12. Transportation
Introduction
12.1 This Chapter discusses the assessment of potential environmental effects resulting from the traffic, transport movements and infrastructure associated with the Proposed Development.
12.2 The Chapter describes the consultation that was undertaken during the EIA process and outlines the scope of the assessment and assessment methodology. A summary of the baseline information informing the assessment is also provided.
12.3 Several potential effects resulting from the Proposed Development were minimised in advance of the assessment and where relevant, this is clearly stated. The Chapter reports on the likely significant environmental effects and subsequently, mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects, or further enhance beneficial effects. The conclusions are provided both in terms of the residual effects and their significance.
12.4 This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) is intended to be read as part of the wider ES with particular reference to the introductory chapters of this ES (Chapters 1 - 5) and Chapter 19: Cumulative Effects Assessment.
Legislative Framework
National Policy and Legislation
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019) 12.5 Section 9 of the NPPF (Ref 12.1) focuses on promoting sustainable transport whilst acknowledging that the opportunities to maximise sustainable transport vary within different communities and from rural to urban areas. The NPPF provides guidance on transport infrastructure to facilitate sustainable travel in paragraphs 109 to 111.
Local Policy and Legislation
Swindon Transport Strategy (2009) and Swindon Local Transport Plan 2011-2026 (LTP3, 2009) 12.6 Swindon LTP3 (Ref 12.2) sets out the transport plans for the borough-based on the sustainable principles of the NPPF. The goals of the LTP3 are set out in Para 2.6.1 and seek to:
• “reduce the need to travel; • improve pedestrian and cycle permeability; • provide flexible transport for all, enabling choice for travel demand; • improve choice and reduce dependence on the use of the car; and • improve connectivity of movements around Swindon.”
12.1
12.7 Proposed infrastructure improvements to the highway network, specifically on the M4 Junction 15 and A419 corridor are set out within the Swindon Transport Strategy, which form part of the local growth strategy. It is the additional infrastructure alongside the provision of improved public transport provision that would support the proposed development.
Development Plan
Swindon Borough Council Local Plan 2026 (SBCLP, 2015) & New Eastern Village SPD (NEV, 2016) 12.8 Transport is one of the Strategic Objectives recognised within Swindon Borough Local Plan (Ref 12.3), particularly “to support Swindon’s growth through the provision of a comprehensive and sustainable transport network that is efficient, safe, affordable, accessible and easy to understand, and offers a genuine choice of modes”.
12.9 Policies TR1 and TR2 of the SBCLP set out how the council will use planning and transport powers to promote sustainable transport to the new developments.
12.10 In addition to the SBCLP, a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (Ref 12.4) was adopted for the New Eastern Villages (NEV) on land to the east of the A419. This area is located to the north of the Proposed Development.
12.11 The NEV SPD sets out the local highway network improvements, which is to be delivered as part of the development in the area. These improvements include enhanced provision for pedestrians and cyclists as well as the development of the Southern Connector Road (SCR), a new road corridor linking the NEV with Commonhead Roundabout, providing an alternative link north/south to reduce the impact upon the A419. In addition to the SCR, it is also envisaged that new and improved public transport services further supporting the NEV development would be implemented.
Summary of Consultation
12.12 Table 12.1 below provides an overview of the consultation that informed the design of the Proposed Development, the consideration of likely significant effects and the methodology for assessment.
12.2
Summary of Consultation
Body / Organisation Date and Form of Summary Contact Consultation Swindon Borough Rob Rossiter 23/02/2018, Pre-Application meeting discussing Council meeting appropriate assessment methodology and access to the strategic model. Swindon Borough Tom 22/03/2018, Swindon SCR meeting to discuss programme Council Campbell meeting and design of the SCR. This meeting also discussed how the Proposed Development could connect into the SCR once complete. Swindon Borough Rob Rossiter 20/09/2018, Transport meeting discussing the study area Council meeting of the junction modelling assessment and required modelling scenarios to assess the impacts of the scheme. Swindon Borough Nigel 29/08/2019, Meeting to discuss submitted Transport Council Atkinson meeting Assessment and outstanding requests for information. Additional information was submitted following the meeting. Swindon Borough Nigel 06/02/2020, Meeting to discuss the public transport Council Atkinson meeting provision for the proposed development
Scope of the Assessment
12.13 The scope of the assessment was set out in the EIA Scoping Report submitted to SBC in August 2018. The Scoping Report is included in Appendix 1.1., with the scope of this Chapter summarised below.
Not Significant Effects
12.14 Some of the effects resulting from the Proposed Development considered in the EIA Scoping Report were identified as not significant. As such, they are not considered further in this Chapter. The effects not considered are listed below, along with the supporting evidence.
Hazardous and dangerous loads on the highway
12.15 The Proposed Development does not contain any land uses that are expected to generate any hazardous or dangerous loads onto the highway network. Therefore, no further assessment is carried out in this Chapter of the ES.
Fear and Intimidation
12.16 A separate assessment of Fear and Intimidation was not considered necessary, given that the assessment of Severance and Pedestrian/Cycle Delay and Amenity is included in this Chapter. Any effect on Fear and Intimidation levels is inherently considered as part of the assessment of Severance and Pedestrian/Cycle Delay and Amenity.
12.3
12.17 The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s (IEMA) ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (Ref 12.6) state that the development impact on Fear and Intimidation of road users is dependent on:
• the volume of traffic;
• HGV composition;
• proximity to people; and/or the lack of protection caused by factors such as narrow pavement widths.
12.18 These factors are all considered within the assessment of the impact on Severance and Pedestrian/Cycle Delay and Amenity. It can be concluded that if there is a low level of Severance and good Pedestrian and Cyclist Amenity on a particular link, that road users will experience a low level of Fear and Intimidation.
Post-scoping Opinion
12.19 Following the legal review of the ES and in particular this chapter, due consideration has been given to potential environmental impacts resulting from the changes in traffic volumes and subsequently, the capacity of links and junctions within the local highway network.
12.20 As the detailed capacity assessments of key junction and links are provided in the Transport Assessment (TA) and subsequent addendum notes, it is not considered necessary to reiterate the results in detail within this chapter of the ES. The details of the assessments undertaken are available in the the TA provided in Appendix 12.1 and Transport Technical Notes (TTN) 1 (Traffic Model and Assessment Scenarios) and 4 (Revised Transport Impact Assessment) included in Appendix 12.2 and Appendix 12.3 respectively.
12.21 Notwithstanding the above, it is acknowledged that changes in the traffic volumes as a result of the proposals would have an impact on the capacity of the local junctions/links, and in turn, may potentially lead to the environmental effects such as a change in driver stress and delay. However, and as discussed in detail in the TA and associated TTNs, the results of capacity assessments of junctions/links in the locality of the proposed development suggest that all assessed junctions/links are forecast to operate within their theoretical capacity with the identified impacts being considered as negligible and no strategies mitigating the impacts are required.
12.22 It should also be highlighted that several infrastructure improvement schemes are being delivered by SBC and HE in the area. These schemes, when they come forward, would further contribute to a reduction of any potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposals.
12.23 The TA demonstrates that the local highway network can accommodate the proposed development, with its impacts, where identified, being negligible. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to conclude that any environmental effects resulting from the changes in the junction/links’ capacity would be negligible.
12.4
Likely Significant Effects
12.24 Some of the environmental effects of the Proposed Development related to transport are considered in other Chapters of the ES. As such, they are not discussed as part of this assessment. These include:
• Effects relating to air quality due to an increase in traffic are considered in Chapter 13: Air Quality;
• Effects relating to noise due to an increase in traffic are considered in Chapter 14: Noise and Vibration.
12.25 The following significant transport effects are discussed in detail in this Chapter:
• Construction Phase:
‒ Severance;
‒ Driver stress and delay;
‒ Pedestrian and cycle amenity; and
‒ Accidents and safety.
• Operation Phase:
‒ Severance;
‒ Driver stress and delay;
‒ Pedestrian and cycle amenity; and
‒ Accidents and safety.
Extent of the Study Area
12.26 The extent of the study area for the assessment is shown in Figure 12.1.
12.27 Traffic flow information was calculated utilising the Swindon SATURN model provided by SBC, and where necessary manual assignment on modelled background traffic flows. The links considered for the assessment are listed below with their indicative location graphically represented in Figure 12.2:
• Link 1: SCR North of Site Access
• Link 2: SCR South of Site Access
• Link 3: Purley Road
• Link 4: Pack Hill South of Site Access
• Link 5: Pack Hill East of Site Access
12.5
• Link 6: A419 North of Commonhead Roundabout
• Link 7: A419 South of Commonhead Roundabout
• Link 8: A4259 (Hospital to Commonhead Roundabout)
• Link 9: A4259 (Hospital to Homington Avenue)
• Link 10: A4259 (Homington Avenue to Bridlestone Avenue)
• Link 11: A4259 (Bridlestone Avenue to Dayhouse Lane)
• Link 12: A4259 (Dayhouse Lane to Coate Roundabout)
• Link 13: B4006 Dorcan Way (Coate Roundabout to Holiday Inn Access)
• Link 14: Shaftesbury Avenue (Coate Roundabout to Amersham Rd)
• Link 15: A4259 Queens Drive (Coate Roundabout to Queens Drive)
• Link 16: B4006 Marlborough Road (Coate Roundabout to Sandringham Road)
• Link 17: M4 West of Junction 15
• Link 18: M4 East of Junction 15
• Link 19: A346 South of Junction 15
Background Studies to Inform the ES
12.28 No traffic surveys were undertaken in order to supplement the assessments in this ES Chapter. It was agreed with SBC that the assessment would be completed using traffic flow data from the Swindon SATURN model, which is based on validated traffic counts.
12.29 Growth factors were then applied to the validated 2016 baseline data to produce a 2018 Baseline for the assessment. It was agreed to use the Swindon SATURN model due to the number of highway improvements planned for the road network in the locality of the Proposed Development.
12.30 It is considered the highway improvements in the area would lead to a significant change in traffic conditions and make the results of any traffic survey unrepresentative of typical conditions. The surveys would potentially highlight issues, which are to be mitigated by the scheduled improvement measures.
12.31 As outlined in the TA provided in Appendix 12.1 and TTN 1 and 4 included in Appendix 12.2 and Appendix 12.3 respectively, the future year assessment is to be completed for the years of 2021 and 2036 as derived from the Swindon SATURN model.
12.32 The future year of 2021 represents the expected completion of Phase 1 and excludes the SCR and NEV for robustness. The assessment year of 2036 then represents the end of the SBC’s LP, and includes full development build-out as well as SCR and NEV. In addition to the above, the 2036 future year sensitivity test assuming that none of the
12.6
SCR or NEV is built was also undertaken, using the traffic flows also as modelled by the Swindon SATURN model.
12.33 The TA details the inputs into the traffic modelling. The TTN1 (Appendix 12.2) was produced in response to comments raised by both SBC and Highways England (HE) followed by the TTN4, (Appendix 12.3), which sets out updated traffic modelling to account for an error in the floor space contained within the TA and TTN1.
Assessment Methodology
Methodology
12.34 The assessment of the likely transport effects provided in this Chapter of the ES was produced in accordance with the industry-accepted methodologies and guidelines.
12.35 The assessment was also undertaken in accordance with the web-based Planning Practice Guidance (Ref 12.5) to provide a robust assessment of the transport impacts of the Proposed Development.
12.36 Full details of the operational and capacity analysis of the local highway network are provided in the TA, TTN1 and TTN4 contained in Appendix 12.1, Appendix 12.2 and Appendix 12.3 respectively.
12.37 Best practice guidance considered as part of this assessment includes the IEMA‘s ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (Ref 12.6). The guidance sets out the recommended list of likely significant effects, which could be considered as potentially significant whenever a new development is likely to give rise to changes in traffic flows that affect the baseline conditions identified. The results of these changes include effects on drivers, pedestrians and other road users, including delays, severance and general amenity.
12.38 In accordance with the IEMA guidelines, an assessment of sensitive receptors was undertaken to identify the proximity of each to the local highway network. Locations which are considered to be sensitive receptors include:
• Schools;
• Health facilities;
• Community facilities; and
• Areas with significant pedestrian movements.
12.39 The Great Western Hospital is situated on Links 8 and 9 and therefore, these links are identified to have high sensitivity to changes in traffic flow and as a result, high sensitivity to changes in Severance, Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity, and Driver Stress and Delay. No other links within the study area were identified to contain the receptors listed above in Paragraph 12.29.
12.40 Sensitivity to changes in levels of Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity is considered negligible on the following links:
12.7
• Link 1: SCR North of Site Access;
• Link 2: SCR South of Site Access;
• Link 3: Purley Road;
• Link 4: Pack Hill (South of Site Access);
• Link 5 – Pack Hill (East of Site Access);
• Link 6 – A419 (North of Commonhead);
• Link 7 – A419 (South of Commonhead);
• Link 10 – Homington Avenue to Bridlestone Avenue;
• Link 17 – M4 (West of Junction 15);
• Link 18 – M4 (East of Junction 15); and
• Link 19 – A346 (South of Junction 15).
12.41 Sensitivity to changes in Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity is considered negligible on these links as there is no (or very little) demand for these links from pedestrian and cyclists’ perspective due to their rural character. In the case of the A419 (Link 6 and 7) and the M4 Motorway (Link 17 and 18), there are no facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.
12.42 Links 11 – 16 are considered to have low sensitivity to changes in Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity, as these links are expected to experience limited demand from pedestrians and cyclists even with the introduction of the Proposed Development albeit good facilities are already available for pedestrians and cyclists wishing to use these links.
12.43 Sensitivity to changes in the level of Driver Stress and Delay can be considered low on several rural roads within the study area as they are unlikely to attract many drivers sensitive to stress/delay (such as those commuting or on business trips). Links 1 – 5 are all considered to have low sensitivity to changes in Driver Stress and Delay. Links 6 – 19 may experience higher demand from commuters during peak times, and as a result, they could be considered highly sensitive to changes in driver stress and delay without mitigation.
12.44 To determine the extent of the local highway network to be assessed, the IEMA guidelines (Ref 12.6) were applied. The guidance advises assessors to consider all links where traffic flows are expected to increase by more than 30%, or where HGV flows are expected to increase by more than 30% as a result of new development. Additionally, any links near sensitive receptors (as identified above) where traffic flows or HGV flows are expected to increase by more than 10% as a result of new development should also be included. Conversely, links that are subject to decreases in traffic flows greater than each of these respective thresholds are not included in the assessment.
12.8
12.45 To assess the transport effects of the Proposed Development, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) was consulted. A Scoping Opinion Request for the ES Transport Chapter was made in July 2018, and it was agreed that the ES is to be completed based on guidance provided in DMRB Volume 11 - Environmental Assessment. At the time of Scoping, the DMRB parts relevant to EIA were Volume 11, Section 3 Part 8 (Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestrians and Community Effects) (Ref 12.7) and Section 3, Part 9 (Vehicle Travellers) (Ref 12.8). Since the scope of this Chapter was agreed, DMRB Volume 11 was updated, and both Part 8 and Part 9 were replaced in October 2019 by DMRB LA112 – ‘Population and Human Health’ (Ref 12.9).
12.46 Given that DMRB LA112 was not published at the time when the scope of the assessment was agreed with the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and that DMRB LA112 does not provide specific thresholds or guidance for the impact of changes in road traffic, the assessment of transport effects are not based exclusively on Section 3 Part 6 (LA112), but also on Section 3 Part 8 and Section 3 Part 9, which detail specific assessment areas and methodologies applicable to this assessment.
Severance 12.47 Severance is defined in the DMRB as “…the separation of residents from facilities and services they use within their community caused by new or improved roads or by changes in traffic flows.”
12.48 Several factors are considered in determining the current level of severance. These include road width, traffic flow and composition, traffic speeds and the availability of pedestrian crossing facilities.
12.49 The DMRB provides a set of measures for the identification of new community severance resulting from changesin traffic volumes. The change in traffic volumes results in some hindrance to movement, level of which is dependent on the traffic flow (AADT) and the resulting increase of the journey length (diversion) Table 12.2 below outlines the thresholds of community severance as suggested by the DMRB. These guidelines are applicable both to the direct effect of a scheme (i.e. new roads) as well as effects caused by increases in traffic levels on existing roads.
Thresholds for Determining Magnitude of Severance Level
Severance Level Traffic Flow (AADT) Length of Diversion Minor <8,000 <250m Moderate 8-16,000 250-500m
Major >16,000 >500m
Source: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
12.50 The sensitivity of severance along each link was based on the likely level of pedestrian demand.
Driver Stress and Delay 12.51 Driver stress, as outlined in the DMRB, comprises three principal elements: frustration, fear of potential accidents, and uncertainty relating to the route being followed. The
12.9
weight of these factors varies depending on the driver. For example, those who drive for commuting purposes often have a higher stress threshold due to their experience and knowledge of a route compared to those who may only drive occasionally for leisure or personal purposes.
12.52 The DMRB outlines the thresholds of traffic flow and average journey speeds at which driver stress is perceived to change. These thresholds are summarised for single and dual carriageway roads in Table 12.3 and Table 12.4 respectively. It should be noted that the measure of traffic flow is in Passenger Car Units (PCU) as set out in the DMRB. Accordingly, for the purposes of determining driver stress only, a light vehicle has been considered as one unit, and an HGV considered as two units.
Thresholds for Determining Magnitude of Driver Stress on Single Carriageway Roads
Average Journey Speed (km/h) Average Peak Hourly Flow per Lane (PCU) <50 50-70 >70 <600 Major Moderate Minor 600-800 Major Moderate Moderate
>800 Major Major Major
Source: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
Thresholds for Determining Magnitude of Driver Stress on Dual Carriageway Roads
Average Journey Speed (km/h) Average Peak Hourly Flow per Lane (PCU) <50 50-70 >70 <1200< Major Moderate Minor 1200- 1600 Major Moderate Moderate
>1600 Major Major Major
Source: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
12.53 Thresholds in the DMRB are provided to guide the assessment of driver stress and delay levels. The DMRB suggests that consideration of driver stress incorporates qualitative elements, such as driver views and quantitative assessments related to vehicle speeds and the ability for drivers to overtake slower vehicles and thereby inform levels of delay. In this assessment, these aspects are not considered separately but are considered to be contained within the criteria set out in Tables 12.3 and 12.4 above.
12.54 The sensitivity of driver stress and delay was determined based on the type of road and its expected use. For example, it is likely that vehicle drivers are more sensitive to changes in driver stress and delay along strategic routes where they expect to be able
12.10
to travel uninterrupted (high sensitivity) than for example along quiet residential roads that provide local access only (low sensitivity)be high.
Pedestrian and Cyclist Amenity 12.55 The quality of the pedestrian and cycle environment is defined by a criteria scale ranging from poor to excellent which is based on a qualitative assessment involving the following aspects:
‒ Levels of connectivity (routes should provide a coherent network of links between primary land-uses);
‒ Safety;
‒ Crossings (controlled and uncontrolled);
‒ Lighting (presence of street lighting or light spill);
‒ Quality of footways and cycleways;
‒ Barriers (obstructions to desire lines, including topography); and
‒ Attractiveness.
12.56 Increases in traffic levels as a consequence of the Proposed Development can lead to a greater degree of delay to pedestrians wishing to cross a road. The degree of pedestrian delay, therefore, correlates to severance.
12.57 Only a small number of published qualitative methods exist for assessing pedestrian delay. The IEMA Guidance (Ref 12.6) suggests a range of pedestrian crossing times of ten seconds (lower threshold) to 40 seconds (higher threshold), which equate to a link with no crossing facilities and a two-way flow of approximately 1,400 vehicles in the peak periods. However, the guidance also recommends that assessments should be based on judgement rather than specific thresholds to determine whether or not there is a significant pedestrian delay. Notwithstanding this, the thresholds described in the guidance have been used as a starting point for this assessment. No specific guidance exists for the assessment of cyclist delay.
12.58 For the purpose of this assessment, and in combination with professional judgement, pedestrian and cyclist delay was classed as:
‒ Low, where traffic flows are less than 1,400 two way vehicles per hour;
‒ Medium, where flows are between 1,400 and 2,800 two way vehicles per hour; and
‒ High, where traffic flows exceed 2,800 two way vehicles per hour.
12.59 For the purposes of determining the magnitude of change (relating to pedestrian and cyclist delay) resulting from the Proposed Development, the thresholds outlined above has been applied to the peak hour traffic flows. The sensitivity of pedestrian and cyclist
12.11
delay along each link was based on the nature of the links or expected pedestrian and cyclist demand.
12.60 No specific guidance exists for the assessment of cyclist or pedestrian amenity. Pedestrian and cyclist amenity was rated on a three-point scale, ranging from poor to good. It should be noted that the level of amenity is based on the nature of the link. For example, on a residential road with no footways, pedestrian amenity could be rated as poor.
12.61 The sensitivity of pedestrian and cyclist delay and amenity along each link was based on the nature of the links and the likely pedestrian and cyclist demand.
Accidents and Safety 12.62 The IEMA guidelines (Ref 12.6) state that an assessment of road safety on the highway network should be undertaken based on recent accident records. Personal Injury Accident (PIA) records were obtained from the DfT’s road safety data for the latest available five-year period.
12.63 The road network surrounding the site, and routes expected to be used by the traffic associated with the Proposed Development are expected to change significantly as a result of the proposals and other schemes in the locality being delivered. In that respect, it was considered more appropriate to undertake a qualitative assessment of the likely change in accidents within the study area resulting from the planned highway improvements. The improvements to the local highway network are set out in more detail in the TA, TTN1 and TTN4 included in Appendix 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3.
12.64 Once the above thresholds within DMRB and IEMA guidance have been considered, and the magnitude of the impact/change are both established, the potential effect can then be derived.
Environmental Effects and Significance Criteria
12.65 The significance level attributed to each potential effect was assessed based on the magnitude of change due to the Proposed Development and the sensitivity to change of the affected receptor/receiving environment, as well as several other factors that are outlined in more detail in Chapter 2: Approach to EIA. The magnitude of change is assessed on a scale of Large, Medium, Small or Negligible and the sensitivity of the affected receptor or receiving environment are assessed on a scale of High, Medium, Low or Negligible (as shown in Chapter 2: Approach to EIA).
12.66 The effect significance was assessed using the matrix set out in Table 12.5 below.
12.12
Derivation of Effect Significance
Sensitivity (or value/importance)
High Medium Low Negligible
Large Major Moderate to Major Minor to Moderate Negligible
Medium Moderate to Major Moderate Minor Negligible
Small Minor to Moderate Minor Negligible to Minor Negligible
Magnitude of Change of Magnitude
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Traffic Model and Assessment Scenarios 12.67 The impacts of the Proposed Development on the local highway network were assessed using the Swindon SATURN model and where required additional manual reassignment of the Proposed Development traffic generation. The following scenarios were assessed for the purposes of this Chapter:
• 2018 Baseline;
• 2021 Opening Year Phase 1 without Proposed Development;
• 2021 Opening Year Phase 1 with Proposed Development;
• 2026 “Core” Baseline (with partial NEV and SCR);
• 2026 “Core Inlands” Base + Development + Committed Development;
• 2036 “Core” Baseline (with NEV and SCR); and
• 2036 “Core Inlands” Base + Development + Committed Development.
12.68 Further details on the methodology used to develop the traffic model, description of scenarios and calculation of development traffic flow are provided in Appendix 12.4 and within TTN4 (Appendix 12.3).
Baseline Conditions
12.69 The baseline transport conditions are discussed in the TA (Appendix 12.1). The TA identifies the levels of use and locations where mitigation may be required. The summary of the baseline conditions is provided in the following sections.
12.13
Public Transport
Bus Network 12.70 The two nearest bus stops are the Calley Arms bus stop located approximately 1.7km from the centre of the Proposed Development, and The Marsh bus stop situated a distance of approximately 1.6km from the centre of the part of the site forming Phase 1 and 700-800m from the centre of Phase 2. Currently, there are no facilities for pedestrians along The Marsh or Pack Hill linking the site and the bus stops. The existing bus services are shown in Figure 12.3.
12.71 The Calley Arms bus stop is located on Church Road, approximately 480m to the East of the south-eastern boundary of the Site which represents a 12-minute walk from the main pedestrian access point located on Pack Hill. The bus stop is served by bus routes 47, 46A, 48A and 157.
12.72 The Marsh bus stop is situated approximately 500m to the east of the pedestrian access point located on The Marsh. This represents a 6-minute walk from this access point. The bus stop is served by bus routes: 46A, 48A and 157.
12.73 Table 12.6 below describes the local bus services available at the Calley Arms and The Marsh bus stops.
Local Bus Services
AM Peak Frequency PM Peak Frequency Service Route (0800 – 0900) (1700 – 1800) Swindon – Wanborough – 46 A 1 1 Alderbourne – Hungerford Swindon – Wanborough – 48 A 2 2 Alberbourne – Marlborough
47 Swindon – Lambourn 2 2
Wroughton – Thorney Park – 2 (Tues/Weds/Thurs 157 0 Chiseldon – Bishopstone only) Source: Bustimes.org (Oct 2018).
12.74 As can be seen in Table 12.6, four bus services are accessible from the Proposed Development. The services provide connections to Swindon in approximately 15 to 25 minutes.
12.75 Swindon Bus Station is located on New Bridge Close approximately 6.5km to the northwest of the site. The location of Swindon Bus Station relative to the Proposed Development is shown in Figure 12.3. Several other local bus services are available from the bus station to destinations such as Oxford and Cirencester, as well as National Express services providing connections to destinations including London, Bristol and Bath.
12.14
Railway Network 12.76 Swindon Railway Station is located approximately 6.8km to the northwest of the Proposed development and can be accessed using the local bus network. The 46/48A bus services provide service from The Marsh, and Calley Arms bus stops to Swindon Bus Station, which is located approximately 15 minutes away on foot from Swindon Railway Station., The journey from the Proposed Development to the railway station would then take approximately 35 minutes utilising local transport networks.
12.77 The railway station is operated by Great Western Railway and is served by their trains only. The station benefits from 578 car parking spaces, costing £8.40 per day, and secured (CCTV) storage for 220 bicycles.
12.78 Table 12.7 below summarises some of the direct services available from Swindon Railway Station.
Rail Service Frequency (Monday to Friday)
Frequency Typical Journey Time (Mins) AM Peak (08:00 – Destination PM Peak (17:00 – 09:00) to 18:00) Destination Chippenham 3 3 13
Bristol Temple Meads 2 2 42
Bath Spa 3 3 28
Reading 6 5 30
Cheltenham Spa 1 1 70 (1hr 10min)
Gloucester 1 1 49
Westbury 1 0 46
Source: Network Rail National Rail Timetable (Oct 2018).
12.79 There are also approximately 4 trains per hour (6 am to 11 pm) running directly to London Paddington, with an approximate journey time of 1 hour.
Walking and Cycling
Public Rights of Way Network 12.80 Given the rural area of the site locality, the local pedestrian network is relatively limited, with no pedestrian facilities on The Marsh or Pack Hill except those associated with the individual access points.
12.81 The site benefits from two Public Rights of Way (PRoW), one of which traverses the northern part of the site providing a connection between The Marsh and Lower Wanborough. The second PRoW runs parallel to the north-eastern site boundary from
12.15
Inlands Farm and subsequently, deviating south and crossing the centre of the site to Pack Hill. The PRoW provides connections to Liddington and Medbourne.
12.82 The PRoW network in the vicinity of the site can be seen in Figure 12.4.
Local Cycle Network 12.83 While no immediate cycle facilities are leading to the site, a network of off-road and on-road cycle ways provide access to Swindon town centre from the Commonhead Roundabout, approximately 500m from the site’s South-eastern boundary.
12.84 Additionally, the National Cycle Route (NCN) 45 can be accessed using the cycle provision at the Commonhead Roundabout. NCN Route 45 is a 270-mile route that connects Chester to Salisbury and runs through the centre of Swindon. It is a mixture of on-road and traffic free paths.
12.85 Several NCN 45 link routes provide additional connections from the NCN to Swindon, including to Swindon Railway Station.
12.86 Figure 12.4 illustrates the local cycle network in the vicinity of the site. Figure 12.5 then illustrates the site’s cycling accessibility.
12.87 As demonstrated by Figure 12.5, Swindon Town Centre and Railway Station can be reached from the site in approximately 20 to 25 minutes; meanwhile areas such as Wanborough, Liddington and Liden can be accessed in approximately 10 minutes
12.88 The review of the existing conditions in the vicinity of the site indicates that there are limited walking and cycling opportunities.
Personal Injury Accidents
PIA Data Monitoring 12.89 PIA data for the latest five-year period were obtained from SBC. This covers the period between 1/6/2013 and 31/5/2018. The study area of interest is discussed in detail in the TA (Appendix 12.1).
Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) by Key Routes 12.90 During the study period of 2013-2018, 219 PIA were recorded in the study area. The following sub-sections review and summarise the serious and fatal accidents (i.e. KSI) on the key links assessed as part of this ES. The review is based on the KSI description and contributory factors as recorded by STATS 19.
Link 7: North of Commonhead Roundabout 12.91 There was a total of six serious, and one fatal PIA recorded on this link. The fatal PIA occurred due to a car driver losing control on the slip road and colliding with a lamp post.
12.92 Loss of control by a car driver resulting in collisions with trees or street furniture was recorded as a contributory factor in two serious accidents.
12.93 The other two serious collisions were recorded as rear-end shunt accidents involving vehicles travelling south towards the Commonhead roundabout. Failure to stop was
12.16
the contributory factor noted for these collisions. Failure to stop was also a contributory factor in a further PIA involving a vehicle-to-vehicle collision between cars travelling northbound, which involved four cars.
12.94 The only serious accident involving a vulnerable road user on this link involved a motorcyclist who failed to stop behind the stationary traffic, swerved and fell off the motorcycle.
12.95 The initial review does not indicate any significant trends in accidents, with driver error being the primary causation for the recorded accidents.
Link 8: South of Commonhead Roundabout 12.96 Two serious PIAs were recorded on this link, both of which involved HGVs. One of the PIAs was a collision between an HGV and a motorcycle overtaking the HGV on the near side. The motorcyclist collided with cones on the carriageway. Failure to look properly was recorded as a contributory factor.
12.97 The other serious PIA involved a van on van shunt, whilst travelling southbound on the A419, with failure to notice that a vehicle had stopped resulting in a collision.
12.98 In addition to the above, a serious PIA was recorded on the Commonhead roundabout and involved a car travelling south and a cyclist travelling east on the roundabout. The collision was classified as serious and occurred in the daylight on a dry road surface. The key contributory factor adjudged by the police was a failure to give way. While only occurring once, this accident is expected to be improved by the introduction of a new signalised scheme being developed by SBC on the Commonhead roundabout.
Link 9: A4259 (Hospital to Homington Avenue) 12.99 A collision between an HGV travelling north west and a pedestrian travelling south- east was recorded at this link. The collision was classified as serious in severity and occurred in daylight and wet weather conditions. The key contributory factor adjudged by the police was a failure to look by the pedestrian.
Link 16: A4259 Queens Drive (Coate Roundabout to Queens Drive) 12.100 A collision between a car travelling east and a cyclist travelling north took place at this link. The collision was classified as serious and took place in daylight and on a dry road surface. The key contributory factor noted by the police was a failure to look properly by the driver.
Coate Water Roundabout 12.101 Two PIAs were recorded on the Coate Water Roundabout and while within the study area, they occurred in between the defined study links. A collision was a result of a car travelling east being chased by police. The collision is classified as serious in severity and occurred during the night on a dry road surface. The key contributory factor adjudged by the police is the loss of control of the vehicle.
12.102 Another PIA involved a single car travelling northeast. The collision was classified as serious and occurred at night on a dry road surface. The key contributory factor recorded by the police is the loss of control of the vehicle.
12.17
Link 4: Purley Road 12.103 A single PIA took place on this link and involved a van and a car, both travelling northeast. The collision was recorded as serious and occurred in daylight and wet weather conditions. The key contributory factor adjudged by the police is a failure to look properly.
Link 14: Shaftesbury Avenue (Coate Roundabout to Amersham Rd) 12.104 A single PIA on this link took place approximately 115m north of the roundabout and involved a car and a motorcycle travelling north and a car travelling south. The collision was classified as serious and occurred in daylight on a dry road surface. No contributory factors were recorded.
Future Baseline
Local Highway Network
12.105 An assessment of the future baseline conditions on the highway network was completed for future years of 2021 and 2036 in the TA and TTN (Appendix 12.1 and 12.2). The study area for junction assessments for Future Baseline Conditions focussed on the A4259 corridor and the A419 corridor between the site and the M4 Junction 15. The following junctions were assessed as part of the TA:
Site Access Junction;
Commonhead Roundabout;
M4 Junction 15;
A4259 Hospital Access;
A4259 Badbury Park accesses (Biddlestone Avenue and Homington Avenue; and
Coate Roundabout.
12.106 The TA and TTN (Appendix 12.1 and 12.2) concluded that the assessed junctions within the study area would be able to accommodate the background traffic growth between the base year and future years of 2021 and 2036, particularly given the committed mitigation schemes scheduled on the surrounding highway network.
12.107 The committed mitigation schemes include provision of the SCR as part of the NEV development and also a package of improvements planned along the southbound carriageway of the A419 between Commonhead Roundabout and J15, which consists of creation of a dedicated left-turn slip road for traffic travelling from the A419 to the M4 eastbound. All slip roads leading from the M4 to the Junction 15 roundabout would be widened as well the A346 approach to the junction from Marlborough. Within the Junction modelling, it has been assumed no full build out of the SCR in 2021 but all mitigation in by 2036 (and 2026 scenarios tested within the ES).
12.108 The schemes improvement schemes were developed are to be implemented by Highway England in order to facilitate growth in the borough and would provide additional capacity in the vicinity of the Proposed Development.
12.18
Public Transport
12.109 As detailed in the description of baseline public transport conditions above, the existing opportunities to travel by public transport to the Proposed development site are limited. It is not yet known what changes to the public transport network may materialise as a result of the SCR being delivered. However, new services linking Swindon with the NEV would likely be introduced. As such, it is considered likely that new public transport services will be introduced along the site frontage in time and as the NEV is built out.
12.110 That being said, this assessment assumes no change to the existing public transport services as there is no certainty over what is to be delivered.
Walking and Cycling
12.111 As identified in the description of baseline walking and cycling conditions, walking and cycling opportunities in the vicinity of the site are currently limited. The approved SCR will incorporate a shared footway/cycleway on its western side, and a footway delineating its eastern side. As a result, it will provide opportunities for safe walking and cycling routes which will pass the Site. While the SCR is due to be started in winter 2020 and is expected to be completed in the summer of 2022, it was assumed that there are no improvements in the pedestrian or cycle network in the future baseline position for robustness.
Sensitive Receptors
12.112 The following sensitive receptors along Links 1-19 were considered and, where necessary, assessed in the ES. The location of the identified sensitive receptors is shown in Figure 12.2:
• Schools;
• Health facilities;
• Community facilities; and
• Areas with significant pedestrian movements.
12.113 It should be noted that there are no schools or community facilities situated along the links identified for assessment. However, the Great Western Hospital was considered in the assessment. Furthermore, pedestrian movements were considered along all 19 links.
Primary and Tertiary Mitigation
Construction Phase 12.114 The primary and tertiary mitigation measures which have been evaluated as part of the construction phase assessment are outlined below.
12.19
Primary Mitigation • Site Access/Pack Hill Roundabout – The Proposed Development will deliver a new roundabout on the SCR at its junction with Pack Hill and incorporate a new arm into the proposed development which will also facilitate construction access.
Tertiary Mitigation • Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) (secured through a planning condition) which will set out the following:
‒ Restrictions on access to the site
‒ Routes to and from the site for construction vehicles
‒ Health and safety on site for construction traffic
‒ Suitable environmental mitigation
Operational Phase
12.115 The following primary and tertiary mitigation measures were evaluated as part of the operational phase assessment:
Primary Mitigation • Site Access/Pack Hill Roundabout
• New footway/cycleway between the Site Access and Commonhead Roundabout
• Provision of 48 Cycle Parking spaces
• Phase 1 - Shuttle bus between Swindon Rail Station Swindon Town Centre and the proposed development site (Mondays to Sundays); and
• Phase 2a and 2b - Extension of Swindon Bus Company’s Service 1 to serve the proposed development site (all day service, Mondays to Sunday).
It should be noted that both bus service proposals are still under consultation with the highway authority on the most appropriate strategy
Tertiary Mitigation • Framework Workplace Travel Plan which would include suitable measures to reduce the reliance upon the private car including:
‒ Travel information packs
‒ Personalised journey planning
‒ Travel Information notice boards
‒ Travel information website
‒ Possible public transport vouchers/cycle vouchers
12.20
Assessment of Effects, Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effects
Construction Phase
Severance; Driver Stress and Delay; Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity, Accidents and Safety 12.116 The Proposed Development (both Phases 1 and 2) would generate a level of HGV movements during the construction phase, circa 70 per day alongside the trips associated with staff. It is considered that for a site of this size, the HGV movements during construction would be in the region of 20-50 movements per day. The volume of HGV traffic associated with the construction phase is therefore expected to be less than that assessed as part of the Operational Phase.
12.117 The estimate of construction traffic is based on WSP’s experience of the construction traffic associated with a site of this size, based on discussions with developers and contractors. It is acknowledged that the Operational Phase for Phase 1 and the Construction Phase for Phase 2 may overlap. During this period, Phase 1 is expected to generate up to 40 one-way HGV movements per day, and the construction of Phase 2 is expected to generate 20 – 50 one-way HGV movements per day. Total HGV trip generation during this period could, therefore, reach 60 – 90 one-way HGV movements, which on average would be similar to the final level of HGV movements once the development (Phase 1 and 2) is fully occupational.
12.118 Taking the above into account, the assessment for the operational phase for both vehicle and HGV movements is considered to represent the worst-case assessment. Therefore, no further construction phase assessment has been undertaken.
Secondary Mitigation or Enhancement 12.119 No additional mitigation or enhancement over and above that evaluated as part of the Proposed Development is deemed to be required.
Residual Effect 12.120 The resulting sensitivity to changes in Driver Stress and Delay, Severance, Pedestrian and Cyclist Amenity is considered as negligible on 10 of the links assessed and low on the remaining nine links assessed. During the construction Phases, there is expected to be a direct, temporary, short-term, adverse effect, which is considered to be of minor significance on all assessed effects due to low sensitivity of the links considered and forecast negligible/small changes in traffic flow.
12.121 This effect is considered to be Not Significant.
Operational Phase
Severance; Driver Stress and Delay; and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity 12.122 In order to determine which of the identified highway links should be subject to further detailed assessment, the percentage change in traffic flows was calculated. The results are summarised in Tables 12.8, 12.9 and 12.10 below.
12.21
2021 Phase 1 Opening Year
Comparison of Base and with Development Traffic Flows – (Phase 1 Opening Year – 2021)
AADT Total Vehicles AADT HGVs Near to Assess Link Road Name Sensitive Link No 2021 2021 + 2021 2021 + Receptor Change Change Baseline Phase 1 Baseline Phase 1
1 SCR North of Site Access No 0 0 0 0 0 0 No
2 SCR South of Site Access No 0 0 0 0 0 0 No
3 Purley Road No 5814 5814 0.0% 160 160 0.0% No
Pack Hill South of Site 4 No 6019 7098 17.9% 335 415 23.9% No Access
Pack Hill East of Site 5 No 6019 6019 0.0% 335 335 0.0% No Access
A419 North of 6 No 66734 66859 0.2% 4458 4458 0.0% No Commonhead
A419 South of 7 No 71841 72047 0.3% 5435 5515 1.5% No Commonhead
Yes – A4259 (Hospital to Great 8 Commonhead 34841 35580 2.1% 866 866 0.0% No Western Roundabout) Hospital
Yes – A4259 (Hospital to Great 9 36853 37592 2.0% 716 716 0.0% No Homington Avenue) Western Hospital
A4259 (Homington 10 Avenue to Bridlestone No 33757 34496 2.2% 616 616 0.0% No Avenue)
A4259 (Bridlestone 11 No 36519 37259 2.0% 753 753 0.0% No Avenue to Dayhouse Lane)
A4259 (Dayhouse Lane to 12 No 36513 37252 2.0% 753 753 0.0% No Coate Roundabout)
B4006 Dorcan Way (Coate 13 No 24060 24060 0.0% 940 940 0.0% No Rbt to Holiday Inn Access)
Shaftesbury Avenue 14 (Coate Rbt to Amersham No 4580 4580 0.0% 173 173 0.0% No Rd)
12.22
AADT Total Vehicles AADT HGVs Near to Assess Link Road Name Sensitive Link No 2021 2021 + 2021 2021 + Receptor Change Change Baseline Phase 1 Baseline Phase 1
A4259 Queens Drive 15 (Coate Rbt to Queens No 25525 25525 0.0% 525 525 0.0% No Drive)
B4006 Marlborough Road 16 (Coate Rbt to No 25346 25346 0.0% 698 698 0.0% No Sandringham Road)
17 M4 West of Junction 15 No 97504 97642 0.1% 9082 9082 0.0% No
18 M4 East of Junction 15 No 104162 104242 0.1% 11351 11431 0.7% No
19 A346 South of Junction 15 No 17984 17994 0.1% 847 847 0.0% No
12.123 For the 2021 Phase 1 opening year, it can be seen from Table 12.8 above that none of the 19 links evaluated is forecast to see an increase in total vehicles or HGVs of over 30% on non-sensitive links and of over 10% on sensitive links.
12.124 Link 8: A419 South of Commonhead and Link 9: A4259 to Hospital were identified as sensitive links, and therefore, if traffic flows were forecast to increase by more than 10%, a detailed assessment of changes in Driver Stress and Delay, Severance, Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity would be required. However, the increase in traffic volumes on these links is forecast to be only 2.1% on Link 8 and 2% on Link 9.
12.125 The following links were only considered sensitive to changes in Driver Stress and Delay:
• Link 6: Pack Hill North of Site Access;
• Link 7: A419 North of Commonhead Roundabout;
• Link 10: Hospital to Homington Avenue;
• Link 11: Homington Avenue to Bridlestone Avenue;
• Link 12: Bridlestone Avenue to Dayhouse Lane;
• Link 13: A4259 to Dayhouse Lane to Coate Roundabout;
• Link 14: Coate Roundabout to Holiday Inn;
• Link 15: Coate Roundabout to Amersham Road;
• Link 16: Coate Roundabout to Queens Drive;
• Link 17: Coate Road to Sandringham Road;
• Link 18: M4 East of Junction 15; and
12.23
• Link 19: A346 South of Junction 15.
12.126 It is evident from Table 12.9 above that only Link 4: Pack Hill South of Site Access is forecast to experience an increase in traffic flows greater than 10% when 2021 Base and 2021 + Development (Phase 1) are compared, and no links are forecast to experience an increase in traffic flow greater than 30%.
12.127 As Link 4 is not considered to be near the sensitive receptor, a detailed assessment of the 2021 Phase 1 opening year is not deemed to be required for any of the links.
12.128 Overall, vehicle numbers are forecast to experience increases in the range of 0.0% to 17.9% and changes in HGV numbers are forecast to be in the range of 0.0% to 23.9% across the 19 considered links.
12.129 Therefore, while a detailed assessment is not deemed necessary, it can be seen from the forecast changes in traffic flows that a negligible to minor adverse impact can be expected on levels of severance, driver stress and delay, pedestrian and cycleamenity when the base year and development year are compared, which is not significant for the purposes of EIA.
2026 Fully Operational (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
12.130 Table 12.9 below summarises the forecast traffic change on each of the 19 links in the future year of 2026.
12.24
Comparison of Base with Development Flows (Operational Year - 2026)
AADT Total Vehicles AADT HGVs Near to Assess Link Road Name Sensitive 2026 2026 Link No 2026 2026 Receptor Core Change Core Change Core Core Inlands Inlands
1 SCR North of Site Access No 11977 12332 3.0% 261 261 0.0% No
2 SCR South of Site Access No 17145 21183 23.5% 507 647 27.6% No
3 Purley Road No 6112 6124 0.2% 39 39 0.0% No
Pack Hill South of Site 4 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Access
Pack Hill East of Site 5 No 5287 5287 0.0% 276 276 0.0% No Access
A419 North of 6 No 64010 64386 0.6% 4238 4238 0.0% No Commonhead
A419 South of 7 No 72198 73498 1.8% 4995 5135 2.8% No Commonhead
Yes – A4259 (Hospital to Great 8 Commonhead 32745 35104 7.2% 639 639 0.0% No Western Roundabout) Hospital
Yes – A4259 (Hospital to Great 9 34944 37274 6.7% 529 529 0.0% No Homington Avenue) Western Hospital
A4259 (Homington 10 Avenue to Bridlestone No 33224 35516 6.9% 421 421 0.0% No Avenue)
A4259 (Bridlestone 11 No 35134 37385 6.4% 551 551 0.0% No Avenue to Dayhouse Lane)
A4259 (Dayhouse Lane to 12 No 35198 37442 6.4% 551 551 0.0% No Coate Roundabout)
B4006 Dorcan Way (Coate 13 No 22884 23236 1.5% 745 745 0.0% No Rbt to Holiday Inn Access)
Shaftesbury Avenue 14 (Coate Rbt to Amersham No 4286 4503 5.1% 126 126 0.0% No Rd)
A4259 Queens Drive 15 (Coate Rbt to Queens No 24722 25884 4.7% 429 429 0.0% No Drive)
12.25
AADT Total Vehicles AADT HGVs Near to Assess Link Road Name Sensitive 2026 2026 Link No 2026 2026 Receptor Core Change Core Change Core Core Inlands Inlands
B4006 Marlborough Road 16 (Coate Rbt to No 25098 25844 3.0% 637 637 0.0% No Sandringham Road)
17 M4 West of Junction 15 No 104079 104846 0.7% 9344 9344 0.0% No
18 M4 East of Junction 15 No 111682 112097 0.4% 11563 11703 1.2% No
19 A346 South of Junction 15 No 19080 19148 0.4% 812 812 0.0% No
12.131 For the 2026 operational year, it can be seen from Table 12.9 above that none of the 19 links require detailed assessment on the basis that they are not forecast to see an increase in total vehicles or HGVs of over 30% for non-sensitive links or over 10% on sensitive links (Links 8 and 9).
12.132 Sensitivity to changes in the level of Driver Stress and Delay can be considered low on several rural roads in the study area as they are unlikely to attract many drivers sensitive to stress/delay such as those commuting or on business trips. Links 1 – 5 were all considered to have low sensitivity to changes in Driver Stress and Delay. Links 6 – 19 are those that may experience higher demand from commuters during peak times, and as a result, Links 6-19 could be considered highly sensitive to changes in driver stress and delay, without mitigation.
12.133 However, the planned improvements for the A419 and M4 Junction 15 would reduce delays and thus associated stress, and as a result, Links 6-19 can be considered to have low sensitivity to changes in driver stress and delay after the implementation of this mitigation.
12.134 Sensitivity to changes in levels of Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity is considered negligible on the following links:
• Link 1: SCR North of Site Access;
• Link 2: SCR South of Site Access;
• Link 3: Purley Road, Link 4: Pack Hill (South of Site Access);
• Link 5 – Pack Hill (East of Site Access);
• Link 6 – A419 (North of Commonhead);
• Link 7 – A419 (South of Commonhead);
• Link 17 – M4 (West of Junction 15);
12.26
• Link 18 – M4 (East of Junction 15); and
• Link 19 – A346 (South of Junction 15).
12.135 Sensitivity to changes in Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity is considered negligible on the links listed above, as there is no (or very little) demand for these links from pedestrians and cyclists due to their rural character. In the case of the A419 and the M4 Motorway, there are no facilities for pedestrians and cyclists on offer.
12.136 The following links are considered to have low sensitivity to changes in levels of Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity :
• Link 8 – A4259 (Hospital to Commonhead Roundabout);
• Link 9 – A4259 (Hospital to Homington Avenue);
• Link 10 – A4259 (Homington Avenue to Bridlestone Avenue);
• Link 11 – A4259 (Bridlestone Avenue to Dayhouse Lane);
• Link 12 – A4259 (Dayhouse Lane to Coate Roundabout);
• Link 13 – B4006 Dorcan Way (Coate Roundabout to Holiday Inn Access);
• Link 14 – Shaftesbury Avenue (Coate Roundabout to Amersham);
• Link 15 – A4259 Queens Drive (Coate Roundabout to Queens Drive); and
• Link 16 - B4006 Marlborough Road (Coate Roundabout to Sandringham Road).
12.137 Whilst there is some demand from pedestrians and cyclists along the above links, it is unlikely to be high, and the high-quality crossings and shared footway/cycleway already provided minimise the sensitivity of these links to changes in Severance or Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity.
12.138 No links are forecast to experience an increase in traffic flow greater than 30%. (non- sensitive link) and over 10% (sensitive link).
12.139 Overall, vehicle volumes are forecast to experience increases in the range of 0.0% to 23.5% and changes in HGV numbers are forecast to be in the range of 0.0% to 27.6% across the 19-links evaluated, when the 2026 Base Scenario and the “2026 Core Inlands” scenario containing the Proposed Development are compared.
12.140 While a detailed assessment is therefore not deemed necessary, it can be seen from the forecast changes in traffic flow that a negligible to minor adverse impact can be expected on levels of severance, driver stress and delay, pedestrian and cycle amenity when the base year and 2026 Proposed Development year are compared, which is not significant for the purposes of EIA.
12.141 The sensitivity to changes in Driver Stress and Delay, Severance and Pedestrian and Cyclist Amenity is considered as negligible on 10 of the links assessed and low on 9 of the links assessed (as identified in Paragraphs 12.132 and 12.133 above). During the
12.27
Operational Phase in 2026, there is expected to be a direct, permanent, long-term, adverse effect, which is considered to be of minor significance on all assessed effects due to low sensitivity of the links considered and forecast negligible/small changes in traffic flow.
2036 End Year of Current Local Plan
12.142 Table 12.10 below presents the forecast percentage change in traffic flows on each of the 19 links in the future year of 2036.
Comparison of Base with Development Flows (Local Plan Year – 2036)
AADT Total Vehicles AADT HGVs Near to Assess Link Road Name Sensitive 2036 2036 Link No 2036 2036 Receptor Core Change Core Change Core Core Inlands Inlands
1 SCR North of Site Access No 13121 13143 0.2% 286 286 -0.1% No
2 SCR South of Site Access No 18783 23575 25.5% 555 725 30.7% No
3 Purley Road No 6699 6712 0.2% 43 42 -1.9% No
Pack Hill South of Site 4 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Access
Pack Hill East of Site 5 No 5792 6104 5.4% 303 267 -11.7% No Access
A419 North of 6 No 70559 70952 0.6% 4672 4690 0.4% No Commonhead
A419 South of 7 No 79583 80710 1.4% 5507 5678 3.1% No Commonhead
Yes – A4259 (Hospital to Great 8 Commonhead 36020 37819 5.0% 702 717 2.1% No Western Roundabout) Hospital
Yes – A4259 (Hospital to Great 9 38439 40232 4.7% 581 596 2.5% No Homington Avenue) Western Hospital
A4259 (Homington 10 Avenue to Bridlestone No 36546 38195 4.5% 463 505 9.2% No Avenue)
A4259 (Bridlestone 11 No 38649 40435 4.6% 606 619 2.2% No Avenue to Dayhouse Lane)
A4259 (Dayhouse Lane to 12 No 38719 40526 4.7% 606 619 2.2% No Coate Roundabout)
12.28
AADT Total Vehicles AADT HGVs Near to Assess Link Road Name Sensitive 2036 2036 Link No 2036 2036 Receptor Core Change Core Change Core Core Inlands Inlands
B4006 Dorcan Way (Coate 13 No 25050 25384 1.3% 815 827 1.4% No Rbt to Holiday Inn Access)
Shaftesbury Avenue 14 (Coate Rbt to Amersham No 4692 5104 8.8% 138 138 0.1% No Rd)
A4259 Queens Drive 15 (Coate Rbt to Queens No 27067 28078 3.7% 469 471 0.4% No Drive)
B4006 Marlborough Road 16 (Coate Rbt to No 27477 27945 1.7% 697 709 1.8% No Sandringham Road)
17 M4 West of Junction 15 No 115627 116456 0.7% 10380 10409 0.3% No
18 M4 East of Junction 15 No 124072 124615 0.4% 12845 12984 1.1% No
19 A346 South of Junction 15 No 20902 21184 1.3% 890 890 0.1% No
12.143 For the 2036 Local Plan year, it can be seen from Table 12.10 above that 18 of the 19 links evaluated does not require detailed assessment on the basis that the traffic volumes are not forecast to increase for more than 30% in total vehicles and/or HGVs (non-sensitive links), or over 10% on Links 8 and 9 that are considered to be sensitive.
12.144 The only exception to the above is Link 2 - SCR South of Site Access, where the increase of 30.7% in HGV volume marginally exceeds the threshold value of 30%. However, the overall increase in the traffic volumes on the link remains under the 30% threshold. It should be highlighted that the link forms part of the SCR designed to a high standard with appropriate carriageway width and a footway/cycleway along its length.
12.145 As the SCR was designed to accommodate an increase in traffic flows/HGV volume, and it is considered to have low sensitivity to changes in Driver Stress and Delay, it is deemed to be mitigation on its own merits and no further measures would not be necessary.
12.146 It is also considered that although the increase in HGV traffic could potentially lead to changes in levels of Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity, the new pedestrian/cyclist facilities would relieve the potential negative effects and result in a nil detriment. Additionally, the link is in a rural area with only limited pedestrian/cyclist demand, and the sensitivity is considered to be negligible.
12.147 For the remaining links, and as noted above for the assessment of 2026, sensitivity to changes in the level of Driver Stress and Delay can be considered low on several rural roads in the study area as they are unlikely to attract many drivers sensitive to
12.29
stress/delay such as those commuting or on business trips. Links 1, 3, 4 and 5 were all considered to have low sensitivity to changes in Driver Stress and Delay. Links 6 – 19 are those, which may experience higher demand from commuters during peak times, and as a result Links 6-19 could be considered highly sensitive to changes in driver stress and delay, without mitigation.
12.148 However, the planned improvements for the A419 and M4 Junction 15 would reduce delays and thus associated stress, and as a result, Links 6-19 can be considered to have low sensitivity to changes in driver stress and delay after the implementation of this mitigation.
12.149 Sensitivity to changes in levels of Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity is considered to be negligible on the following links:
• Link 1: SCR North of Site Access;
• Link 3: Purley Road;
• Link 4: Pack Hill (South of Site Access);
• Link 5 – Pack Hill (East of Site Access);
• Link 6 – A419 (North of Commonhead);
• Link 7 – A419 (South of Commonhead);
• Link 17 – M4 (West of Junction 15);
• Link 18 – M4 (East of Junction 15); and
• Link 19 – A346 (South of Junction 15).
12.150 Sensitivity to changes in Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity is considered negligible on these links as there is no (or very little) demand for these links from pedestrians and cyclists due to their rural character. In the case of the A419 and the M4 Motorway, there are no facilities for pedestrians and cyclists on offer.
12.151 The following links are considered to have low sensitivity to changes in levels of Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity:
• Link 8 – A4259 (Hospital to Commonhead Roundabout);
• Link 9 – A4259 (Hospital to Homington Avenue);
• Link 10 – A4259 (Homington Avenue to Bridlestone Avenue), Link 11 – A4259 (Bridlestone Avenue to Dayhouse Lane);
• Link 12 – A4259 (Dayhouse Lane to Coate Roundabout);
• Link 13 – B4006 Dorcan Way (Coate Roundabout to Holiday Inn Access);
• Link 14 – Shaftesbury Avenue (Coate Roundabout to Amersham);
12.30
• Link 15 – A4259 Queens Drive (Coate Roundabout to Queens Drive); and
• Link 16 - B4006 Marlborough Road (Coate Roundabout to Sandringham Road).
12.152 Whilst there is some demand from pedestrians and cyclists along these links, there is unlikely to be high demand, and the high-quality crossings and shared footway provided minimise the sensitivity of these links to changes in Severance or Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity.
12.153 On the links other than Link 2 discussed above, the overall vehicle numbers are forecast to experience changes in the range of 0.0% to 25.5% and changes in HGV numbers are forecast to be in the range of 0.0% to 9.2% across the remaining 18-links, when the 2036 Base Scenario and the ‘2036 Core Inlands’ scenario containing the Proposed Development are compared.
12.154 Given that no mitigation is considered necessary for Link 2 due to a high-standard road with appropriate facilities being provided and the fact that none of the remaining links exceeds the threshold values, it is deemed that detailed assessment is not necessary. It can be seen from the forecast changes in traffic flow that a negligible to medium (Link 2) magnitude of change can be expected in the level of severance, driver stress and delay, pedestrian delay and amenity when the base year and 2036 development year are compared. This, in combination with the negligible sensitivity, is not considered to be significant for the purposes of the EIA. As a result, a high-level assessment has been provided below for the 2036 Future Year.
12.155 The assessment for the Future Year of 2036 is based on the assumption that links have the same level of sensitivity to impact as in the assessment for the Future Year of 2026 to changes in Driver Stress and Delay, Severance and Pedestrian and Cyclist Amenity.
12.156 During the Operational Phase in 2036, there is expected to be a direct, permanent, long-term, adverse effect, which is considered to be of minor significance on Severance.
12.157 For the Operational Phase in 2036, there is expected to be a direct, permanent, long- term, adverse effect which is considered to be of minor significance on Severance and Pedestrian and Cyclist Amenity.
12.158 However, given the increase in the level of pedestrian movements to the site, the existing pedestrian connections have been reviewed within the Transport Assessment, and through the assessment, a new pedestrian connection is promoted along Pack Hill into the Site.
12.159 Given the improved infrastructure, the following links have been considered with regards to Severance and Pedestrian and Cycle amenity;
• A4259
• Pack Hill
• The Marsh
12.31
• Purley Road
• A419
12.160 No pedestrian facilities are provided along the A419, M4 or at Junction 15, but there are no additional pedestrian movements expected in these locations. Therefore, the increase in traffic flow would have no impact on severance nor pedestrian amenity.
12.161 The primary increase in pedestrian movements would be along the A4259 corridor and Pack Hill into the site. The A4259 corridor has a segregated footway/cycleway along its length which is set back from the road. The increases in traffic flows would have a negligible adverse impact upon those that would use this route. However, the addition of a new controlled pedestrian crossing at Commonhead and the new pedestrian/ cycleway along Pack Hill would have a moderate beneficial impact upon both new and existing users of this road, given the lack of existing infrastructure.
12.162 The level of use along Purley Road and The Marsh is not expected to change through the new development, and the traffic modelling has indicated minimal traffic increases along these routes. In doing so, at worst, the development would see a negligible adverse impact.
12.163 Given the benefit of the new pedestrian infrastructure over the minor negligible adverse impacts that can be attributed to the A4259 corridor and local rural roads, it is considered that the improvements to the network can be seen as a moderate beneficial improvement for severance and pedestrians/cyclist amenity along Links 4 and 5.
Secondary Mitigation or Enhancement 12.164 No secondary mitigation has been identified as part of the ES Assessment. The primary mitigation identified within the Transport Assessment, tertiary mitigation and committed improvements on the highway network is considered suitable mitigation for the expected minimal highway impact.
Residual Effect 12.165 The sensitivity to changes in Driver Stress and Delay, Severance, and Pedestrian and Cyclist Amenity is considered as negligible on 10 of the links assessed and low on 9 of the links assessed (as discussed above). The magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. As a result, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term adverse residual effect which is considered to be negligible during the 2021 Opening Year, 2026 Completion Year or 2036 Local Plan Year.
12.166 The effect is considered to be Not Significant.
12.167 The sensitivity to changes in Severance and Pedestrian is considered as negligible on 10 of the links assessed and low on the remaining 9 links assessed. The magnitude of change is considered to be moderate. As a result, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term beneficial residual effect which is considered to be minor during the 2021 Opening Year, 2026 Completion Year and 2036 Local Plan Year.
12.168 The effect is considered to be Not Significant.
12.32
Accidents and Safety
PIA Data Analysis 12.169 Analysis of the PIA data was undertaken to ascertain whether there are any safety issues or accident clusters on the local highway network. A summary of severity levels and vulnerable road user (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists) involvement is provided in Table 12.11 below.
Personal Injury Accident Data - Summary Breakdown by Year and Vulnerable Road User
PIA Summary Year
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Serious 1 4 3 4 5 0 18
Slight 18 48 39 51 33 11 200
Total 19 53 42 55 58 12 219
Vulnerable Users Summary
Pedestrian 0 0 1 0 1 0 2
Pedal Cycle 0 5 1 2 1 0 9
M/Cycle 1 7 2 4 4 2 20
Equestrian 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 1 12 5 6 5 2 32
12.170 The PIA recorded as slight account for 92% of all accidents, with the PIA recorded as fatal or serious accounting for 8% of all recorded PIAs.
12.171 The results of the PIA analysis demonstrate that there are no consistent factors either in terms of junction movements or contributory factors, which could be eliminated through highway engineering methods. The most common causation factor for serious accidents was the failure to look.
12.172 However, the increase in trips associated with the Proposed Development in combination with the typical accident rates as suggested by the DfT’s web-based Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) would likely result in a small increase in the likelihood of accidents on these corridors. However, the increase is unlikely to be significant, and as such, the sensitivity could be classed as ‘medium’.
12.33
12.173 Notwithstanding the above, there are significant improvements expected to be delivered by 2021 (Phase 1 opening year) on the highway network as discussed above that will, by the nature of the schemes, lead to a reduction in traffic accidents. These include:
• Introduction of a new signalised scheme at the Commonhead Roundabout being introduced as part of the SCR proposals;
• New Footway / Cycleway between Commonhead Roundabout and the proposed Development access which is promoted by the Development;
• Signalised improvements at the Coate roundabout as part of the Badbury Park development;
• A419 improvements developed by Highways England to support growth in Swindon; and
• M4 Junction 15 improvements by Highways England to support growth in Swindon.
12.174 The amendments to the local highway network set out above would seek to improve safety conditions and reduce the risk of vehicles losing control and colliding with objects off the carriageway.
12.175 The raw accident data provided by SBC is provided in Appendix E of the Transport Assessment.
12.176 The sensitivity of accidents and safety (as identified above) is considered to be medium. Given the forecast minimal change in the number of accidents, the magnitude of change is considered to be small. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term, adverse effect which is considered to be minor.
12.177 This effect is considered to be Not Significant.
Secondary Mitigation or Enhancement 12.178 No secondary mitigation was identified as part of this assessment. The primary and tertiary mitigation identified within the TA and committed improvements on the highway network are considered suitable mitigation for the expected minimal highway impact.
Residual Effect 12.179 The sensitivity of accidents and safety (as identified above) is considered to be medium. The magnitude of change is considered to be small. Therefore, there is likely to be a direct, permanent, long-term, adverse effect which is considered to be minor.
12.180 This effect is considered to be Not Significant.
Limitations and Assumptions
12.181 To ensure transparency of the EIA process, the following limitations/assumptions were identified/applied:
12.34
• Opening Year As outlined in Chapter 2: Approach to EIA and Chapter 4: The Proposed Development of the ES, construction of Phase 1 would commence in 2020 and would be completed in 2021, with Phase 2 expected to be fully constructed and operational in 2025. As agreed with SBC, 2026 was assessed as the opening year of the Proposed Development. Therefore, this represents a robust, worst-case assessment, which includes additional background traffic growth between 2025 – 2026, although the Proposed Development is expected to open in 2025.
• SCR Delivery SBC estimate that the Southern Connector Road (SCR) will be delivered between Winter 2020 and Summer 2022. The SCR received planning permission (Ref: S/19/0703) from SBC on Monday, 2nd December 2019. A CPO public inquiry has taken place with results expected to be issued later this year. It was initially expected that the SCR would be completed in 2021 alongside the opening of Phase 1 of the Proposed Development. However, the ES submitted as part of the SCR planning application identifies that a 60-week construction period would be required. To account for any delay in the opening of the SCR, the Proposed Development Phase 1 was assessed without SCR in place in the future year of 2021. Therefore, the assessment completed in this Chapter is considered to be robust.
• Additional Modelling Highways England requested additional micro-simulation modelling using VISSIM to determine the traffic impacts of the proposals on the A419 corridor and the M4 J15. The only update to the highway network in the model is the proposed new roundabout access, and at this time it is understood that the inputs to the model remain unchanged relative to those used in the Swindon SATURN model. As a result, the traffic flows produced by the HE VISSIM Modelling are not expected to greatly differ from the traffic flows previously provided and utilised in the assessments contained within the TA and TTNs. The current micro-simulation model is still being developed by Highways England and once available, the modelling of relevant scenarios will be undertaken.
• As with previous traffic modelling completed using the Swindon SATURN model, the following scenarios will be modelled as these are deemed the appropriate scenarios for HE to assess the impacts of the scheme (year of opening and 15 years after opening):
‒ 2021 Baseline AM and PM;
‒ 2021 Baseline + Phase 1 AM and PM;
‒ 2021 + Full Development AM and PM;
‒ 2036 Baseline AM and PM; and
‒ 2036 Baseline + Full Development AM and PM.
12.35
• Following completion of the VISSIM modelling, an ES Chapter Addendum reviewing the validity of the conclusions of this assessment will be prepared. The addendum will present the changes in traffic flows on each link for both with and without development scenarios, to establish whether there is any material difference between the flows from the Swindon SATURN model and the flows from the HE VISSIM Model.
Summary
12.182 Table 12.12 provides a summary of the effects, residual effects and a conclusion as to whether the effect is significant or not significant.
12.36
Summary of Residual and Significant Effects
Effect Receptor Residual Effect Is the Effect Significant?
Construction Phase Driver Stress and Delay Links 1 - 19 Negligible No Severance Links 1 - 19 Negligible No Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity Links 1 - 19 Negligible No Accident and safety Links 1-19 Minor No Operation Phase (2036) Driver Stress and Delay Links 1 - 19 Negligible No Severance Links 1 - 19 Negligible No Pedestrian and Cycle Amenity Links 1 - 19 Negligible No Accident and safety Links 1 - 19 Minor No
12.37
References
Ref 12.1 –National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019, Section 9 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2)
Ref 12.2 – Swindon Local Transport Plan 3 (2011 – 2026), Paragraph 2.61 (https://www.swindon.gov.uk/downloads/file/5171/swindon_local_transport_plan_2011_to_2026)
Ref 12.3 – Swindon Borough Local Plan 2026(https://www.swindon.gov.uk/info/20113/local_plan_and_planning_policy/635/swindon_local _plan)
Ref 12.4 – Swindon Borough Council – New Eastern Villages Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) – October 2016 (https://www.swindon.gov.uk/info/20134/new_eastern_villages/872/nev_planning_policy_and_gui dance/2)
Ref 12.5 – Planning Practice Guidance for Environmental Impact Assessment (2017) (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/environmental-impact-assessment)
Ref 12.6 - Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) note ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ – 2003.
Ref 12.7 – Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 – Manual for Environmental Assessment –Section 3 Part 8 (Pedestrians, Cyclists and Equestrians and Community Effects) – June 1993.
Ref 12.8 – Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 – Manual for Environmental Assessment – Section 3 – Part 9 (Vehicle Travellers) – June 1993.
Ref 12.9 – Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 – Manual for Environmental Assessment, LA 112 – Population and Human Health (http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/section3.htm)
12.38