the operational performance of the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road level crossing junction, particularly in light of the likelihood that future activation of the crossing barriers is expected to increase markedly. The level of traffic growth through the junction associated with each scenario is broadly predicted to be uniform at around +10% with the exception of Scenario 2 that it is predicted would see growth of traffic through the junction in the order of 19%. Initial results of a rudimentary analysis of link capacity set out within Section 5 indicate that the predicted level of traffic associated with all scenarios would likely result in the junction experiencing operational problems in the future. It is however recommended that further more detailed modelling analysis be undertaken to test performance of the junction more thoroughly in order to understand the specific particular quirks of its operational performance. 6.2.2.2 Whilst the difference between the increase associated with Scenario 2 is marked in comparison to the remaining scenarios, it should be noted that the predicted vehicular trip generation figures used in the analysis have been uniformly applied across all sites. This is to say that the analysis takes no account of the scope for favourable location of one site above another in relation to existing services and facilities in and around the town, existing sustainable travel opportunities including public transport routes and service quality and pedestrian / cycle facilities to influence travel behaviour. In a town of such limited geographical size it is anticipated that the existence of suitable sustainable alternatives would prove extremely attractive and likely prove effective in prompting modal shift away from private forms of motorised transport. 6.2.2.3 It is therefore necessary to interpret the results of the analysis undertaken in the study within the wider context of identifying opportunities to effectively mitigate the impact of development traffic. In addition to the availability of alternative modes of travel, opportunities to utilise alternative routes, avoiding operationally sensitive areas of the network need to be understood. In considering the case of the High Street / Melton Road / level crossing junction, it is considered entirely feasible (albeit perhaps slightly counterintuitive) that a limited worsening of performance in capacity terms might actually prove beneficial. This would be achieved through the delivery of improvements to the central area network by reducing the attractiveness of the High Street / Melton Road corridor as a viable through-route for traffic and, in turn encouraging use of alternatives. Of course, any such alternatives would need to be both available in the first instance and attractive in terms of journey time and convenience in order to prompt desired alterations in behaviour.

6.2.3 Traffic Direction

6.2.3.1 With reference to Figure 6.1 , it is clear that there are currently very limited opportunities for traffic originating from / destined for the south-west of the town to avoid the High Street / Melton Road / level crossing junction due to the severance effect imparted by the presence of the rail line running through the western suburbs. Other than the A606 bypass to the north that crosses the railway by way of an over bridge, the only other vehicular crossing of the line is via Brooke Road / Welland Way to the south of the town centre, also made by way of an at-grade level crossing that would clearly be subject to J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 57 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

the same closure regime as the crossing on High Street / Melton Road. Additionally, the alternative Brooke Road / Welland Way route is clearly less convenient than the High Street / Melton Road corridor as it is longer, less direct and would likely be undesirable to both motorists and the authorities due to the fact that it runs through residential areas of the town. 6.2.3.2 As previously indicated, it is considered that a limited worsening in performance of the existing High Street / Melton Road level crossing junction might prove beneficial to any overall objective designed to discourage unnecessary vehicular access to the town centre however it any such approach would need to consider the likely knock on impact on other traffic on the network. In truth it is difficult to see how any substantial improvements could be made to assist the ‘through-crossing’ movement of vehicles on High Street / Melton Road without a fundamental reconfiguration of the crossing itself. There would appear to be some scope to upgrade the existing operational control of the crossing that may enable some marginal reductions to the current barrier closure periods however such action would also have the effect of increasing the availability of train paths through the crossing. It is therefore considered likely that any short-term benefit to highway network performance that might be accrued would simply be offset by an increased frequency of barrier closures due to an increase in train traffic in the medium-term. Figure 6.1 Cross-town Routes Available to Development Traffic

This information includes map data reproduced with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. License Number 1000018056 6.2.3.3 With reference to Figure 6.1, whilst delivery of substantial development to the north-west of the town is predicted to have the most severe impact on the operation of the junction, it is clear that a viable, suitable and convenient alternative route between the site and town centre for vehicular traffic is in existence by way of the A606 bypass to the north. It is anticipated that the existence of a gateway feature in the vicinity of the level crossing regulating access to the town centre would provide a significant incentive to encourage

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 58 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

modal shift where feasible and encourage use of the bypass for remaining private vehicle journeys between the site and town centre. Such an approach might further be encouraged through the rationalisation of on-street parking availability in the heart of the town centre, reallocation of road space to favour movements by pedestrians and cyclists (both within the town centre and along appropriate routes between the town centre and site) and upgrading of public transport services, a brief discussion of which is presented within section 6.1.4.

6.2.3.4 It is clear that measures resulting in the successful assignment of development traffic to the bypass would result in improving the performance of the High Street / Melton Road / Barleythorpe Road / Cold Overton Road junction in relative terms. Nevertheless it is anticipated that traffic resulting from development on any of the sites considered within the scenarios originating from / destined for the south-west of the town would remain reasonably substantial. No detailed capacity analysis of the junction has been undertaken therefore it remains unclear exactly how severe an impact might be however, results of the initial analysis appear to indicate that capacity might be exceeded for all scenarios tested. 6.2.3.5 Detailed design of alternative layout proposals remains outside of the scope of this report however it is anticipated that a number of localised, limited improvements to the layout and operational performance of the Barleythorpe Road and Cold Overton Road arms might be feasible. This could be achieved through localised widening to allow marginally greater levels of traffic not wishing to pass through the level crossing to manoeuvre through the junction during barrier closure periods. It is anticipated that this would likely slightly favour scenario 2 as the preferred development option of those considered.

6.2.3.6 Should conclusions drawn from further, more detailed analysis of options for operational enhancement of the existing junction indicate that such a limited intervention would prove ineffective and junction performance prove to be unacceptable, a further option that might be considered would be the construction of an alternative route between the B640 Barleythorpe Road and Cold Overton Road to the south (as indicated by Figure 6.1 ). It should be noted that the construction of any new link would likely run across and have a direct impact on the existing Catmose Campus playing fields and, as such may not be considered favourably. The planning and environmental issues would need further consideration. 6.2.3.7 In order to provide an effective alleviation of pressure on the level crossing junction the implementation of such a solution would clearly favour the delivery of development on land to the north-west of the town centre (most closely aligned with scenario 2) that would ensure the new route directly served development traffic. This being said, it should be noted that any diversion of existing background traffic flows onto the new route would be likely to free at least some capacity in the vicinity of the level crossing that could be utilised to accommodate additional traffic associated with delivery of any alternative scenarios considered however, it should be noted that in such circumstances, a reasonably substantial amount of development traffic would have no realistic alternative but to use the High Street / Melton Road corridor through the town.

6.2.4 High Street / Melton Road Corridor

6.2.4.1 In order to both minimise the impact of predicted increases in traffic along the High Street / Melton Road corridor through the town centre it is recommended that a package of mitigation measures be considered for implementation. Such measures would be designed with a number of key objectives in mind based upon a hierarchy that sought to prioritise movement by sustainable alternatives to the private car as set out below:

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 59 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• Enabling the enhancement of pedestrian and cycle priority within the town centre through physical measures to restrict unnecessary vehicular access to and through the town centre plus enhancement of footways, cycle infrastructure and pedestrian crossing points

• Enhancing public transport access to and facilities within the town centre to encourage modal shift

• Encouraging the use of alternative routes for vehicular traffic both through and around the town making specific use of available capacity on the A606 bypass where feasible

• Rearranging existing parking availability and provision to discourage motorists from accessing central areas of the town

• Mitigating the impact of residual traffic remaining on the town centre network through the implementation of additional safety features such as physical measures to reduce vehicle speeds, notably in areas of significant pedestrian activity, plus the possible introduction of additional access and manoeuvre restrictions. 6.2.4.2 Such measures might include: • Reducing carriageway widths through the town centre and assigning additional highway space to movements by pedestrians and cyclists.

• Increasing both formal and informal pedestrian crossing opportunities to encourage interaction between both the retail functions along both the northern and southern sides of High Street.

• Investigating further opportunities to make additional pedestrian and cycle crossing points of the existing rail line running through the western suburbs of the town.

• Implementation of dedicated, secure cycle parking facilities within the town centre and at key locations including both bus and rail stations and other key facilities (including educational and healthcare facilities)

• Enhancement of bus infrastructure including information, shelter and boarding facilities within the town centre (a further discussion of which is provided in section 6.1.3 below)

• Implementation of gateway features at both east and west ends of the town to regulate and rationalise unnecessary vehicular access into central areas of the town.

• Appropriate signage of alternative routes for traffic around the town particularly through the utilisation of available capacity on the A606 Oakham bypass.

• Rationalisation and reconfiguration of existing on and off-street parking availability around the town in accordance with recommendations set out within the 2010 Oakham and Uppingham Parking Sufficiency Study in order to provide an appropriate balance of both long and short-stay parking in locations that avoid the need for motorists to drive through sensitive areas of the central network.

6.2.5 Enhancement of Public Transport Services and Network Coverage

6.2.5.1 Existing provision of both bus and rail based passenger services operating out of Oakham serve a reasonably comprehensive range of major regional and more local outlying settlements. Additionally the existing Oakham Hopper service provides an hourly daytime service with a reasonably comprehensive coverage of the internal area of the town. The existing service operates three separate loops around the town each hour, a network that is operated by a single vehicle on a tight timetable. A summary of the route operated is provided by Figure 6.2 .

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 60 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 6.2: Bus Routes in Oakham

This information includes map data reproduced with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. License Number 1000018056 6.2.5.2 Observations indicate that the Hopper service is clearly popular and provides a particularly crucial local service for the mobility impaired and elderly enabling access to key services and facilities. Nevertheless, given the limited size of the town, high level of car ownership and availability of central parking, the existing hourly service frequency is not considered sufficient to encourage further significant modal shift away from the private car onto existing bus services. 6.2.5.3 On-site observations indicate that the existing service is currently operating close to capacity on at least two of the three loops throughout the daytime period although some spare capacity was observed to exist on the loop serving the Pillings Road industrial estate to the north-west of the town.

6.2.5.4 In order to satisfactorily integrate a development of the scale set out by the Core Strategy into the existing public transport network it is therefore anticipated that additional vehicle stock would be required in order to maintain current service frequencies. Whilst some spare capacity appears to exist on the existing loop operating to the north-west of the town, it is considered likely that the additional time penalty incurred by making further stops and increasing the distance of the overall route would reduce the current timetable frequency to an above-hourly service. 6.2.5.5 Clearly any proposal to introduce additional vehicle stock to serve bus routes in Oakham will have substantial cost implications, the feasibility of which will require close investigation and evaluation. It should be noted though that development proposals of the

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 61 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

scale considered within this study might provide the catalyst for delivery of substantial enhancement to the Hopper service not simply by providing additional potential ridership from the development itself but by delivering improvements to service frequency and capacity for the wider town and possibly beyond.

6.3 Uppingham

6.3.1.1 Analysis indicates that the predicted impact on the existing network resulting from the development of each of the three residential sites considered would broadly be expected to be similar. As set out within section 5 predicted additional traffic along the A6003 Ayston Road corridor would be between +7% and +14%, a difference of 7% (or 51 vehicles) between “best” and “worst” case scenarios. Furthermore sensitivity analysis undertaken indicates that the anticipated impact on the town centre network resulting from disproportionately high future rates of development around Corby Growth Point would be negligible. 6.3.1.2 Section 7 sets out a strategic analysis of the potential for a possible north – south bypass alignment to both alleviate existing traffic conditions within the town centre as well as potential to accommodate additional traffic resulting from possible future development around the town. Whilst any bypass would clearly be an extremely important and effective mitigation measure in its own right in delivering improvements to the operation of the existing network, no specific consideration of any potential bypass has been included within this section. This is because delivery of the bypass is by no means certain and, should a scheme proceed, would only likely be delivered over the medium to long-term in any case.

6.3.2 Link Capacity

6.3.2.1 As set out within section 5, results of a strategic level network analysis based on DMRB link capacity standards indicates that the existing network within the town centre would be expected to accommodate the predicted increase in traffic resulting from the development of any of the three sites considered. The most substantial impact on the operation of the A6003 Ayston Road corridor would result from the development of site G. This would result in the A6003 Ayston Road link operating at 67% of its theoretical capacity. Delivery of development on site H or I would result in a marginally lower impact with the route predicted to operate at 63% capacity. Existing theoretical capacity on the link is currently 59%.

6.3.3 A6003 Ayston Road / North Street Signal Junction

6.3.3.1 Observations of the peak hour performance of the existing A6003 Ayston Road / North Street junction undertaken during site visits indicate that the junction currently operates largely within capacity during the AM peak period. In order to assess the potential impact on junction performance an indicative Linsig model has been constructed that reflects the constraints imparted by the presence of adjacent structures that would likely preclude the delivery of substantial future alignment improvements to the junction. The resulting analysis broadly suggests that the additional traffic resulting from both background growth and development traffic may result in the junction approaching its theoretical operational capacity. It is anticipated that delivery of development on sites G or I would result in the most significant worsening of performance due to a more significant predicted increase in development traffic through the junction. Alternatively, a significant amount of traffic resulting from development of sit H would be able to utilise new highway infrastructure in order to gain access to / from the wider network to the north of the town.

6.3.3.2 It should be noted that the analysis undertaken is indicative only and it is recommended that a further, more detailed investigation of options to improve the junction be

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 62 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

undertaken. Nevertheless, the results indicate that the predicted future traffic level resulting from background growth coupled with development of the scale considered by this study would likely be at the upper limit of the existing network’s capacity threshold.

6.3.4 A6003 Ayston Road Corridor

6.3.4.1 Whilst the initial assessment indicates largely acceptable predicted future performance of the network in terms of capacity, observations of existing patterns of movement within the town indicate a clear severance effect within the town centre resulting from the level of traffic along the A6003 Ayston Road corridor. This is particularly marked during both the AM and PM peak periods where traffic flows are heaviest and pedestrian movement is substantial. 6.3.4.2 As set out previously, existing space constraints within the town centre coupled with the limited size of the network and therefore viable alternative routes to the A6003 require the adoption of a mitigation strategy principally based upon a combination of measures designed to encourage modal shift away from private forms of motorised transport and mitigating the impact of traffic within the town centre. Careful consideration of the approach adopted would allow the achievement of both objectives through the implementation of complementary measures, for example, the use of existing highway space to introduce further pedestrian and cycle infrastructure around the town that would both encourage the use of such modes and rationalise existing highway space available for use by motorised vehicles.

6.3.4.3 The limited physical size of the town has both advantages and disadvantages when considering appropriate measures that might be implemented to reduce the impact of existing and predicted future traffic. On the one hand, the small scale of the town and limited distance between the central area retail / service functions and the outlying residential areas is clearly conducive to the encouragement of walking and cycling as viable alternatives to private car use however, conversely, this restricted size of the town would likely make significant improvements to the provision of public transport services financially unfeasible.

6.3.4.4 In conclusion it is recommended that a package of mitigation measures be considered for implementation principally along the A6003 Ayston Road corridor through the town centre. As with Oakham, such measures would be designed with a number of key objectives in mind based upon a broad hierarchy that sought to prioritise movement by sustainable alternatives to the private car as set out below: • Enabling the enhancement of pedestrian and cycle priority within the town centre and key residential areas of the town through physical measures to restrict unnecessary vehicular access to and through the town centre plus enhancement of footways, cycle infrastructure and pedestrian crossing points

• Enhancing public transport access to facilities within the town centre to encourage modal shift

• Rearranging existing parking availability and provision to discourage motorists from accessing central areas of the town unnecessarily. Such measures might include reconfiguration of existing manoeuvre restrictions in order to allow motorists reasonable continued access to the town centre without the need to route via the A6003 Ayston Road.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 63 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

6.3.4.5 Such measures might include: • Reducing carriageway widths through the town centre and assigning additional highway space to movements by pedestrians and cyclists.

• Increasing both formal and informal pedestrian crossing opportunities to encourage interaction between both the retail and service functions between the eastern and western sides of the town centre.

• Implementation of dedicated, secure cycle parking facilities within the town centre and at key locations including outlying education and employment locations.

• Enhancement of bus infrastructure including information, shelter and boarding facilities within the town centre.

• Implementation of gateway features at major access points to the town to regulate and rationalise unnecessary vehicular access and encourage adoption of appropriate speed and behaviour by through-traffic.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 64 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 65 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

7 Uppingham Bypass Assessment

7.1.1.1 This section provides details of the high-level studies conducted into the preliminary study of selected issues associated with construction of a bypass around the town of Uppingham. Reflecting the wishes of RCC, consideration has been given to the potential opportunities for bypass route options for the purpose of safeguarding land for construction which could in turn impact the availability of developable land. The study has been conducted according the following outline methodology: • Development of outline corridor options;

• Specific routing issues including understanding of key local physical constraints and opportunities for route alignments

• Route alignment development;

• Preliminary route comparison including consideration of benefits and limitations for key transport users;

• Route evaluation including identification of a preferred route option;

• Initial discussion of potential funding sources;

• Scope for new bypass to deliver additional growth. 7.1.1.2 It should be noted that the study reported in this Section provides only an initial discussion on selected potential issues associated with provision of a bypass to divert north-south through traffic from the centre of Uppingham. While it seeks to provide an accurate reflection of the local issues associated with provision of a bypass, and relate these to the practical requirements associated with provision of a route, it has not been conducted to any particular level of design rigour and is based on limited information available at this strategic level. Further detailed survey, consultation, design, analysis and optimisation would be required prior to confirming the nature of requirements, and actual design issues that would contribute to understanding and development of the optimum route alignment.

7.2 Development of Outline Corridor Options

7.2.1.1 Two clear outline corridor options to provide a bypass of Uppingham town centre for through traffic along the A6003 are available, namely a corridor to the east of the town, and a corridor to the west of the town.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 66 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 7.1: Outline Bypass Corridor Options

7.2.1.2 Through an iterative process, involving examination of Ordnance Survey mapping, publicly available satellite / aerial photographs and from our knowledge of the site based on site visits and reconnaissance, two primary outline route alignment options have been developed. These comprise an eastern and a western route option.

7.3 Specific Route Options

7.3.1.1 To further develop both eastern and western route options, high level consideration has been afforded to the potential physical issues, constraints and opportunities associated with each. 7.3.1.2 Although work to develop route options undertaken as part of the study has been conducted to high-level, in developing specific route alignments an initial outline design process has been undertaken, informed by Arup’s in-house highways design engineers and with regards to standards and requirements for highways engineering. The study approach not only sought to reflect the requirements of appropriate design standards in assumptions concerning route geometry (i.e. length, curve radii and appropriate connections to the existing network), it has also informed and allowed a further more detailed assessment of the resulting land take, estimated construction costs and high level environmental impact. 7.3.1.3 The following section provides a broad summary of issues considered, on an iterative basis, in order to inform development of the two route options.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 67 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

7.3.2 General Bypass Objectives and Assumptions

7.3.2.1 Prior to the development of route options, a number of key design criteria were established: • Bypass purpose

• Connection with arterial transport network

• Connection with local highways network

• Accommodation of and containment of future development

Bypass Purpose

7.3.2.2 It is understood that the principal purpose of the bypass is to provide an alternative ‘diversion’ route for north–south through-traffic currently passing through Uppingham town centre on the A6003.

Connection with Arterial Transport Network

7.3.2.3 Where feasible, alignments under consideration should connect to the existing network in the most convenient location to encourage as much diversion of unnecessary through town traffic onto the bypass. Figure 7.2: Setting of Uppingham in Relation to the Wider Highways Network

Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2010 7.3.2.4 To the north of the town, the bypass options should therefore provide convenient connections to both the existing A6003 that would provide traffic with an intuitive connection to the bypass without affecting the general east-west flows along the A47.

7.3.2.5 To the south of the town, the bypass should connect to the existing A6003 corridor in a convenient location that would be unlikely to prompt significant safety concerns when it came to more detailed design to be undertaken.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 68 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Connection with Local Highways Network

7.3.2.6 In addition to ensuring connectivity to the broader highways network, where feasible the bypass alignments should make appropriate connections to the existing highway network serving the town in order to maximise the potential benefits offered and provide viable alternative routes for traffic originating from / destined for the town. Figure 7.3: Setting of Uppingham in Relation to Local Highways

Accommodation of and Containment of Future Development

7.3.2.7 The route alignments should ensure the scale of development as set out by the Core Strategy and the indicative sites under consideration should be capable of being accommodated within the bypass.

7.3.2.8 In the first instance, selection of routes has sought to ensure that the allocation of 250 residential units has been safeguarded through ensuring that allocation sites G, H and I can be accommodated within the confines of the bypass so that development retains contained within the town as shown in Figure 7.4 below:

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 69 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 7.4: Potential Development Sites in Uppingham

7.3.3 Constraints Imposed by the Application of Design Standards

7.3.3.1 In order to reduce the uncertainty associated with engineering deliverability of the route options, determination of outline route options has been made with regards to guidance described by Volume 6 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. While this has not been an exhaustive engineering process and should not be afforded any weight in developing engineering design options, it has nevertheless been applied to provide an informed view of the likely constraints within which any further scheme would be developed. 7.3.3.2 The following aspects of DMRB guidance have been considered:

Vertical and Horizontal Alignment

7.3.3.3 Corridor routes have also been determined based on an understanding of minimum permissible radii, in general accordance with requirements described by DMRB. Alignments have been chosen to avoid the need for super-elevation, with radii generally not less than 1,020 m 10 .

7.3.3.4 This criterion has been considered appropriate as, in the event of phased development whereby part of the bypass were to be delivered primarily in parallel with delivery of one of the above allocation sites, it would permit use of the initial section of the bypass as a simple local distributor route serving the development that would not require substantial

10 Based on an anticipated speed limit of 40 mph J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 70 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

works to upgrade as further phases might come forward. This approach was adopted during delivery of the Oakham Bypass.

Topography

7.3.3.5 Topographic issues have been afforded preliminary consideration through the use of Ordnance Survey Landform Panorama data to interpolate a ground surface model for Uppingham and its setting. Landform Panorama data is interpolated from 1:50,000 scale mapping and therefore provides only a coarse understanding of the ground levels however, combined with knowledge of Uppingham and its setting, it is considered that the ground model it provides is adequate for the required purpose. 7.3.3.6 The topographic model of Uppingham and its surroundings is illustrated in Figure 7.5 below: Figure 7.5: Topographic Model of Uppingham and its Surrounding Hinterland

Contains Ordnance Survey Data © Crown copyright and database right 2010 7.3.3.7 The model reflects our real-world observations that Uppingham sits on an elevated position. Ground levels towards the west of Uppingham generally reflect those of the town itself, while on the eastern side, levels generally fall away where two local valleys carry minor watercourses along an east – west alignment. 7.3.3.8 Consideration has also been given to guidance for vertical alignment of highways, provided in D9/93 of Volume 6 of DMRB, and both route options have been considered against maximum gradients in the order of 6%.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 71 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Land Use and Proximity to Structures

7.3.3.9 Where possible, indicative route options have been developed to avoid existing structures, as identified on either Ordnance Survey 1:1,250 Mastermap mapping, or observable on aerial photography / satellite imagery available from Bing Maps. 7.3.3.10 While routes have sought to avoid significant environmental features apparent on mapping and remote sensing information, including trees, bridges and hedges, this has not always been possible, and information on this has been limited to that available from desk-study information.

Environmental Issues

7.3.3.11 A preliminary desk-based review of environmental constraints has been conducted for areas in the immediate surroundings of Uppingham in order to provide an initial indication of particularly sensitive environmental features that may need to be considered in siting a bypass.

7.3.3.12 Issues considered in the review include the following: • Designated ecological features;

• Areas of cultural heritage value; and,

• Areas of known landscape value. 7.3.3.13 Recognising that outline route corridors were both located in the order of 1.2 km from Uppingham town centre, consideration has been afforded to environmental assets identified within 5 km of the scheme. Table 7.1 provides a summary of issues identified:

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 72 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 7.1: Environmental Assets within 5 km Study Area

7.3.3.14 Nationally and locally designated features of interest are identified in the plan presented in Figure 7.6 below:

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 73 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 7.6: Locations of Selected Environmentally Sensitive Features around Uppingham

LWS and SINC Locations provided by Rutland County Council Environmental datasets provided by Natural England and English Heritage, January 2010

7.4 Route Alignment Development

7.4.1.1 Through an iterative process considering the various issues discussed above the broad route options (east or west of Uppingham) have developed further into two proposed route alignments, shown in Figure 7.7 .

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 74 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 7.7: Uppingham Bypass: Initial Route Alignments

This information includes map data reproduced with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. License Number 1000018056 7.4.1.2 Both resulting eastern and western route alignment options are located some distance from the built up area of the town. This is essentially as a result of two principal objectives and assumptions set out above, summarised below: • The assumption that the proposed development of the scale set out in the Core Strategy (ie 250 residential units) should be contained within the confines of the bypass in order to restrict the physical spread of the town.

• To allow the selection of design standards to reflect the possible use of an initial link first as a local distributor serving the initial development that might later be used as

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 75 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

the first link in any bypass. It would clearly be inappropriate for the initial link to be designed to a standard to accommodate traffic travelling at excessive speed therefore an appropriate alignment avoiding the need for super-elevation assuming a design speed of 40mph has been selected. Based upon advice provided by Arup’s in-house highways design section it was not considered appropriate (or indeed particularly beneficial given the presence of a significant built up area of the town) to tighten the alignment to the south of Leicester Road however, there might be potential to tighten the alignment slightly to the south of Stockerston Road. 7.4.1.3 Primary design considerations associated with each route option are discussed below:

7.4.2 Western Route Option

7.4.2.1 Key characteristics of the selected alignment include the following: • The northern end of the bypass route joins directly to the roundabout junction of the A47 and current A6003 alignment ( Figure 7.8 ). It is anticipated that this may require some reconfiguration of the existing A6003 / A47 junction, the feasibility of which should be investigated in more detail;

• The southern terminal of the bypass route would join the A6003 to the south of Uppingham. It is assumed that this connection would be made by way of a new roundabout junction or priority arrangement with priority maintained for traffic on the bypass; and

• The route crosses two existing roads to the west of Uppingham, namely the B664 Uppingham Road and old Leicester Road to the north-west. The indicative route alignment currently anticipates that connections will be made by way of new roundabout junctions in each case.

7.4.3 Eastern Route Option

7.4.3.1 Key characteristics of the selected alignment include the following: • Owing to the geometry of the settlement pattern of Uppingham in relation to the position of the A6003 and the A47, a direct link between the bypass and the A6003/A47 junction is not reasonably practical.

• The northern end of the eastern bypass would be expected to form a new intersection with the A47, to the east of the A6003 / A47 junction. We have assumed a distance, between a new intersection and the current roundabout of 600 m which is broadly consistent with design standards.

• The eastern alignment would generally skirt the eastern extent of the settlement.

• The alignment crosses two existing routes to the east of the town, namely Glaston Road and Seaton Road. The topography of the eastern alignment is considered challenging, and is discussed further below.

7.5 Preliminary Route Comparison

7.5.1.1 The two alignment options described above have been subject to a high-level appraisal process in order to understand the specific issues, opportunities and constraints associated with each.

7.5.2 Preliminary Estimate of Construction Costs

7.5.2.1 In order to provide an understanding of primary issues that would contribute to the capital costs associated with the two road corridors, preliminary GIS-based analysis has been undertaken to consider the length of route, cost requirements, together with indicative cut and fill modelling to provide an understanding of the need for earthworks and bridging

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 76 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

structures to support construction of each option. The preliminary cut and fill exercise has been based on the following factors: • Land topography, interpolated from Ordnance Survey Landform Panorama data;

• Road centre-lines, assuming a total carriageway width of 12 m;

• A completed road surface conforming to appropriate design standards (i.e. maximum permissible gradient not in excess of 6%); and,

• An assumption that excavations and embankments would tie in to normal ground levels with a maximum steepness of 1 in 3.

Quantum of Land Take

7.5.2.2 A preliminary estimate of the quantum of land take required for both the route corridors has been estimated, based on plan views the route corridors taking into account that embankments and cuttings will result in additional land take through the need to batter back to ground level at approximately 1 in 3 (Figure 7.8). Figure 7.8: Estimated Land Take Requirements for Bypass Alignment Options

This information includes map data reproduced with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. License Number 1000018056 7.5.2.3 Based on the land take requirements illustrated in Figure 7.8 , nominal cost estimates have been allocated to provide a preliminary understanding of the cost implications associated with land purchase within the road corridor.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 77 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 7.2: Quantum and Estimated Cost of Land Take

7.5.2.4 While estimated land costs have been provided, the figures above demonstrate the higher engineering complexity associated with the more undulating topography of the eastern alignment that would result in more substantial land requirements.

Construction Costs

7.5.2.5 First order cost estimates have been developed for the potential alignment options in order to understand the order of capital expenditure that may be associated with each. 7.5.2.6 Cost estimates have been based on a broad bill of quantities approach taking into account a range of assumptions. The following elements have been considered in drawing together the broad cost estimate: • A 9.3 m road pavement along the entire route;

• Allowance for verges and footways provides a total corridor, exclusive of earthworks and berms, of 14.3 m;

• Major bridging structures;

• Safety barriers included for the full length of the scheme, on both sides;

• 18 month build period is anticipated;

• 25% contingency

• 44% Optimism Bias 7.5.2.7 Cost estimates have not included the following: • Cut and fill activities (considered separately in the following Section);

• Roundabouts and simple junction interchanges as these are expected to have minimal cost impact

• Soft landscaping

• Archaeological or environmental mitigation or compensatory works 7.5.2.8 Based on the approach described above, a first order cost estimate has been developed for the western route option, of £36M. The same methodology has been used to generate an estimated cost to deliver an initial short length of highway between the A47 / A6003 Ayston Road and Leicester Road to the south-west. This has been undertaken to provide an indication of the broad costs of delivering an initial section of highway that could be used to open up delivery of potential development land (site H) to the north-west of the town in the short to medium term. As discussed in more detail throughout this section, this initial highway link offers potential to be developed further, forming the first link of any future bypass of the town. 7.5.2.9 Estimated construction costs for the eastern route are marginally higher (£37M) than for delivery of the western route (£36M) however it should be noted that a more substantial number of unknown variables including undulating land topography and the need for structures bridging physical barriers are likely to impose a greater level of uncertainty and risk associated with the proposed eastern alignment. The initial design exercise undertaken sought to minimise both the need for and length of bridging structures required through careful consideration of the overall cut / fill balance of the necessary

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 78 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

earthworks. Nevertheless, results indicated a need for a minimum of two major bridge structures on the eastern alignment. For the purpose of estimating costs, it has been assumed that each structure would be a likely maximum length of 50 metres and that in the order of £1.5M should be allowed for construction of each bridge.

Table 7.3: Comparative Lengths and First Order Cost Estimates of Bypass Route Options

Optimism Bias & the Estimation of Risk

7.5.2.10 The estimated scheme delivery costs include both a 25% contingency fee and apply a DfT approved 44% optimism bias to the overall predicted cost. Optimism bias is included within the estimate in order to cover as yet unknown and un-quantified risks associated with delivery of the scheme. Failure to appropriately apportion the level of risk associated with delivery tends to lead to over optimistic predictions concerning project costs, duration and benefits. 7.5.2.11 The level of risk associated with a project tends to be greater during the earlier stages of development due to the number of unknown variables associated with delivery. For a major construction scheme of this type typical examples of such variables might include a lack of detailed knowledge concerning ground conditions or the existence of protected wildlife species in the area affected. 7.5.2.12 Clearly, as the project progresses, further more detailed design work would be undertaken to gather data required. In undertaking a further, more detailed investigation of the area affected by the proposed works, it is hoped that the risks identified during the early stages of scheme development will gradually be eliminated or greatly reduced through appropriate mitigation and that therefore overall scheme costs might eventually be substantially lower than predicted initially.

Cut / Fill Requirement

7.5.2.13 Anticipated requirements of cut and fill quantities have been estimated for both indicative route alignments, taking into consideration DMRB design requirements for vertical route alignment, and broad ground surface contours developed from Ordnance Survey Landform Panorama mapping data. The following table illustrates quantities of cut and fill anticipated, together with estimated cost estimates based on nominal costs of £2.50 per cubic metre of cut, and £2.00 per cubic metre of fill material.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 79 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 7.4: Comparative Cut and Fill Estimates of Bypass Route Options

7.5.3 Scheme Objectives

7.5.3.1 The following observations have been made with regards to the route options’ compliance with scheme objectives described above.

Need to Connect to the Arterial Road Network

7.5.3.2 Both the Western and Eastern route options connect to the arterial road network. The notable difference between these two route options is, however, that the eastern option does not tie directly into the A6003/ A47 roundabout, but by way of a new connection to the A47 approximately 600m to the east of the existing junction. It is likely that this would substantially reduce the overall clarity and therefore attractiveness of the bypass as an alternative to the existing A6003 through Uppingham town centre.

Need to Connect with the Local Highways Network

7.5.3.3 Both the East and Western alignment options cross a number of local highways. As previously discussed, it is preferable that the bypass should be so designed to effectively tie in with the existing local highway network in order to deliver benefits for local users alongside the principal objective of conveying through-traffic. While no particular barriers to this are observed with regards to the Western Route option, it is likely that topographic issues will be significant engineering challenges with regard to the eastern route. Given the undulating land topography to the east of the town, an initial design exercise indicates that the bypass would need to be elevated at the points where its alignment crosses both Seaton Road and Glaston Road. To satisfy vertical alignment standards set out within DMRB guidance, this elevation is likely to be significant (in the order of 5m above the local road network in each case). This would prove a significant challenge in provision of access to the local roads, which would require significant land-take to provide appropriately designed on-off ramps.

Need to Contain Future Development

7.5.3.4 Both alignments have been determined with regards to the allocation sites identified for Uppingham, and could accommodate development at all of these.

7.5.4 Need to Satisfy Appropriate Design Standards

7.5.4.1 As described above, both route options have been developed with regards to DMRB Volume 6 guidance for horizontal and vertical alignment. In this respect it is considered that both would be expected to satisfy appropriate design standards. Other aspects of highway design have not been explicitly considered, although there are no initial issues that are expected to prove significant development challenges.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 80 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

7.5.5 Site Specific Issues and Constraints

Topography

7.5.5.1 The primary topographic challenge is described above, with regards to the need to connect with the local highways network. While the western route traverses generally even topography, ground levels to the east of the town demonstrate increased variability, and the need for the route to negotiate ground level changes, through provision of embankments and cutting, is expected to be greater.

Land Use

7.5.5.2 As discussed above, the requirement of cutting and embankment, and the associated need for battering-back to ground level is expected to result in greater land-use requirement for the eastern alignment.

7.5.5.3 Furthermore, the initial design exercise undertaken has sought to limit road curve radii to within acceptable limits prescribed by Volume 6 of DMRB. Whilst delivery of the western alignment would not be expected to impact upon any built structures, the resulting ‘best- fit’ eastern alignment would be likely to impact on a small number of existing built structures to the east of the town.

7.5.5.4 It should be noted that alignments have been developed on the basis described above, and have not been subject to detailed design or optimisation and further work may allow more suitable route options to be detailed.

Environmental Issues

7.5.5.5 As illustrated in Figure 7.9 , both route options avoid known environmental features and neither option, nor the land take that would be expected to be required in association with it, would be expected to directly impact upon any of the environmental features identified in Table 7.1 . While some features, for example heritage features including Scheduled Monuments and listed buildings, may be affected by virtue of changes to their setting, the closest Scheduled Monument is 700 m from the Western Route option and 2 km from the Eastern Route option and the possibility of effects cannot be assessed further at this time.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 81 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 7.9: Uppingham Bypass Alignment Options and Known Environmental Assets

7.5.5.6 Possible effects on wildlife and environmental and cultural heritage resources not discussed above would require further investigation and assessment.

7.5.6 Route Option Comparison

7.5.6.1 Table 7.5 provides a summary of comparators discriminating between the Eastern and Western Route options.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 82 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 7.5: Route Option Comparison Matrix

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 83 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

7.6 Route Evaluation

7.6.1.1 The following section provides a brief discussion and qualitative evaluation of route options based on observations described above. While it does not seek to provide a full options appraisal to any prescribed formal methodology, it highlights the primary differentiating factors and provides an indication of the possible preferred option.

Cost Factors

7.6.1.2 The high level cost comparison described above suggests that overall, primary capital cost elements are expected to be of a similar order of magnitude between eastern and western alignment options, with the increased scheme length of the Western Route Option representing the primary differentiating factor, outweighing the nominal cost increments associated with land purchase, cut and fill and major structures required to bridge Seaton Road and Glaston Road to deliver the eastern route. 7.6.1.3 Preferred route based on costs: None

Scheme Objectives

7.6.1.4 While both route options provide viable solutions to providing a diversion for north-south through traffic, primary observations with regards to the routes satisfying the scheme objectives relate to the adequacy of proposed connections to both the strategic and local road network, and the ability to enable local use of the bypass. On both these criteria, the eastern alignment performs significantly worse that the western alignment. 7.6.1.5 With regards to connection with the A6003, the eastern alignment would be expected to utilise approximately 600 m of the A47 corridor prior to a new route alignment passing to the east of Uppingham. This is considered to be a sub-optimal solution and has potential to significantly decrease route clarity and therefore the attractiveness of the route as an alternative to the A6003 for through-traffic. As such it is considered that on this issue the Eastern route option performs significantly worse than the Western option.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 84 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

7.6.1.6 With regards to supporting local use of the bypass, analysis of topography to the west of Uppingham suggests that the delivery of at-grade junction connections to Leicester Road and Stockerston Road would be feasible whereas the preliminary vertical alignment suggested for the eastern alignment would require significant works to allow access to local traffic. Potential lack of access to local users, or the need for complex engineering solutions, is considered to cause the Eastern Route Option to perform significantly worse than the Western Route Option.

7.6.1.7 Preferred route based on connectivity to existing highways: Western

Design Standards

7.6.1.8 Our proposed route options have both been developed with regards to appropriate design guidance, particularly that relating to the vertical and horizontal alignments, and on this basis there is no significant differentiating factor identified.

7.6.1.9 Preferred route based on design standards: None

Site Specific Issues

7.6.1.10 A number of issues, primarily relating to those associated with the more challenging topography of the Eastern Route Option contribute to this performing less well than the Western Route Option, although there are no further particular issues identified at this stage as significant differentiators. 7.6.1.11 Preferred route based on site specific issues: Western

7.6.2 Summary Appraisal

7.6.2.1 Given the discussion above, and recognising the high-level nature of the study conducted to date, it would seem sensible to consider that the Western Route Alignment is preferable route at this time. While for most of the issues addressed above there are not expected to be significant differentiating factors, the most significant difference is expected to be with regards to the feasibility for the bypass to support, both through and local traffic. 7.6.2.2 Without development of an engineering solution to allow access to the Eastern Route from Glaston Road or Seaton Road, there would seem to be no direct opportunity for local traffic to use the bypass.

7.6.2.3 On the basis of this high-level appraisal, the following discussion is developed on the assumption that a Western Route Alignment would be preferred.

7.7 Initial Discussion of Potential Funding Sources

7.7.1.1 Delivery of a bypass route, in part or in full, will require significant capital investment. The following section provides an initial high-level discussion of the primary sources of funding that may be mobilised in order to lever or contribute the capital investment necessary. In doing so, it considers the following possible funding sources: • Section 106 Developer Contributions;

• Local Transport Plan (LTP);

• Department for Transport Major Scheme Business Case; and,

• Community Infrastructure Funding. 7.7.1.2 Following the recent general election in May 2010 the future of all primary funding sources is currently unclear.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 85 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

7.7.2 Section 106 Developer Contributions

7.7.2.1 Section 106 Obligations, created under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 11 , are legally binding obligations that are attached to a piece of land and are registered as local land charges against that piece of land. Planning obligations therefore provide a framework whereby developer contributions supports provisions of services, infrastructure and amenities in order to support and facilitate a proposed development. 7.7.2.2 The key principles for establishing 106 contributions are defined and structured in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Circular 05/05 12 , and are also referred to in a number of Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) dealing with specific policy management issues. Planning Policy Guidance 13 provides detailed guidance on contributions for measures to assist public transport. 7.7.2.3 Circular 05/05 (as amended by the Planning Act 2008 and Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010) defines the parameters for the negotiation process and establishes that contributions must be: • Necessary;

• Directly related to the proposed development;

• Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind; and, 7.7.2.4 The potential for use of planning obligations in support of the scheme has been considered with regards to the need to construct the first segment of the scheme, as described in Figure 7.10 below:

11 Section 12(1) of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 substituted sections 106, 106A and 106B for section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 12 ODPM, 2005. Circular 05/05: Planning Obligations, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 18 July 2005 J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 86 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 7.10: Initial Segment of the Uppingham Bypass

This information includes map data reproduced with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. License Number 1000018056 7.7.2.5 For construction of the first element of the scheme, our first order cost estimates, according to the outline methodology described in Section 7.4, anticipate a capital cost estimate in the order of £9.9m ( Table 7.3 ). 7.7.2.6 Consideration of the scheme, with an assumption that 10% contribution of each of 250 properties, at an average house price of £206,000 13 , would represent a developer contribution of approximately £5.2m. Comparative contributions are illustrated further in Table 7.6 below:

13 Land Registry House Price Index March 2010; http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/HPI_Mar_10_eki.pdf

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 87 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 7.6: Effects of S106 Developer Contribution on Capital Costs of Initial Bypass Segment

7.7.2.7 Applying this simple approach to the scheme as a whole, suggests that the potential for the route alignment to enclose an area capable of development of in the order of a further 2,000 dwellings, would provide the opportunity to deliver the required costs through a significantly lower percentage developer contribution. Table 7.7: Effects of S106 Developer Contribution on Whole Scheme Capital Costs

7.7.2.8 It should be noted that the example above provides only an indicative illustration of application of Section 106 Developer Contributions to the scheme and has not been developed with regards to the actual means of implementation of funding, phasing and has not considered net present values and the effects of discounting. Nevertheless, it does serve to demonstrate that while the initial anticipation of circa 250 residential units may require additional funding to support likely section 106 contributions, delivery of a further 2,000 units, beyond the assessed timescale of 2026, lever significant funding for a generally modest contribution for each residential unit.

7.7.2.9 Further consideration on the actual approach and strategy would be required.

7.7.3 Local Transport Plan (LTP)

7.7.3.1 Via RCC’s future ‘block grant’ funding delivered through the LTP process.

7.7.4 Department for Transport Major Scheme Business Case

7.7.4.1 The Department for Transport (DfT) provides a Major Scheme funding system to allow Local Transport Planning Authorities to bid for capital funding to allow them to take forward highway and public transport schemes that support the objectives of their Local Transport Plan. The DfT defines Major Schemes as significant local authority highway and public transport capital projects. Most involve substantial investment in infrastructure that would otherwise be beyond the means of the local authority. 7.7.4.2 Section 3.2 of the DfT guidance for Major Scheme Business Cases describes the qualifying criteria, all of which need to be met for consideration as a major scheme for funding relevant to the Uppingham bypass including:

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 88 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• it must be promoted by an LTP authority or Metropolitan District as lead partner;

• it must have been prioritised by the appropriate regional bodies within the relevant Regional Funding Allocation (although see para 0 for PFI schemes);

• the requested DfT contribution should be consistent with the spend profile and within the total amount endorsed for the scheme by the region through the RFA process;

• it should be supportive of, and aligned with, the promoting authority’s Local Transport Plan and in most cases should have already been identified within the LTP;

• it must be supported by a local contribution of at least 10% of the total scheme cost, or a sum equivalent to no less than 100% of the authority's IT Block in the year which Programme Entry is sought, whichever is the smaller. For schemes involving more than one local authority the total of all the relevant IT Block allocations will be taken into account. This contribution must be underwritten by the Local Authority; and

• it must have a total scheme cost of at least £5 million

Qualification

7.7.4.3 The minimum cost of a scheme that the Department would consider funding as a Major Scheme has traditionally been £5m (gross), although in certain circumstances, schemes less than £5m will be considered.

7.7.4.4 A local authority scheme does not automatically need to be funded or approved by the Department as a Major Scheme if the gross cost is greater than £5m. Authorities are free to use their block allocations to fund schemes, either on their own, or alongside other sources of funding, without submitting schemes for approval by the Department. In such cases it would be for the local authority to ensure that the scheme was the best value for money means of achieving its objectives.

Applicability to the Uppingham Bypass

7.7.4.5 The potential for the Uppingham Bypass to qualify for Major Scheme Business Case funding, according to the criteria described above, is summarised in Table 7.8 below: Table 7.8: DfT Requirements for Qualification as Major Scheme Business Case

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 89 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

7.7.4.6 Funding under the Major Scheme Business Case process is subject to three tiers of DfT approval: Programme Entry, Conditional Approval and Full Approval. The Department sets requirements for each stage as shown in Table 7.9 . Table 7.9: DfT Requirements at each stage of Major Scheme Business Case

7.7.5 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

7.7.5.1 The CIL is a non- negotiable, locally determined capital cost payable on developments by developers towards the cost of local and sub-regional infrastructure to support development and to meet the infrastructure needs of an area. The CIL came into effect on 6 April 2010 although its long term future is in doubt following its inclusion in the Conservative planning 'Green Paper'. The Government intends to replace CIL with a local tariff.

7.7.5.2 Infrastructure that can be supported by CIL includes roads and other transport facilities, flood defences, social and environmental infrastructure; schools and parks. CIL can be used to enhance or increase capacity of infrastructure in the area, although the provision of affordable housing and projects to remedy existing infrastructure deficiencies are excluded. Once established, a CIL is paid by developers according to the unit area of net development and the setting of rates is subject to consultation and independent examination. 7.7.5.3 If retained by the Government, CIL could become an important income stream for Local Authorities in delivering the necessary support infrastructure which existing and new communities will need to enable housing and economic growth proposals to be brought forward. 7.7.5.4 Local Panning authorities are empowered – but not required – to levy a charge on most types of new development permitted within their area through the granting of planning permission. Local Authorities can continue to enter into Section 106 agreements or planning obligations necessary to enable developments to go ahead but with significant restrictions on how contributions can be secured.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 90 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

7.7.5.5 The charging rate will be determined by the Local Authority once an evidence driven assessment of the infrastructure needs and costs has been undertaken for their area. Government guidance indicates that the CIL should be aligned with the local infrastructure planning process as set out in Planning Policy ‘Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning’. Local Planning Authorities need to identify gaps in funding to arrive at a proposed amount to be raised from CIL in preparing a charging schedule within an up to date Core Strategy.

7.7.5.6 A large number of Local Authorities are still developing their Local Development Framework Core Strategies - only 17% of Core Strategies had been adopted by April 2010, with only 6% currently undergoing public examination.

7.8 Scope for New Bypass to Deliver Additional Growth

7.8.1.1 Based on the discussion above, consideration has therefore been afforded to the scope for the new bypass to deliver additional growth.

7.8.2 Additional Land within the Proposed Bypass Alignment

7.8.2.1 Based on consideration of the western route alignment, together with existing patterns of development potential development zones have been identified. These have generally focused on undeveloped land encapsulated between the nominal bypass corridor and the current extent of the built settlement. The following factors have been considered in the determination of potential future development zones: • Land known to be in possession of Uppingham School which has been excluded;

• Agricultural land which has been included, although farms and farm buildings have been excluded. 7.8.2.2 As a result the following potential Future Development Zones have been developed as set out by Figure 7.11 .

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 91 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 7.11: Potential Future Development Zones in Uppingham

This information includes map data reproduced with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. License Number 1000018056 7.8.2.3 The following development zones have been suggested in addition to the Zone 1 land, which would coincide with the current allocation up to 2025. • Zone 2: Between Old Leicester Road and B664 Stockerston Road = 18.4 ha; and,

• Zone 3: Between B664 Stockerston Road and A6003 (South) = 37.3 ha. 7.8.2.4 For these Future Development Zones, a build out rate of 35 dwellings per hectare has been assumed, reflecting Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) which advocates 30 dwellings per hectare as a minimum density to be considered. This total of 55.7 hectares of potential development land, suggests that a total of 1,950 additional dwellings could be accommodated within the confines of the proposed bypass.

7.8.2.5 For the following discussion of effects on the transport network, a nominal increment of 2,000 additional units is therefore considered.

Estimates of Trip Generation from Further Development

7.8.2.6 Trip generation estimates covering the AM peak period applicable to the potential 2000 additional dwellings have been prepared and are shown in Table 7.10 :

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 92 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 7.10: Trip Generation based on Further Development Zones

Assignment of Trip Generation to Transport Network

7.8.2.7 Based on 2001 Census distributions of travel to work to and from the Super Output Areas considered, additional trip generation has been manually assigned to the transportation network, inclusive of an assumed completed bypass. 7.8.2.8 Resulting travel to work distributions are summarised in Table 7.11 below: Table 7.11: Uppingham Census Travel to Work Distribution

7.8.3 Impact of Additional Dwellings on the Bypass

7.8.3.1 Development of a further 2,000 dwellings within the confines of the proposed bypass would be expected to result in an incremental increase in use of the bypass. The following discussion considers the additional impact.

Assumptions

7.8.3.2 Based on DMRB Volume 5, the capacity of the bypass, currently assumed to be constructed to UAP2 standards, is expected to maintain a maximum sustainable one-way flow of 1,550 vehicles per hour.

7.8.3.3 As a robust assumption, it is assumed that all through traffic currently modelled as passing through the town centre would divert to the bypass in preference to the existing route. Background growth between 2010 and 2026 of 12.7% is assumed based on TEMPRO. Assuming similar background growth in traffic would occur during the fifteen

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 93 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

year period post 2026 to 2041 (ie the planning period within which any future construction of additional residential development would occur) as assumed for the period 2010 – 2026 results in a maximum estimated one-way link flow of 584 vehicles during the AM peak in a nominal future year 2041.

7.8.3.4 Including the additional vehicle flows that would result from delivery of the 2,000 potential residential units and the possible impact of additional growth prompted by potential development of the proposed Corby Growth Point, results in a maximum forecast one- way flow along any stretch of the bypass in 2041 of 1,195 vehicles during the AM peak hour. This remains substantially below the maximum 1,550 vehicles per hour sustainable one-way maximum the bypass is capable of accommodating. 7.8.3.5 It is notable that this forecast includes a number of robust estimates, insofar as it is assumed that all existing through traffic diverts to the bypass while background traffic increases by twice the rate forecast by TEMPRO between 2010 and 2026 in the period to 2041 whilst additionally including the effect of the additional traffic generated by the Future Development Zones and possible Corby Growth Point.

7.8.4 Impact of Additional Growth on Town Centre Network

7.8.4.1 In the same way that the above discussion has considered the effects of the additional growth on the bypass capacity, the following section provides an assessment of the impact of additional growth, resulting from development of the Future Development Zones, on traffic in the town centre. 7.8.4.2 In the analysis undertaken, a conservative approach has been adopted in considering the likely level of traffic that would divert onto any proposed bypass of the town in order to reflect restrictions upon the attractiveness of the route as a viable alternative to the existing A6003 that runs through the centre of Uppingham. Delivery of either eastern or western bypass route options would doubtless result in a route of substantially increased length compared to the existing A6003 that runs through the town centre. Nevertheless, as demonstrated by Table 7.12 below, the impact of the additional route length would largely be mitigated by the increased traffic speeds anticipated on the bypass that would likely lead to comparable journey times between the two alternative routes. 7.8.4.3 DMRB standards applied to the outline design of the bypass would likely preclude the achievement of traffic speeds in excess of 40mph along the bypass itself. However, further measures to increase the differential in journey times between the two routes could be achieved through the implementation of additional restrictions on the movement of vehicles along the A6003 through the central area of the town. Table 7.12: Existing A6003 / Possible Uppingham Bypass Route Comparison Route Via Bypass Via Existing A6003 thro’ Uppingham Route length (m) 3,100 1,900 Average speed (mph) 35 30 25 20 15 Average speed (km/h) 56 48 40 32 24 Average speed (m/s) 15.65 13.41 11.18 8.94 6.71 Journey time (s) 198 231 170 213 283 Journey time (m:s) 03:18 03:51 02:50 03:33 04:43

Assumptions

7.8.4.4 Consideration of the impact is based on the following assumptions:

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 94 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

• Existing 2010 surveyed traffic flows within the town centre are used as a broad proxy for absolute maximum acceptable level of traffic in the town centre; and, • The bypass would only attract 50% of existing through-traffic to divert onto it in the short to medium term order to ensure benefit of bypass for town centre is not overstated. • The attractiveness of the bypass to through-traffic is likely to increase over time as further mitigation measures introduced within the central area of the town become effective in reducing traffic in the central area.

Impacts • In the short to medium term: • Construction of the bypass would affect an estimated reduction of 270 vehicle movements through the A6003 / North Street junction for the 2026 Base + Committed + 250 residential unit scenario in comparison to 2010 surveyed traffic; and, • Construction of the bypass would affect an estimated reduction of 243 vehicle movements through the A6003 / High Street junction for the 2026 Base + Committed + 250 residential unit scenario in comparison to 2010 surveyed traffic. 7.8.4.5 Trips generated by development of the nominal 2,000 residential units, up to the period 2041, would load additional traffic onto the network. By 2041 it is anticipated that further measures designed to mitigate the impact of traffic on the town’s central network are likely to have been introduced. The analysis therefore assumes such measures would be effective in encouraging further use of the bypass and therefore a number of alternative traffic reassignment scenarios are presented within Table 7.13 below:. 7.8.4.6 For the purpose of analysis and to provide a reasonable evaluation of the scope for the network to accommodate future traffic flows, it is assumed that the introduction of further mitigation measures would result in the bypass attracting a total of 75% of through-traffic by 2041. This results in the following conclusions: • Development of the nominal 2,000 units of residential development would result in 90 fewer vehicle movements through the A6003 / North Street junction during the AM peak period in 2041 when compared to the existing 2010 AM peak period flows. (assuming diversion of 75% through traffic onto the bypass) • Development of the nominal 2,000 units of residential development would result in 61 fewer vehicle movements through the A6003 / High Street junction during the AM peak period in 2041 when compared to the existing 2010 AM peak period flows. (assuming diversion of 75% through traffic onto the bypass)

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 95 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 7.13 Predicted Future Year Impact on Selected Junctions

Limitations

7.8.4.7 It is noted that the assessment described above has been conducted on a broad brush basis, largely influenced by the nominal assumptions made regarding likely scale of vehicle movements expected to be diverted onto the bypass. These would, however, be dependent upon supporting traffic mitigation measures implemented within the town centre to encourage use of the bypass for through traffic. For example, increased restrictions on parking and manoeuvring and further measures to encourage sustainable travel habits. Such restrictions may also contribute to reducing the threshold acceptability of different traffic levels and the above-stated assumption that 2010 traffic levels would define acceptable levels, might need to be reconsidered. Such thresholds would need to be evaluated in greater detail as a result of further work.

7.8.4.8 The study demonstrates that delivery of approximately 2,000 additional residential units would deliver sufficient funds to complete the entire length of the bypass at a developer contribution rate in the order of 6 – 7% per household based upon current average house price estimates. However, the resulting traffic impact brought about by the scale of such development is likely to be towards the upper end of the threshold of deliverability and a notional upper level of ‘acceptability’ in terms of network capacity.

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 96 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

TABLES

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Page 97 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

J:\212000\212049-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-03 Ove Arup & Partners Ltd CIVIL\ISSUE REPORT\2010-07-22 SECOND ISSUE\2010-09-13 SECOND Final Issue 13-09-2010 ISSUE FINAL\2010-12-20 SECOND ISSUE FINAL FIG AMENDED.DOCX

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Table 2.1: Passenger Rail Services from Oakham Station Table 2.2: Weekday Rail Services from Oakham (direct journeys only) Table 2.3: Bus Services Operating in Oakham and Uppingham Table 3.1: Assessment Criteria Testing Matrix Table 3.2: Accessibility Assessment Matrix Table 3.3: Accessibility Assessment Scoring Criteria Table 3.4: Sustainability Assessment Score Summary Table 3.5 Oakham Site Summary Table 3.5 Oakham Residential Site Score / Ranking Table 3.6 Oakham Employment Site Score / Ranking Table 3.7 Uppingham Residential Site Score / Ranking Table 3.8 Uppingham Employment Site Score / Ranking Table 4.1: Residential and Employment TRICS Trip Rates Table 4.2: Oakham Residential & Employment Trip Generation Table 4.3: Uppingham Residential Trip Generation Table 4.4: Oakham Census Travel to Work Distribution Table 4.4: Uppingham Census Travel to Work Distribution Table 5.1: Oakham Potential Development Scenarios Table 5.2: Predicted Maximum One-way Flows Including Existing 2026 Base + Committed Traffic Table 5.3: Predicted Maximum One-way Flows Including Existing 2026 Base + Committed Traffic Table 5.4: Oakham Development Scenarios: Predicted Capacity on Key Links within the Network Table 5.5: Oakham Development Scenarios: Absolute Change in Traffic on Key Links over 2026 Base Flows Table 5.6: Oakham Development Scenarios: Absolute Change in Traffic at Key Junctions over 2026 Base Flows Table 5.7: Indicative Scenario Ranking Table 5.8: Uppingham Development Scenarios: Predicted Capacity on Key Links within the Network Table 5.9: Uppingham Development Scenarios: Absolute Change in Traffic on Key Links over 2026 Base Flows Table 5.10: Indicative Scenario Ranking Table 5.10: Predicted Impact of Corby Growth Point on Maximum Anticipated Flows Table 7.1: Environmental Assets within 5 km Study Area Table 7.2: Quantum and Estimated Cost of Land Take Table 7.3: Comparative Lengths and First Order Cost Estimates of Bypass Route Options Table 7.4: Comparative Cut and Fill Estimates of Bypass Route Options Table 7.5: Route Option Comparison Matrix Table 7.6: Effects of S106 Developer Contribution on Capital Costs of Initial Bypass Segment Table 7.7: Effects of S106 Developer Contribution on Whole Scheme Capital Costs

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

FIGURES

Rutland County Council Oakham and Uppingham Strategic Transport Assessment

Figure 2.1: Regional Setting of Rutland Figure 2.2: Principal Highways Links serving Rutland County Figure 2.3: Bus Routes in Oakham Figure 2.4: Bus Routes in Uppingham Figure 3.1: Alternative Possible Development Locations in Oakham Figure 3.2: Alternative Possible Development Locations in Uppingham Figure 4.1: Key Junctions and Areas of Highway in Oakham Figure 4.2: Key Junctions and Areas of Highway in Uppingham Figure 4.3: Oakham Accident Data (2005 – 2009) Figure 4.4: Uppingham Accident Data (2005 – 2009) Figure 4.5: 2026 Base + Committed Traffic Flows (Oakham) Figure 4.6: 2026 Base + Committed Traffic Flows (Uppingham) Figure 5.1: Potential Development Sites in Oakham Figure 5.2: Potential Development Sites in Uppingham Figure 6.1 Cross-town Routes Available to Development Traffic Figure 6.2: Bus Routes in Oakham Figure 7.1: Outline Bypass Corridor Options Figure 7.2: Setting of Uppingham in Relation to the Wider Highways Network Figure 7.3: Setting of Uppingham in Relation to Local Highways Figure 7.4: Potential Development Sites in Uppingham Figure 7.5: Topographic Model of Uppingham and its Surrounding Hinterland Figure 7.6: Locations of Selected Environmentally Sensitive Features around Uppingham Figure 7.7: Uppingham Bypass: Initial Route Alignments Figure 7.8: Estimated Land Take Requirements for Bypass Alignment Options Figure 7.9: Uppingham Bypass Alignment Options and Known Environmental Assets Figure 7.10: Initial Segment of the Uppingham Bypass Figure 7.11: Potential Future Development Zones in Uppingham

BarleythorpeBarleythorpe Road Road

0 0 0 0 489 2

0 281 5 0 2 9 Burley Road Burley Road ChurchChurch Street Street Station Station Station Station

295 329 142 87 39 71 88 135 149 54 261 323 31 189 270 162 135 382 131 323 Stamford Road 357 41 95

244 45 486 476 81 356 314 345 447 62 71 257 Tempro 2010 - 2016 growth factor 73 78 428 61 135 81 47 324 14 Westgate Street Street Westgate Westgate Cold Overton Cold Uppingham Road Uppingham New Street New

Figure 4.5 Oakham Town Centre 2026 Base Traffic Flows 0 0 613 0

0 549 A6003

92 74 491 47 70 133 North Street

79 99 16 377 39 128

126 555 81

High Street West High Street East

131 433 54

0 0

0 0 555 0

0 618

Figure 4.6 Uppingham Existing Highway Network 2026 Base Flows