LAND AT GRANBY GARDENS, LUDGERSHALL Transport Assessment

06/12/2012 Confidentiality: Public

Quality Management

Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks Date 6th December 2012 Prepared by Grace Blizard Signature Checked by Stuart Morton Signature Authorised by Rhod Macleod Signature Project number 11790116 Report number File reference J:\11790116 - Granby Gardens - Ludgershall\TEXT\REPORTS\Transport Assessment (Nov2012)\Transport Assessment (181 dwellings) - Nov12.docx

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 2 | 53 Revised:

LAND AT GRANBY GARDENS, LUDGERSHALL

Transport Assessment

06/12/2012

Client Foreman Homes Group Unit 1 Station Industrial Park Duncan Road Park Gate Hampshire SO31 1BX

Consultant WSP Group Limited Regus House Southampton SO18 2RZ UK

Tel: +44 (0)23 8030 2529 Fax: +44 (0)23 8030 2001 www.wspgroup.co.uk

Registered Address WSP UK Limited 01383511 WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF

WSP Contacts Rhod MacLeod 02380 302568 [email protected]

Stuart Morton 02380 302556 [email protected]

3 | 53

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 5 2 Policy Context ...... 7 3 Existing Conditions...... 12 4 Accessibility ...... 22 5 Development Proposals ...... 25 6 Development Trip Generation and Assignment ...... 28 7 Traffic Impact Assessment ...... 31 8 Conclusions ...... 39 9 Appendices ...... 42

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 4 | 53 Revised:

1 Introduction

1.1 Preamble 1.1.1 WSP Property and Development have been appointed by Foreman Homes Ltd to provide a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan in support of proposals for a residential development in Ludgershall, Wiltshire. Development proposals comprise 181 dwellings, with formation of new pedestrian and vehicular access points, open space, play areas, roads and parking. 1.1.2 The site is located on land to the east of New Drove, as shown in Figure 1. It is proposed to access the site via two junctions, the first being the existing junction on to Astor Crescent from the north-west corner of the site and a further access via Princess Mary Gardens on the northern perimeter of the site.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The site currently consists of a garden centre, associated structures and car parking. These are to be demolished to make way for development outlined by the proposals. 1.2.2 This Transport Assessment considers transportation issues in relation to the proposed development and has been prepared as a supporting document to the application for planning permission. It should therefore be read in conjunction with the Planning Application forms, drawings and other material submitted as part of the application package. 1.2.3 This Transport Assessment has been produced in accordance with guidance set out in DfT/DCLG ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ of March 2007, which provides guidance on the content and preparation of Transport Assessments and Transport Statements. 1.2.4 This report has been produced to address the feasibility of the proposed development in terms of traffic impact, accessibility and policy compliance.

1.3 Pre-Application Consultation 1.3.1 Pre-application correspondence has taken place between WSP and Wiltshire County Council (WCC) Highways Development Control. A scoping note was prepared by WSP and submitted to WCC in November 2012. Follow up correspondence has taken place with regard to distribution of development traffic onto the local network and the late addition of a request from WCC to include Castledown Business Park in the committed development schemes to be included in the Granby Gardens traffic assessment. Paragraphs 6.3.4 and 6.4.5 provide further information on the above.

1.4 Report Structure 1.4.1 The remainder of this Transport Assessment is set out with the following structure: Ŷ Section 2 sets out the national, regional and local policy context in relation to the proposed development; Ŷ Section 3 describes the existing conditions in the vicinity of the development site, in terms of the local highway network, the existing transport facilities and historical road accident collision data;

5 | 53

Ŷ Section 4 provides an overview of the accessibility of the development site by sustainable modes, and also provides an overview of employment, school, retail, leisure and health facilities in the vicinity of the site. These journey purposes account for the main reasons for travelling; Ŷ Section 5 describes the development proposals, including details of the proposed access and parking arrangements; Ŷ Section 6 provides details of the expected trip generation, trip distribution, trip assignment and traffic growth from the proposed development site; Ŷ Section 7 provides the results of the junction assessment modelling that has been undertaken to investigate the traffic impact of the development proposals; and Ŷ Section 8 provides a summary and the conclusions of the report.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 6 | 53 Revised:

2 Policy Context

2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 This Section sets out an overview of the national, regional and local transport policy to provide context for the assessment of the transport issues of the development proposals.

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework, DCLG, March 2012 2.2.1 Adopted on 27 March 2012, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to reduce the complexity and improve the accessibility of the planning system, whilst protecting the environment and encouraging growth in a sustainable manner. 2.2.2 The NPPF replaces all previous Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Statements, becoming the definitive national planning guidance from which local planning authorities can, in collaboration with their communities, produce local plans appropriate to the character and needs of their area. 2.2.3 Key to the NPPF and its success is the following statement from Paragraph 14: “At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.” 2.2.4 Transport forms one of the 12 core land use planning principles set out by the NPPF. This principle directs that locations which are sustainable or which can be made sustainable should become the focus for significant development. Opportunities to utilise sustainable modes to their fullest, such as public transport, walking and cycling should be actively taken and these considerations are discussed in this Transport Assessment. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF notes three ‘dimensions’ of sustainable development: Ŷ Economic; Ŷ Social; and Ŷ Environmental. 2.2.5 Transport is able to contribute significantly to a development’s adherence to these, through means such as providing infrastructure to support economic growth, enhancing accessibility to services and fulfilling the social needs of people and providing solutions which minimise pollution and environmental impact. 2.2.6 This Transport Assessment also shows how the proposed development accords with Paragraph 29 of the NPPF which details transport as having: “… an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives.” 2.2.7 As encouraged in the NPPF, the proposed development has been planned in such a way that gives people a “real choice” regarding their mode of travel. Its density and proximity to local facilities ensures that sustainable modes can be considered a favourable option for local trips. 2.2.8 This Transport Assessment demonstrates how the proposed development fulfils the requirements set out in paragraph 32 of NPPF, to account for: Ŷ The opportunities for sustainable transport modes to be used, reducing the need for major transport infrastructure;

7 | 53

Ŷ Provision of safe and suitable access to the site for all people; and Ŷ Improvements which can be undertaken within the transport network to limit the significant impacts of the development. 2.2.9 WSP, on behalf of Foreman Homes has maintained a dialogue with Wiltshire County Council regarding the proposed development at Granby Gardens, Ludgershall, displaying a proactive approach to working with the local planning authority as desired by the NPPF. 2.2.10 This Transport Assessment demonstrates that the residual cumulative impacts of the proposed development are moderate as demonstrated in Section 7.

Environmental & Sustainable Transport 2.2.11 The Master Plan design for Granby Gardens facilitates the use of sustainable modes. Journeys made on foot and by cycle at a local level, and by bus and train over a greater distance will assist in meeting ambitions harboured by the NPPF to lower greenhouse gas emission and reduce congestion.

Public Rights of Way 2.2.12 The proposed development seeks to integrate with existing public rights of way, ensuring they are accessible and form part of a strategy for accessing nearby facilities. Section 4 explores this further.

Travel Plans 2.2.13 Travel Plans are noted in Paragraph 36 of NPPF as an important mechanism to facilitate measures to increase sustainability. As such, there is a requirement for developments which create a “significant” amount of trips to produce a Travel Plan. Accompanying this TA is a Travel Plan which supports the proposals and ensures the transport strategy is monitored and managed.

2.3 Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Transport Happen (DfT, 2011) 2.3.1 Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon is the DfT White Paper published in January 2011, which sets out plans for transport to become an engine for economic growth through careful investment in sustainable transport. Its key aim is to: Ŷ Encourage sustainable local travel and economic growth by making public transport, cycling and walking more attractive and effective, promoting lower carbon transport and tackling local road congestion. 2.3.2 The document aims to encourage more sustainable transport choices though returning decision making to the local level where they know what works. It realises that for some journeys, car is the only viable mode and therefore low emission vehicles are important in addressing that demand, together with car sharing and car-pooling opportunities. 2.3.3 However it is recognised that for many shorter journeys (those less than 5 miles), walking, cycling or using public transport can be a viable alternative. Giving people choices will encourage modal shift thereby improving not only the environment, but also health.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 8 | 53 Revised:

2.4 Delivering A Sustainable Transport System (DfT, 2008) 2.4.1 This publication outlines Government’s five goals for transport, focusing on the challenge of delivering strong economic growth while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 2.4.2 These five overarching goals are: Ŷ To support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks; Ŷ To reduce transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change; Ŷ To contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life-expectancy by reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health; Ŷ To promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society; and Ŷ To improve quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, and to promote a healthy natural environment. 2.4.3 A Travel Plan has been developed and submitted as part of this application, which will provide an opportunity to support these goals by highlighting and promoting the availability of low carbon transport options to residents and visitors, thereby reducing carbon emissions associated with low journeys.

2.5 Manual for Streets (DfT, 2007) 2.5.1 Manual for Streets (MfS) was published in March 2007 and brought about a fundamental change in the way in which streets should be designed and adopted. Applicable to residential and streets with low volumes of traffic, this document provides guidance on how to create better designed streets that contribute significantly to the quality of the built environment and play a key role in the creation of high quality places. 2.5.2 MfS recognises that there is a need to transform the quality of residential streets, and this requires a new approach to their provision. MfS is aimed at any organisation or discipline with an interest in residential streets, ranging from highway engineers to the emergency services. The importance of joint working among practitioners is a key feature of MfS. The main focus of the document is that streets should not be designed just to accommodate the movement of motor vehicles and that a prime consideration is also required towards the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. As part of this, MfS promotes the following user hierarchy, which should be followed in the design of all residential streets:

Pedestrians

Manual for Streets User Hierarchy Cyclists

Public Transport Users

Service & Emergency Vehicles

Other Motor Traffic

9 | 53

2.5.3 The ethos of MfS has been put forward into the development of the site masterplan.

2.6 Wiltshire County Council (WCC) Local Transport Plan (2011-2026) 2.6.1 Published in March 2011, the Third Wiltshire Local Transport Plan (LTP3) covers the period 2011 to 2026. To develop the transport strategy, the overall vision for this LTP is: “To develop a transport system which helps support economic growth across Wiltshire’s communities, giving choice and opportunity for people to safely access essential services. Transport solutions will be sensitive to the built and natural environment, with a particular emphasis on the need to reduce carbon emissions”. 2.6.2 The following relevant objectives are included within the LTP3: Ŷ “To provide, support and/ or promote a choice of sustainable transport alternatives including walking, cycling, buses and rail; Ŷ To reduce the impact of traffic on people’s quality of life and Wiltshire’s built and natural environment; Ŷ To minimise traffic delays and disruption and improve journey time reliability on key routes; Ŷ To improve sustainable access to a full range of opportunities particularly for those people without access to a car; Ŷ To improve safety for all road users and to reduce the number of casualties on Wiltshire’s roads; Ŷ To reduce the need to travel, particularly by private car; Ŷ To promote travel modes that are beneficial to health; and Ŷ To reduce barriers to transport and access for people with disabilities and mobility impairment.”

2.7 Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 2.7.1 The Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 was adopted in April 2006 and forms part of the development plan for Wiltshire until it is replaced by the Wiltshire Core Strategy as a result of the Localism Bill. The aim of the Structure Plan is: “To support a sustainable pattern of development in Wiltshire, meeting the needs of the County’s current and future population for: Ŷ A prosperous and robust economy; Ŷ An attractive and suitably protected environment; and Ŷ Good housing and community facilities through the strategic planning of land-use and transport.” 2.7.2 The Structure Plan says that in many parts of the Plan Area, away from Swindon, there is a need to give much greater emphasis to job creation. This will avoid the need for residents to travel long distances to work, help sustain the regeneration of the Plan Area’s other towns, and improve the economy. Ludgershall is identified as one of the Plan Area’s main towns and settlements (paragraph 4.16).

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 10 | 53 Revised:

2.8 Kennet Local Plan 2011 2.8.1 The Kennet Local Plan 2011 was adopted in April 2004 by the former Kennet District Council. All local plans produced by the former district councils in Wiltshire have now been inherited by Wiltshire Council, but they remain in place until superseded by policies in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. 2.8.2 The Council’s strategy outlines its aim to “approach policies for land use and the protection of the environment in a way which reflects its priorities for delivering local services”. In order to achieve the necessary service provision, five overarching objectives include: Ŷ Social Inclusion; Ŷ Community Safety; Ŷ Sustaining Our Rural Communities; Ŷ Community Health; and Ŷ Sustainable Development. 2.8.3 Policy HC2 outlines areas of the district which have been allocated for housing development in order to meet the strategic housing requirements. Granby Gardens has been allocated for a scheme of around 130 dwellings, as detailed in Policy HC16: “The Local Plan allocates land for housing on a 5.5 ha site at Granby Garden centre, Ludgershall. Development of this site should construct the main distributor road to provide an unhindered connection to land to the east and provide a substantial landscape buffer to the south and south-east to minimise the wider landscape impact of the development. The site will need to secure access from two different points.” 2.8.4 In the context of promoting growth which is sustainable, the Plan looks to “provide the means to reduce the dependence on private cars whilst improving access for all sections of community”. Its policies seek to achieve a balance between improved district-wide accessibility and encouraging less dependence on the use of the private car. The principal objectives to aid in achieving this are: Ŷ To reduce the growth in the length and number of motorised journeys; Ŷ To ensure new development proposals provide facilities for means of travel other than by car that are at an appropriate level in relation to those facilities provided for the car; Ŷ To ensure that uses which generate large numbers of trips are located in places which are, or have the potential to be, accessed by public transport, cycling and walking; Ŷ To encourage greater use of walking and cycling, particularly for short journeys; Ŷ To reduce the impact of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs); Ŷ To help manage traffic effectively to decrease congestion, improve air quality, reduce visual intrusion and noise; Ŷ To improve the integration of different transport modes; and Ŷ To ensure that new parking provision does not encourage high levels of car use.

2.9 Summary 2.9.1 The above relevant policy and guidance forms the basis for undertaking this Transport Assessment. The development proposals will be in full accordance with relevant policy frameworks at a national, regional and local level.

11 | 53

3 Existing Conditions

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 This section sets out the existing conditions in the vicinity of the site, including road traffic conditions, existing public transport facilities, current mode choice and personal injury accident analysis.

3.2 Site Location 3.2.1 As shown in Figure 1, the development site is located on the southern edge of Ludgershall, 9.7 km northwest of Andover, and approximately 700m from Ludgershall village centre. The site is bound to the west by New Drove, with residential land uses to the north and west. Agricultural fields sit to the south and east of the site. 3.2.2 The site currently contains a nursery, retail buildings, a car park and agricultural fields, with access from New Drove leading to Astor Crescent and the A3026 Tidworth Road and the A342 Castle Street.

3.3 Local Highway Network 3.3.1 Figure 1 highlights the local highway network in the vicinity of the site, which is currently accessed via a 4-arm priority junction with Astor Crescent to the north and west, and New Drove to the south. The existing site access road is approximately 4.5 - 5 metres wide. 3.3.2 North of the existing site access, Astor Crescent leads past the Paddock Suite and Sports Ground to the west and residential dwellings along the eastern side, to a priority junction with Empress Way. The highway is approximately 4.8 metres wide with a 30mph speed limit, no parking restrictions and dropped kerbs for off-street residential parking. North-west of the junction with Empress Way, Astor Crescent continues to a 3-arm signalised junction with the A3026 Tidworth Road. The A3026 Tidworth Road is the main distributor road through Ludgershall, which leads west to Tidworth and the A338 enabling access to the M4 to the north and Salisbury to the south. To the east, the A3026 leads to Andover via Faberstown and the M3 approximately 20 miles away via the A303. 3.3.3 Opposite the site access, Astor Crescent continues west through residential land uses to a priority junction with the A3026 Tidworth Road. The highway is approximately 5 metres wide with a 30mph speed limit, no parking restrictions and dropped kerbs for off-street residential parking. 3.3.4 New Drove runs along the western side of the site boundary and provides access to industrial uses at Ludgershall Business Park to the south. The highway has a section of carriageway wide enough for only one vehicle, with traffic calming measures in the form of speed humps. Simonds Road meets New Drove at a priority junction which leads west through residential areas. The highway of Simonds Road is approximately 6.5 – 7 metres wide, with no parking restrictions and traffic calming measures such as a 20mph speed limit on the southern half of the road.

3.4 Traffic Data 3.4.1 In order to ascertain the existing traffic conditions on the roads in the vicinity of the site traffic surveys have been undertaken at three key local junctions, as agreed with the Highways Development Control officer at Wiltshire County Council (WCC).

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 12 | 53 Revised:

3.4.2 Manual Classified Counts (MCC’s) and accompanying queue length surveys were undertaken on Wednesday 8th June 2011 for two junctions, with further surveys undertaken on Tuesday 21st February 2012 for an additional junction. The following junctions were included in the surveys: Ŷ A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent priority junction (Jun 2011); Ŷ A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent (Empress Way) signalised junction (Jun 2011); and Ŷ A342 High Street / A3026 Tidworth Road priority junction (Feb 2012). 3.4.3 The full results of the MCC surveys and queue length surveys are provided in Appendix B, while the peak hour traffic flow data is shown in Figures 2 and 3 for the AM and PM peak hours respectively. The peak traffic hours were determined by analysing the data and were found to be 07:45-08:45 in the morning and 16:30-17:30 in the evening. Queue length data for the peak hours is summarised in Table 3.1 below. Table 3.1 – Peak Hour Surveyed Average Queue Lengths Average Queue Length (Vehicles) Junction / Arm AM Peak PM Peak (07:45-08:45) (16:30-17:30) A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent A3026 Tidworth Road right No Queue No Queue Astor Crescent 0.5 0.3 A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent (Empress Way) A3026 Tidworth Road (W) 3.8 3.9 Astor Crescent (Empress Way) 1.9 1.3 A3026 Tidworth Road (E) 4.2 4.5 A342 High Street / A3026 Tidworth Road A342 High Street right (via link rd) 0.3 0.1 A342 High Street N/B (via link rd) No Queue No Queue A342 High Street left 1.9 0.1 A3026 Tidworth Road right 0.5 1.0

3.4.4 In order to validate the MCC data for the A342 High Street / A3026 Tidworth Road junction, four Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) surveys were commissioned around the junction to observe all turning movements. 3.4.5 These were in place for a continuous 9-day period starting at 00:00 on Tuesday 21st February and ending at 00:00 on Thursday 1st March. The results of these surveys for the peak hours (on Tuesday 21st February) are shown in Figures 4 and 5, while the full data and exact ATC locations are provided in Appendix C.

13 | 53

3.5 Journeys on Foot and by Cycle

Pedestrian Network 3.5.1 WSP undertook an audit of pedestrian routes surrounding the site in July 2011. This section will summarise the key findings of the study, primarily looking at the routes that border the site and the recommended pedestrian routes. 3.5.2 In light of the key findings of the pedestrian audit presented in Table 3.2 below, the audit recommends that two key routes are promoted as follows: Ŷ Simonds Road / Tidworth Road; and Ŷ Princess Mary Gardens / Empress Way and either the At Grade Rail crossing (east) or Tidworth Road (west). Table 3.2 – Key Findings of the Pedestrian Audit Average Walk Walk Route Audit Time Distance Score (mins) 1: Astor Crescent (north) – Empress Way – Tidworth 33.75 713m 9 Road – Andover Road 2: Astor Crescent (north) – Empress Way – At Grade 31.67 558m 7 Railway Crossing link 3: Astor Crescent (west) – Tidworth Road – Andover 33.33 908m 11.5 Road 4: Princess Mary Gardens – Empress Way – 35.75 859m 10.5 Tidworth Road – Andover Road 5: Princess Mary Gardens – Empress Way – At 34.33 393m 5 Grade Railway Crossing link 6: Simonds Road – Tidworth Road – Andover Road 35.0 1,033m 13 7: New Drove – Astor Crescent (north) – Empress 32.0 851m 10.5 Way – Tidworth Road – Andover Road 8: New Drove – Astor Crescent (north) – Empress 30.0 687m 8.5 Way – At Grade Rail Crossing

3.5.3 Table 3.2 indicates that Route 4 via Princess Mary Gardens and Empress Way scored the highest. The Tidworth Road route is significantly longer, but does not involve crossing the rail line. However, the Audit highlighted that pedestrians would be happy to utilise the shorter route via Route 5 and the railway crossing, which facilitates a direct route towards Ludgershall town centre within 400m. Footway widths are very good for the majority of these links with a footway of between 1.8m and 2m located on both sides of the road, and a crossing with dropped kerbs, tactile paving and bollards is present at the start/finish of the At Grade Rail Crossing on Empress Way. Since the existing railway line through Ludgershall is solely used by the MoD for transporting freight, it is much less frequently used than a passenger serving line, which reduces the level of public risk when using the rail crossing. 3.5.4 The second highest score in the Audit was achieved by route 6 which links the site to bus stops on Tidworth Road, via Simonds Road. Good levels of pedestrian facilities were shown along this road, apart from the current issue of vehicles parked on footways. Footpath widths are sufficient (at least 2m wide) along both sides of Simonds Road, with no concerns that they will restrict movement. The

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 14 | 53 Revised:

western side of Simonds Road is 1.4m wide at the junction with Tidworth Road but widens to 1.8m approximately half way down the road. All roads in the vicinity of the site appear to be well lit by street lighting. The Audit of Pedestrian Routes can be seen in Appendix D. 3.5.5 The Public Rights of Way located in the vicinity of the development site are shown in Figure 6. This shows that there is a public footpath running along the eastern boundary to the site, from the level crossing on Empress Way leading south towards Perham Down. A Bridleway exists along the northern perimeter of Ludgershall, commencing at the junction of the A3026 Tidworth Road / Elden Road and running to the west of Wellington Academy, crossing the A342 at the junction with Shaw Hill and leading east to Blackmore Lane.

Journeys by Cycle 3.5.6 On road cycle paths are provided on Tidworth Road in both directions between St James Street and 50m east of Astor Crescent priority junction, with advance cycle stop lines provided at the signalised junction of Tidworth Road and Astor Crescent. An off road cycle route then continues west of the Astor Crescent priority junction to Tidworth, 3km south-west of Ludgershall. Figure 7 illustrates the cycle routes in the vicinity of the site. 3.5.7 Although there are no official cycle routes in the immediate vicinity of the development, many of the immediate nearby roads are quiet and suitable for cycling, based on the Institution of Highways & Transport Guidelines (pictured right). Speed limits are 30mph on all local roads, with a lower 20mph speed limit on the southern section of Simonds Road.

3.6 Public Transport Network 3.6.1 This section details the public transport services, and the current public transport facilities available to residents of the development.

Journey by Bus 3.6.2 The nearest bus stop to the site is located on Tidworth Road (at its junction with Simonds Road), which is approximately 500m (6 to 10 minute walk) from the furthest point of the site. The bus stop is a sheltered stop on the eastern side of the road, with a request stop with only limited facilities on the western side due to the street and footway width at this location. The stop is served by routes Activ 8 and 70/80 Monday – Sunday, providing a quarter hourly service between Tidworth and Andover, and extended services to Salisbury and Swindon. 3.6.3 Service Activ 8 is operated by Wilts & Dorset Bus Company between Andover and Salisbury. It runs 7 days a week every 15 minutes, with a service 90 minutes on a Sunday. 3.6.4 Bus route 80 operates between Swindon and Ludgershall via Marlborough and Tidworth. It is operated by Stagecoach and offers a service every two hours, Monday – Saturday. These bus routes are summarised in Table 3.3.

15 | 53

Table 3.3 – Bus Services from A3026 Tidworth Road

Service Bus Stop Frequency Operator Route Number Location Mon-Sat Sun Andover – A3026 Ludgershall – First Bus 0615 First Bus 0818 Wilts & Activ 8 Tidworth Tidworth – Last Bus 2316 Last Bus 2227 Dorset Road Amesbury – Every 15 minutes Every 90 minutes Salisbury Ludgershall – A3026 First Bus 0700 Tidworth – 80 Stagecoach Tidworth Last Bus 1455 - Marlborough – Road Swindon Every 2 hours Source: Operator Timetables

Journeys by Train 3.6.5 There is no railway station currently in operation at Ludgershall. The nearest rail services can be found in Andover where there are 2 services per hour Monday to Saturday, and an hourly service on Sunday. Services run between London Waterloo and Exeter, stopping at Basingstoke, Salisbury, Yeovil and several more. The train station is located approximately 12km to the south-east of the site and can be reached via the Activ8 bus service to Andover Rail Station. 3.6.6 A ticket office is staffed from 06.00 until 19.00 between Monday and Friday. At weekends, the station is staffed between 06:50 and 17:40 on Saturday and 08:15 and 16:45 on Sunday. Self-service ticket machines are provided for ticket purchases outside these times. 3.6.7 The station has a 262 space car park, with 4 disabled parking spaces available at the station. There is step free access to the whole station, although access to platform 1 is via an underpass with steep ramps, although assistance is available for those who have difficulties negotiating steep slopes. 3.6.8 Pewsey rail station is located 19km north west of Ludgershall with no direct bus service to this station, residents would be required to change from the number 8 service at either Marlborough or Amesbury to the X5. The station is located on the Berks and Hants line, offering services to London Paddington, Bedwyn, Hungerford, Newbury and Reading. 3.6.9 A ticket office is staffed from 06.00 until 16.30 between Monday and Friday. At weekends, the station is staffed between 07:50 and 14:00 on Saturday and 17:30 and 19:30 on Sunday. Self-service ticket machines are provided for ticket purchases outside these times. The station offers 77 car parking spaces. 3.6.10 Train services from Andover and Pewsey Rail Stations are summarised in Tables 3.4 and 3.5.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 16 | 53 Revised:

Table 3.4 – Train Services from Andover Station Off-Peak Journey Time Peak Frequency Destination Frequency (minutes) (per hour) (per hour) London Waterloo 73 2 2 Salisbury 23 1 1 Exeter 138 1 1 Source: Operator Timetables

Table 3.5 – Train Services from Pewsey Rail Station Off-Peak Journey Time Peak Frequency Destination Frequency (minutes) (per hour) (per hour) Newbury 27 1 1 every 2-3 hours Reading 54 1 1 every 2-3 hours London Paddington 69-87 1 1 every 2-3 hours Source: Operator Timetables

3.7 Existing Mode Share and Trip Distribution 3.7.1 To determine the existing modal split and trip destinations of people residing in the locality of the site, the 2001 Journey to Work Data was extracted from the Census. The proposed development is located in the ‘Ludgershall and Perham Down’ ward. The modal split for the ‘Ludgershall and Perham Down’ ward is shown in Table 3.6 below, based on data from the 2001 Census: Method of Travel to Work - Resident Population. Table 3.6 – Journey to Work Mode Share for Trips from Ludgershall Ward Ludgershall and England Average Mode Perham Down Mode Share Mode Share Works mainly at or from home 5% 6% Underground, metro, light rail or tram 0% 2% Train 1% 3% Bus, minibus or coach 3% 5% Taxi or minicab 0% 0% Driving a car or van 46% 35% Passenger in a car or van 6% 4% Motorcycle, scooter or moped 1% 1% Bicycle 2% 2% On foot 12% 6% Other 1% 0% Not currently working 22% 37% Source: 2001 Census Data 3.7.2 In terms of overall mode share, the data in Table 3.5 shows that the ward in which the site is located has a higher than average car passenger mode share when compared to the average for England.

17 | 53

There is also a higher than average walking mode share, but a lower than average bus and train mode share and a higher than average car driver mode share. The low train mode share is likely to be due to the fact that the nearest train station is in Andover.

3.8 Personal Injury Accident Data 3.8.1 Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data has been obtained from Wiltshire County Council for the latest available five year period (November 2006 – August 2012) for a study area covering Ludgershall and surrounding areas. The full accident reports including full descriptions and mapping to show accident locations are contained within Appendix E. 3.8.2 The data shows there were a total of 17 personal injury accidents within the 1 km radius area during the most recent five year period. Of these, one accident was fatal, four were classified as serious, and twelve were classified as slight severity. In total, one accident involved a pedestrian, three involved cyclists and four involved motorcyclists. 3.8.3 For ease of reference, the data has been analysed separately for junctions and links. Table 3.7 below summarises the accident data at key junctions on the local and strategic highway network. Table 3.8 below summarises the accidents on key links on the local highway network. Table 3.7 – Summary of Personal Injury Accidents at Junctions on the Local Highway Network Severity Vulnerable Road Users Junction Pedal Motor Slight Serious Fatal Pedestrians Cyclists cyclists Camomile Drive / Primrose Road 1 0 0 0 0 0 A342 High Street / Levell Court 1 0 0 0 1 0 Meade Road / Short Street 1 0 0 0 1 0 A342 Butt Street / Castle Street 0 1 0 0 0 1 A342 Andover Road / Shoddesden 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane A342 High Street / A3026 Tidworth 1 0 0 0 0 0 Road A3026 Tidworth Road / Incomplete 1 0 0 0 0 0 Link Road Total 5 1 0 0 2 1

Camomile Drive / Primrose Road (Priority Junction) 3.8.4 There was one personal injury accident recorded in the vicinity of the Camomile Drive / Primrose Road junction during the study period. The accident involved two cars, of which one there was one casualty and was classified as ‘slight’ in severity. 3.8.5 The accident was most likely caused by failure to look properly before pulling out of the side road resulting in a collision with another vehicle. Conditions were noted as wet/damp at the time.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 18 | 53 Revised:

A342 High Street / Levell Court (Priority Junction) 3.8.6 During the study period, there was one personal injury accident recorded in the vicinity of the junction of the A342 High Street / Levell Court. The accident involved a car and a cyclist, caused by a cyclist colliding with a car which had just pulled out into the main road and stopped due to traffic. The accident was recorded as ‘slight’ in severity.

Meade Road / Short Street (Priority Junction) 3.8.7 There was one personal injury accident recorded in the vicinity of the junction of the A342 High Street / Levell Court during the study period. The accident involved a car and a cyclist, caused by an unsighted cyclist pulling out onto the main road whilst the car was over taking a refuse collection vehicle, resulting in a collision. The accident was recorded as ‘slight’ in severity.

A342 Butt Street / Castle Street (Priority Junction) 3.8.8 In the vicinity of the A342 Butt Street / Castle Street junction, there was one personal injury accident recorded during the study period. The accident occurred when a motorcycle lost control on a diesel spillage, displacing the rider and causing ‘serious’ injury.

A342 Andover Road / Shoddesden Lane (Priority Junction) 3.8.9 This junction saw one ‘slight’ accident during the study period, in which a car (V1) pulled out onto a main road, colliding with the offside of another car (V2). Conditions were dark with no street lighting, and causation factors are likely due to reckless driving and failure to look properly, since V1 failed to stop at the scene.

A342 High Street / A3026 Tidworth Road 3.8.10 There was one ‘slight’ accident which occurred at this junction whereby a car turned right off the main road and collided with a pedestrian travelling west crossing from the war memorial island. Conditions were dark and wet/damp, with street lights present and lit. The accident was likely caused by the driver failing to look properly.

A3026 Tidworth Road / Incomplete Link Road 3.8.11 One ‘slight’ accident occurred here where a car drifted across to the lane of oncoming traffic and collided with a minibus. Conditions were light and dry, with the reason for the car drivers’ error not established. The driver and passenger of the car and a passenger of the minibus incurred ‘slight’ injuries from the accident.

19 | 53

Table 3.8 – Summary of Personal Injury Accidents along Links on the Local Highway Network Severity Vulnerable Road Users Link Pedal Motor Slight Serious Fatal Pedestrians Cyclists cyclists Somme Road 0 1 0 0 0 2 Dewey’s Lane 1 0 0 0 0 0 A342 Andover 3 2 1 1 0 2 Road A3026 Tidworth 1 0 0 0 0 0 Road Central Street 1 0 0 0 1 0 Total 4 3 1 1 1 3

Somme Road 3.8.12 There is one personal injury accident recorded on Somme Road during the study period, which is listed as ‘serious’ in severity and involved a motorcycle losing control on a right-hand bend, and colliding with the earth bank. Both driver and passenger with seriously injured, with the driver being tested positive for alcohol influence. Conditions were dry and dark, with no street lighting present.

Dewey’s Lane 3.8.13 One personal injury accident occurred on Dewey Lane during the study period. The accident occurred when a vehicle collided with a parked vehicle, in dark conditions with a slippery surface due to ice. The driver was found to be intoxicated by alcohol, causing herself ‘slight’ injury.

3.9 A342 Andover Road 3.9.1 There are six personal injury accidents recorded on the A342 Andover Road during the study period. Three are classified as ‘slight’ in severity, two as ‘serious’ and one ‘fatal’ accident. 3.9.2 The ‘fatal’ accident took place just west of the pedestrian crossing and 5 metres east of Rawlings Court. The accident occurred when an elderly man stepped off the kerb and into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Conditions were light and dry. 3.9.3 Two personal injury accidents occurred outside number 106 Andover Road on separate occasions. Both accidents were considered to be ‘serious’ in severity. The first occurred when the driver of a car (V1) travelling east suffered a ‘medical episode’, lost control, struck the nearside kerb, and collided with a vehicle (V2) parked in the layby. This then caused V2 to be pushed into V3, another vehicle parked in the layby. Conditions were light and dry. 3.9.4 The second ‘serious’ accident at the same location occurred when a motorcycle travelling west in dark and rainy conditions, and collided with a parked van. Street lights were present and lit, and the driver did not undertake a breath test due to her serious injury. 3.9.5 The first ‘slight’ accident which took place on the A342 Andover Road, occurred when a car (V1) was waiting to pass parked vehicles and another car (V2) behind V1 failed to stop and collided with V1. This caused V1 to be pushed into the offside of a lorry (V4). V2 swerved to nearside and struck a

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 20 | 53 Revised:

parked car (V3). The drivers of V1 and V2 incurred ‘slight’ injury. Conditions on the day were light and dry, and the accident was most likely caused by lack of observation / speeding. 3.9.6 The second ‘slight’ accident occurred outside property 101, in which an elderly car driver suffered a fatal medical episode and drifted from carriageway, colliding with the telegraph pole and fence causing injury to a passenger. Conditions were light and wet/damp and can be attributed to the drivers medical episode. 3.9.7 A further ‘slight’ accident took place just east of Tesco Express on the A342 Andover Road. The accident involved a motorcycle which failed to realise that the car in front had stopped and was waiting to pass a stationary vehicle. The motorcycle collided with the rear of the car causing slight injury to the motorcyclist. Conditions were light and dry, with the accident attributable to failing to look properly and possibly exceeding the speed limit.

A3026 Tidworth Road 3.9.8 One ‘slight’ personal injury accident occurred when a car (V2) stopped in the carriageway indicating to turn right, when a van (V1) travelling behind failed to stop in time and collided with the rear of V2. The passenger of V1 was reported to incur ‘slight’ injury. Road conditions were dry and it was daylight.

Central Street 3.9.9 One personal injury accident occurred when a car (V1) pulled out into the main road colliding with a cyclist (V2). The accident caused ‘slight’ injury to the cyclist, and conditions were light and dry.

Personal Injury Accident Summary 3.9.10 Overall there has been no major discernable trend or clustering of accidents at junctions or links on the local highway network. The records indicate the accidents have occurred at different times of the day and night and for reasons not attributable to the geometry of the highway network. 3.9.11 The six accidents located along the A342 Andover Road are predominantly due to lack of driver observation/concentration and pedestrian error, with two accidents attributable to unavoidable medical episodes. 3.9.12 The remaining accidents were caused by factors relating to driver error, lack of driver observation, loss of driver control, or the weather and road conditions. 3.9.13 It is therefore not anticipated that the development proposals will in any way negatively impact the safety of the junctions and links on the local highway network.

21 | 53

4 Accessibility

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 As detailed in Section 2, Government guidance focuses on the need for land use and transport planning to be integrated in a manner which promotes sustainable development with good access to local facilities. 4.1.2 In this respect, this Section considers the opportunities to access local facilities from the site including education, employment, leisure, health and retail, by means other than the private car. An audit of such local facilities has been undertaken, and this is illustrated in Figure 8. 4.1.3 In addition, in order to determine the level of accessibility (in respect of public transport, cycling and walking) accessibility modelling has been undertaken. ACCESSION has been used to undertake this assessment. ACCESSION is a Geographical Information System based accessibility computer analysis tool which has the capability to measure journey distances and times for all modes of travel.

4.2 Walking 4.2.1 Paragraph 75 of PPG13 states that: “walking is the most important mode of travel at the local level and offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly under 2 kilometres.” 4.2.2 Guidance given by the Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) in their publication ‘Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot, 2000’ suggests that in terms of commuting, walking to school and recreational journeys, walk distances of up to 2,000 metres can be considered, with the desirable and acceptable distances being 500 metres and 1,000 metres respectively. 4.2.3 For non-commuter journeys the guidance suggests that walk distances of up to 1,200 metres can be considered, with the desirable and acceptable distances being 400 metres and 800 metres respectively. 4.2.4 Assuming a ‘typical’ walking speed of approximately 4.8 km/h, Figure 8 illustrates the walking isochrones which shows the approximate walking time in minutes from the development site, accounting for pedestrian facilities in the area. Figure 8 shows that Ludgershall town centre can be reached within a 10 minute walk, which is within the IHT’s acceptable walking distances for commuter and non-commuter journeys.

4.3 Cycling 4.3.1 Paragraph 78 of PPG13 states that: “cycling …has potential to substitute for short car trips, particularly those under 5km, and to form part of a longer journey by public transport.” 4.3.2 Assuming a ‘typical’ cycling speed of 1.5 km every five minutes (18 km/h), Figure 9 is a cycling isochrones plan which shows the approximate cycle time in minutes from the development site. Figure 9 shows that all parts of Ludgershall can be reached within a cycle time of ten minutes, including Ludgershall town centre within a five minute cycle. Tidworth is also accessible within a 15 minute cycle journey.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 22 | 53 Revised:

4.4 Public Transport 4.4.1 A public transport isochrones plan has been produced using ACCESSION to illustrate the existing accessibility of the site by public transport, as shown in Figure 10. 4.4.2 Figure 10 illustrates that the majority of Ludgershall can be reached within a public transport journey time of 10 minutes, while destinations further afield such as Faberstown and Tidworth can be reached within a public transport journey time of 20 minutes, with Andover accessible within 30 minutes. This includes all different modes used to make the journey, i.e. time taken to walk to the bus stop, average wait time at the bus stop and then journey time on the bus.

4.5 Accessibility to Employment 4.5.1 There is a small amount of employment within Ludgershall such as local foodstores, schools and other local shops. Similar types of employment are available in Tidworth, whilst there are further opportunities towards Andover such as Thruxton Industrial Estate, Mayfield Industrial Estate, Hospitals, Schools, Supermarkets and other retail. These can all be reached within a 30 minute journey by bus.

4.6 Accessibility to Retail 4.6.1 The town of Ludgershall provides a range of retail facilities catering for everyday needs, and the nearest shop to the site is a Somerfield store located on the A342 Andover Road, which is approximately a six minute walk from the site. 4.6.2 There is also a Tesco Express located within Ludgershall Town Centre, which is approximately a 6- 10 minute walk away or 5 minutes by bicycle. 4.6.3 Ludgershall town centre provides a range of other retail opportunities. The retail facilities include: Ŷ Post Office; Ŷ Cafes/Restaurants/Takeaways; Ŷ Hairdressers; Ŷ Beauty Salon; Ŷ Estate Agents; Ŷ Bike Store; and Ŷ Public Houses.

4.7 Accessibility to Schools and Colleges 4.7.1 There are a number of schools located within a 2 km radius of the proposed development site, which is the preferred maximum distance suggested by the Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) in their publication ‘Guidelines for providing for journeys on foot, 2000’, for walking journeys to school: Ŷ The Wellington Academy Secondary School and Sixth Form; Ŷ Ludgershall Pre-School; and Ŷ Ludgershall Primary School;

23 | 53

4.7.2 There are additional secondary schools and further education centres located within a 30 minute journey time by public transport, these include Winton School, Andover College and Avon Valley College.

4.8 Accessibility to Leisure and Community Facilities 4.8.1 There are a number of leisure and community facilities located in Ludgershall, including: Ŷ The Queens Head Public House (on the High Street); Ŷ The Crown Inn Public House (on the High Street); Ŷ Moghul Tandoori Restaurant (on Andover Road); Ŷ Shanghai Restaurant (on Andover Road); Ŷ Ludgershall Library; Ŷ Castledown Sports and Community Centre; and Ŷ Ludgershall Sports and Social Club; 4.8.2 Ludgershall Library, and the public houses and restaurants in Ludgershall town centre are within a 10 minute journey by foot, or a 5 minute cycle journey. The Ludgershall Sports and Social Club is a 5 minute walk from the site, whilst the Castledown Sports and Community Centre can be reached within a 15 minute walk or 5 minute cycle ride, both within the acceptable maximum walking distance from the site.

4.9 Accessibility to Health Facilities 4.9.1 There are several health facilities located in Ludgershall, including: Ŷ The Castle Practice Medical Centre; Ŷ The Bourne Valley Practice (Medical Centre); and Ŷ Hedge Pharmacy 4.9.2 All of the above are accessible within a 10 minute walk or 5 minute cycle ride from the site. The nearest dental practices are towards Faberstown and Tidworth, whilst the closest A & E unit is at the Andover War Memorial Hospital.

4.10 Summary 4.10.1 Overall this section has demonstrated that the proposed development site has good levels of accessibility to the surrounding area by foot, cycle and public transport. The majority of the town of Ludgershall can be reached within a 10 minute walk from the site or a 5 minute cycle ride. 4.10.2 The site has reasonable levels of accessibility to a wide range of leisure, retail, health, education and community facilities.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 24 | 53 Revised:

5 Development Proposals

5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This section will provide details of the development proposals, in terms of how the site will be accessed, the level of parking that will be provided, the residential travel plan that has been produced for the development, and the required developer contribution. 5.1.2 Foreman Homes Ltd is submitting an outline planning application for the demolition of the existing garden centre and associated structures on the site to provide 181 residential dwellings, with the formation of new pedestrian and vehicular access points, open space, play areas, roads and parking, as outlined in the proposed site layout found in Appendix F. The schedule of accommodation as currently proposed is provided in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 – Outline Schedule of Accommodation

Dwelling Type No. of Dwellings

2 Bedroom Terraced House 48 3 Bedroom Terraced House 30 3 Bedroom Semi-Detached House 70 4 Bedroom Detached House 33 TOTAL 181

5.2 Development Access 5.2.1 In accordance with Local Plan Policy H16, there will be two pedestrian/vehicular accesses to the development. Access will be gained via the existing junction with Astor Crescent at the north-west corner of the site, with the general arrangement shown by drawing 116/GA/003 Rev A contained in Appendix F. There will also be access for vehicles and pedestrians via a new junction onto Princess Mary Gardens at the northern edge of the site shown by drawing 116/GA/004 Rev A also contained in Appendix F. Residents will be encouraged to use Princess Mary Gardens and Simonds Road for pedestrian access as these provide the most appropriate links for pedestrian use. It is demonstrated in Chapter 7 of this document that these two access points provide adequate highway capacity to serve the development. The Road Safety Audits undertaken by an independent Road Safety Auditor also demonstrate that the additional vehicle movements generated by this proposed development does not compromise highway safety along Astor Crescent or associated junctions. Appendix G comprises the two audits ‘Road Safety Audit of Existing Local Highway Network’ and ‘Road Safety Audit of Existing Signalised Junction’. 5.2.2 Road Safety Audits of the two access points via Astor Crescent and Princess Mary Gardens are due to be undertaken in December 2012. The associated report will be submitted subsequent to this Transport Assessment once completed. 5.2.3 Pedestrian and cycle links will be provided within the site. The development itself is designed to have excellent internal accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.

25 | 53

5.3 Parking Provision 5.3.1 Residential parking provision will be made in line with “Wiltshire Council Car Parking Standards” document which forms part of the LTP3 covering the period 2011-2026. The Council outlines the following minimum allocated parking standards, although a lower level of provision can be provided where specific standards can be demonstrated. Table 5.2 – WCC Minimum Parking Standards (allocated parking)

Bedrooms Minimum spaces

1 1 space 2 to 3 2 spaces 4 + 3 spaces 0.2 spaces per dwelling Visitor parking (unallocated) Source: Wiltshire Council 5.3.2 Based on the minimum parking standards specified by WCC, Table 5.3 shows the calculated level of car parking to be delivered with the Granby Gardens proposals. Table 5.3 – Minimum Parking Provision Based on WCC Standards

Number of Bedrooms Minimum spaces Units

2 to 3 148 296 4 + 33 99 Visitor parking 36 TOTAL 431

5.3.3 The development proposals include provision for 413 spaces, which consists of 226 spaces within curtilage (30 of these are within car ports), 150 on-street allocated spaces and 37 unallocated/visitor spaces. This provides an overall parking allocation of 2.07 spaces per dwelling, in addition to visitor parking. Taking account of the introduction of a residential Travel Plan and the accessibility of the site to local services and amenities, this is deemed an appropriate level of parking provision. 5.3.4 In addition to car parking, there will be secure cycle parking to cater for existing cyclists and to encourage new cyclists.

5.4 Pedestrian and Cyclist Access 5.4.1 Access into the site for pedestrians will be provided in the form of footways located on both sides of the two vehicular access roads and on both sides of all roads within the development site. An additional access for pedestrians only will be provided, with a link at the north-eastern corner of the site. All the pedestrian access points will link directly in to the existing footway located on Astor Crescent and Princess Mary Gardens, with the link in the north-east corner of the site joining a public footpath leading to Brydes Road. For full details see the proposed site layout plan at Appendix F.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 26 | 53 Revised:

5.4.2 As the site has been designed in accordance with Manual for Streets principles, the pedestrians links are designed to be attractive, well connected and well overlooked and in general the site is designed to give priority to pedestrians over private cars. 5.4.3 Access into the site for cyclists will be provided via the two access routes for vehicles described above and the street design and resultant lower vehicle speeds will help to ensure that the site provides an attractive environment for cyclists.

5.5 Travel Plan 5.5.1 A Residential Travel Plan has been produced for the site and this is attached as Appendix H. The Travel Plan aims to encourage a reduction in the amount of car travel to and from the site, particularly in the morning and evening peaks. Measures employed to bring about this change will not only benefit residents of the development but also the wider local community. This approach is in line with the transport vision and priorities of the NPPF. For further information please refer to Appendix H.

27 | 53

6 Development Trip Generation and Assignment

6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 This Section summarises the derivation of the trip generation, distribution and assignment for the proposed development.

6.2 Trip Generation 6.2.1 The following trip rates have been agreed with Wiltshire County Council (WCC) in their role as Highway Authority as being representative of a new development in Wiltshire. Vehicular trip rates have been derived from the TRICS 2012(b)v6.10.2 database for ‘Houses Privately Owned’. Sites selected contained an average 166 dwellings, were located in all regions except for Greater London and Greater Dublin, were surveyed on a Tuesday to Thursday and predominantly located in suburban or edge of town locations. The residential trip rates that have been used and the corresponding number of peak hour trips generated by the proposed development of up to 181 residential units are shown in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 – Derived Vehicular Trip Rates AM Peak PM Peak Arrive Depart TOTAL Arrive Depart TOTAL 0.151 0.418 0.569 0.398 0.237 0.635 27 76 103 72 43 115

6.2.2 Table 6.1 shows that a development of up to 181 dwellings would generate a maximum total of 103 two-way trips in the AM peak period and 115 two-way trips in the PM peak period. Since the network AM peak hour was identified in Section 3.4 as being 07:45-08:45, development trips for the period 08:00-09:00 (time period in TRICS) will be added to the network AM peak hour to represent a worst case scenario. Furthermore, development trips for the period 17:00-18:00 (time period in TRICS) will be added for the PM peak hour of 16:30-17:30.

6.3 Vehicular Distribution and Assignment 6.3.1 It has been agreed as part of the scoping process that the traffic distribution and assignments for trips associated with the Granby Gardens proposals will be derived using the 2001 Census ‘Travel to Work’ data for the Ludgershall ward. 6.3.2 It is important to note that not all trips generated by the site will be journeys to work, even in peak periods; journeys to school, shopping, health and leisure will also occur. However, the majority of these journeys are likely to be within the ward and hence will be predominantly on foot or by bicycle. 6.3.3 2001 Census data indicates that 87% of Ludgershall residents travel outside of the ward for employment, whilst 13% work within the ward. With the view to influence modes of travel (supported by the accompanying Travel Plan) as opposed to making predictions based on existing habits, the 13% of trips that remain within the ward will be assumed to either utilise sustainable modes such as walking, cycling or by bus, or be undertaken as part of a linked or pass-by trip. Therefore, the

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 28 | 53 Revised:

remaining 87% of journeys which travel beyond Ludgershall shall be distributed proportionately, as shown in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 – Trip Distribution on Local Highway Network 2001 Census Re-proportioned Route ‘Travel to Work’ to represent (87% of total) 100% of all trips A342 towards Marlborough/ Devizes 8% 10% A342 towards Andover 57% 65% A3026 towards Tidworth 22% 25%

6.3.4 For clarification on the methodology used to distribute the traffic between the development and the A3026 Tidworth Road via the two proposed site accesses, a breakdown is provided below. This should be read in synchronisation with Figure 11. Ŷ Red Area: All trips arising from this area of the site are assumed to use the access via Astor Crescent since this equates to the least cost route. Traffic is then split between the north and west Astor Crescent routes according to the underlying 75%/25% east/west split at the A3026 Tidworth Road. For example, there are 59 dwellings within the red section assumed to use the Astor Crescent access. Of these, trips associated with 15 dwellings (25%) are assumed to take the western Astor Crescent in order to travel west via the priority junction at Astor Crescent / A3026 Tidworth Road, and the remaining 44 (75%) will take the northern route of Astor Crescent in order to travel east via the signalised junction of Astor Crescent / A3026 Tidworth Road. Ŷ Green Area: All trips arising from this area of the site are assumed to use the access via Princess Mary Gardens since this equates to the least cost route. All traffic is assumed to route through the signalised Astor Crescent / A3026 Tidworth Road junction according to the 75%/25% east/west split. For example, there are 82 dwellings within the green section assumed to use the Princess Mary Gardens access. Of these, trips associated with 21 dwellings (25%) are assumed to turn left (westbound) at the signalised junction, with the remaining 61 (75%) turning right (eastbound). Ŷ Blue Area: This area was deemed to be less straightforward than the other sections since the distance to each access point is roughly equal. It would be anticipated however, that all westbound traffic would use the Astor Crescent access since it would provide the least cost route and a quicker movement onto the A3026 Tidworth Road than waiting at the signalised junction. Therefore, keeping with the 75%/25% east/west split at A3026 Tidworth Road, 25% of the trips from the blue section are assumed to use the Astor Crescent access. The remaining 75% seeking to travel eastbound has been equally split between the two accesses, travelling eastbound via the signalised junction. For example, there are 40 dwellings within the blue section. Trips associated with 10 dwellings (25%) are assumed to be westbound and will use the western Astor Crescent route to the priority junction. Trips arising from the remaining 30 dwellings (75%) are considered eastbound and will route through the signalised junction, so half of these (trips associated with 15 dwellings) will use the northern Astor Crescent route and the other half will use the Princess Mary Gardens route onto Astor Crescent.

6.4 Background Traffic Growth 6.4.1 Background traffic growth factors have been derived by utilising the TEMPRO / NTM combined calculation for urban principal and minor roads in the local area of Ludgershall, within the district of

29 | 53

Kennet. The factors have been agreed with WCC Highways and were calculated by using TEMPRO V6.2 Dataset 54, with the NTM AF09 dataset. The output values are shown in Table 6.3 below. Table 6.3 – TEMPRO / NTM Growth Factors 2011 - 2017 2012 - 2017 AM PM AM PM Road Type Peak Peak Peak Peak Minor Roads 1.0475 1.0519 1.0422 1.0458 Principal Roads 1.0383 1.0427 1.0346 1.0382

6.4.2 As can be seen in Table 6.3 there is forecast to be background growth on the local highway network of approximately 4-5% between the years 2011 and 2017 and approximately 3-4% between the years 2012 and 2017. Traffic flows derived from surveys undertaken in June 2011 at the two Astor Crescent junctions will be grown using the 2011-2017 growth factors, whilst the traffic flows derived from surveys undertaken in February 2012 at the A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street will have the 2012-2017 growth factors applied to them. This will ensure that the relevant increase in traffic flows is applied, to allow for growth in the vicinity of the development site. 6.4.3 As part of the scoping process, it was agreed that traffic associated with the consented development at Drummond Park is considered when undertaking capacity assessments. Table 6.4 presents the traffic generated by Drummond Park. Table 6.4 – Drummond Park Generated Traffic Peak Period Arrivals Departures TOTAL AM Peak 5 219 224 PM Peak 187 68 255

6.4.4 The distribution for Drummond Park assigns 65% to the A342 towards Andover and 25% to the A3026 towards Tidworth. The traffic generated by Drummond Park shown in Table 6.4 will be applied to the network for future year scenarios, as detailed in Chapter 7. 6.4.5 Subsequent to submitting the scoping note to Wiltshire County Council, it has been requested that traffic associated with Castledown Business Park be taken into consideration as part of this assessment. Despite our best efforts to obtain a copy of the Transport Assessment and accompanying highway mitigation package, it has not been possible to include the development traffic generated by the employment site. With some research, it is understood that the site at Castledown has the potential for a building footprint of circa 45,000sqm. Based on a trip rate of around 1.5 per 100sqm, this equates to circa 675 two-way trips in the AM Peak. When compared with the Castledown site, Granby Gardens is considered to generate less than 15% of the overall development traffic from the two sites. Upon receipt of the trip generation and distribution of traffic associated with the Castledown development, WSP will produce a technical note to support this TAR which assesses the combination of traffic from the two developments, in the context of the highway mitigation package committed to by the Castledown Business Park.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 30 | 53 Revised:

7 Traffic Impact Assessment

7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 This section details the results of the junction assessment modelling that has been undertaken for the local junctions of A3026 Tidworth Road with Astor Crescent (one signalised, one priority), and the A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street junction.

7.2 Assessment Methodology 7.2.1 Junction assessments have been carried out for three different scenarios as follows; the forecast base traffic is produced by applying growth to the 2011/12 base traffic, using the factors that are shown in Table 6.3, and consented development has also been applied for future scenarios. Traffic Flows are illustrated on Figures 2 – 3 and 12 – 17 for the following: Ŷ 2011/12 Base Scenario – AM and PM peak periods; Ŷ 2017 Forecast Base + Consented Scenario – AM and PM peak periods; and Ŷ 2017 Forecast Base + Consented + Development Traffic – AM and PM peak periods. 7.2.2 All junction assessments have been carried out using either JCT Consultancy’s LinSig v3 for signalised junctions or PICADY 5 computer modelling software, which is produced by Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) for the modelling of priority junctions. 7.2.3 The LinSig model provides an indication of the Degree of Saturation (DoS) of each junction arm (a percentage) and an indication of the Mean Maximum Queue (MMQ) on each arm (in Passenger Car Units). A DoS over 90% indicates that there is no spare capacity on that particular junction arm, while a DoS of less than 90% indicates that any queues that have built up will be able to disperse during the relevant stage each cycle. Also provided is the Practical Reserve Capacity (PRC), which is an indication of the amount of spare capacity across the junction as a whole. 7.2.4 The PICADY assessments have been undertaken using the ‘ODTab’ method for inputting traffic flows, as the traffic flow data consists of peak hour turning counts. The results of the PICADY modelling are expressed in RFC (Ratio of Flow to Capacity) and queue lengths (number of vehicles) for each junction arm. 7.2.5 Volume 6 Section 2 of Design Manual for Roads and Bridges contains the document TA23/81 Junctions and Accesses: Determination of Size of Roundabouts and Major/Minor Priority Junctions which provides advice on interpretation of RFC values. The document states that if any arm has an RFC ratio of about 0.85, queuing will theoretically be avoided in five out of six cases. Therefore an RFC below 0.85 is regarded as demonstrating that the junction would work satisfactorily with minimal delays to traffic. RFC values over 1.0 indicate that the junction is over design capacity and significant delays are likely to result on at least one junction arm. 7.2.6 The base modelling for the three existing junctions has been validated against queue length data that was recorded at the same time as the traffic counts. This ensures that the modelling is producing an accurate representation of the existing operation of the junction before any development traffic is added to the junctions. The geometry of the junctions has been measured using AutoCAD 2008 and Ordnance Survey large scale mapping.

31 | 53

7.3 Junction Capacity Assessments 7.3.1 Three junctions in the vicinity of the site are to be assessed, as previously outlined. The modelling results are presented for each scenario below, with full modelling outputs for all junctions provided in Appendix I.

2011/12 Base Scenario 7.3.2 Presented in Table 7.1 are the results of the LinSig modelling for the 2011/12 base scenario at the A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction. Table 7.1 – 2011/12 Base Scenario LinSig Modelling Results AM Peak PM Peak Junction/Arm DoS (%) MMQ DoS (%) MMQ PRC = 32.6% @ 60 sec cycle PRC = 26.7% @ 70 sec cycle A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction A3026 Eastbound Ahead/Right 67.9 5.0 71.0 7.0 Astor Crescent Right/Left 57.1 2.7 28.4 1.2 A3026 Westbound Ahead/Left 65.9 5.3 67.9 6.8

7.3.3 Table 7.1 illustrates that the existing A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction is currently operating well within capacity, with a maximum DoS of 71.0% on the A3026 Tidworth Road West arm during the PM Peak, and a queue of around 7 vehicles. 7.3.4 In order to bring the PM peak LinSig model more into line with the observed queue lengths from the surveys (Table 3.1) the cycle time was increased to 70 seconds, as on-site observations showed that the cycle time was not fixed and cycle times of up to 67 seconds were observed. It is still apparent that the model is underestimating capacity on the A3026 arms when modelled queue lengths are compared to observed queue lengths shown in Table 3.1. 7.3.5 The explanation for this is that in practice the Astor Crescent signals are not called during every cycle, due to the low volume of traffic on this arm. In some cycles the signals went from one Tidworth Road arm to the next, missing out the Astor Crescent arm, which would give more green time to these arms and reduce the queue length. In the model the Astor Crescent arm is incorporated in every cycle, which takes away green time from the Tidworth Road arms and increases queue lengths on these arms. This should be borne in mind when considering the assessment of future year scenarios. 7.3.6 Presented in Table 7.2 are the results of the PICADY modelling for the 2011/12 base scenario at the A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent and A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junctions. Due to its layout, the priority junction at the A342 High Street has three points of intersection within the junction. As a consequence, a separate capacity assessment has been undertaken for each of these, with the A342 High Street traffic split so that eastbound traffic takes the eastern link and westbound traffic exits the junction from the western link.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 32 | 53 Revised:

Table 7.2 – 2011/12 Base Scenario PICADY Modelling Results AM Peak PM Peak Junction/Arm Max RFC End Queue Max RFC End Queue A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent priority junction A3026 Tidworth Rd East n/a n/a n/a n/a Astor Crescent 0.240 0 0.222 0 A3026 Tidworth Rd West 0.004 0 0.014 0 A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junction (eastern) A3026 Tidworth Road n/a n/a n/a n/a A342 High Street 0.671 2 0.358 1 A3026 Andover Road 0.525 1 0.854 7 A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junction (western) A3026 Tidworth Road West n/a n/a n/a n/a High Street 0.118 0 0.128 0 A3026 Tidworth Road East 0.000 0 0.000 0 High Street / A342 High Street priority junction (north) A342 High Street South n/a n/a n/a n/a High Street Link Road 0.081 0 0.119 0 A342 High Street North 0.140 0 0.141 0

7.3.7 Table 7.2 illustrates that the majority of the assessed junctions in the vicinity of the site are currently operating well within their available capacity. 7.3.8 The A3026 Andover Road arm of the eastern junction with the High Street is indicating that it is close to capacity. The modelling shows that the existing junction has a maximum RFC of 0.854 on the A3026 Andover Road arm during the PM peak, with an associated queue of 7 vehicles. 7.3.9 Queue Calibration has been undertaken on all PICADY base models. It was found that only the A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent junction required site specific corrections and Table 7.3 presents adjustments made to capacity: Table 7.3 – Queue Calibration of PICADY Models Adjustment Factors (pcu/min) Junction/Arm AM Peak PM Peak A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent priority junction A3026 Tidworth Rd East n/a n/a Astor Crescent -4.8 -5.7 A3026 Tidworth Rd West n/a n/a

7.3.10 The adjustment factors shown in Table 7.3 serve to bring the modelled queue lengths in line with the surveyed queue lengths and the models are therefore deemed suitable for analysis of future year traffic flows.

33 | 53

2017 Forecast Base + Consented Scenario 7.3.11 Presented in Table 7.3 are the results of the LinSig modelling for the 2017 forecast base + consented scenario at the A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction. Table 7.4 – 2017 Forecast Base + Consented Scenario LinSig Modelling Results AM Peak PM Peak Junction/Arm DoS (%) MMQ DoS (%) MMQ PRC = 8.5% @ 60 sec cycle PRC = 6.8% @ 70 sec cycle A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction A3026 Eastbound Ahead/Right 79.1 6.6 82.5 9.6 Astor Crescent Right/Left 60.2 2.9 30.0 1.2 A3026 Westbound Ahead/Left 83.0 8.1 84.3 9.7

7.3.12 Table 7.4 illustrates that the A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction will continue to operate within its available capacity, with a maximum DoS of 84.3% on the A3026 Tidworth Road West arm during the PM Peak, and a maximum queue of around 10 vehicles. 7.3.13 Presented in Table 7.5 are the results of the PICADY modelling for the 2017 forecast base scenario at the A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent and A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junctions. Table 7.5 – 2017 Forecast Base + Consented Scenario PICADY Modelling Results AM Peak PM Peak Junction/Arm Max RFC End Queue Max RFC End Queue A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent priority junction A3026 Tidworth Rd East n/a n/a n/a n/a Astor Crescent 0.324 0 0.284 0 A3026 Tidworth Rd West 0.005 0 0.015 0 A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junction (eastern) A3026 Tidworth Road n/a n/a n/a n/a A342 High Street 0.929 9 0.441 1 A3026 Andover Road 0.563 2 1.166 75 A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junction (western) A3026 Tidworth Road West n/a n/a n/a n/a High Street 0.258 0 0.188 0 A3026 Tidworth Road East 0.000 0 0.000 0 High Street / A342 High Street priority junction (north) A342 High Street South n/a n/a n/a n/a High Street Link Road 0.093 0 0.220 0 A342 High Street North 0.351 1 0.219 0

7.3.14 It can be seen that whilst the majority of junctions assessed will continue to operate with capacity in the 2017 Forecast Base scenario, the A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street junction (eastern) is

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 34 | 53 Revised:

expected to exceed its available capacity when adding background traffic growth and consented development traffic. The maximum RFC of 1.166 is found on the A3026 Andover Road arm during the PM Peak, with an associated queue of 75 vehicles.

2017 Forecast Base + Consented + Development Scenario 7.3.15 Presented in Table 7.6 are the results of the LinSig modelling for the 2017 forecast base with development scenario at the A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction. Table 7.6 – 2017 Forecast Base + Consented + Development Scenario LinSig Results AM Peak PM Peak Junction/Arm DoS (%) MMQ DoS (%) MMQ PRC = 1.6% @ 60 sec cycle PRC = -2.7% @ 70 sec cycle A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction A3026 Eastbound Ahead/Right 87.2 7.9 89.3 11.3 Astor Crescent Right/Left 88.6 6.3 48.6 2.2 A3026 Westbound Ahead/Left 82.8 8.3 92.5 13.3

7.3.16 Table 7.6 illustrates that the A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction will have marginally exceeded its available capacity in the future year with consented and proposed development included. The results show a maximum DoS of 92.5% on the A3026 Tidworth Road East arm during the PM Peak, and a maximum queue of around 13 vehicles. 7.3.17 As outlined above, it has been perceived through on-site observations that if queues on the A3026 are building up during busy periods, the Astor Crescent arm is missed out every other cycle. This is feasible due to the relatively low levels of traffic on this arm. Therefore, the model has been tested based on Astor Crescent being called every other cycle, allowing longer green times for the A3026 east/west arms. Table 7.7 presents the results of this analysis. Table 7.7 – 2017 Forecast Base + Consented + Development Scenario LinSig Results – Control Plan 2 AM Peak PM Peak Junction/Arm DoS (%) MMQ DoS (%) MMQ PRC = 15.9% @ 120 sec cycle PRC = 7.6% @ 120 sec cycle A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction A3026 Eastbound Ahead/Right 76.8 7.5 81.3 9.6 Astor Crescent Right/Left 74.6 7.7 83.3 5.1 A3026 Westbound Ahead/Left 77.6 8.7 83.7 9.7

7.3.18 By excluding the Astor Crescent arm every other cycle the results indicate that the junction will be able to accommodate all consented and proposed development, since this method of junction operation already exists during peak periods. Table 7.7 indicates that a maximum DoS of 83.7% is seen on the A3026 Westbound arm during the PM peak period, with a maximum queue of approximately 10 vehicles. 7.3.19 Presented in Table 7.8 are the results of the PICADY modelling for the 2017 forecast base + consented scenario at the A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent and A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junctions.

35 | 53

Table 7.8 – 2017 Forecast Base + Consented + Development Scenario PICADY Modelling Results AM Peak PM Peak Junction/Arm Max RFC End Queue Max RFC End Queue A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent priority junction A3026 Tidworth Rd East n/a n/a n/a n/a Astor Crescent 0.341 1 0.304 0 A3026 Tidworth Rd West 0.014 0 0.039 0 A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junction (eastern) A3026 Tidworth Road n/a n/a n/a n/a A342 High Street 0.949 11 0.445 1 A3026 Andover Road 0.582 2 1.200 90 A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junction (western) A3026 Tidworth Road West n/a n/a n/a n/a High Street 0.273 0 0.213 0 A3026 Tidworth Road East 0.000 0 0.000 0 High Street / A342 High Street priority junction (north) A342 High Street South n/a n/a n/a n/a High Street Link Road 0.106 0 0.227 0 A342 High Street North 0.357 1 0.235 0

7.3.20 Once traffic associated with the proposed development is added to the network, with the exception of the A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street (eastern) intersection, all junctions will continue to operate well. 7.3.21 Table 7.8 indicates that the A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street (eastern) junction will have a maximum RFC of 1.200 with an associated queue of 90 vehicles. When comparing this with the 2017 Forecast Base + Consented model results, the proposed development at Granby Gardens is expected to increase the maximum RFC by 0.034. 7.3.22 As part of the Drummond Park development proposals, it has been recommended that improvements be made to the A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street junction by way of installation of traffic signals. A LinSig model was produced as part of the Transport Assessment, which assessed the 2025 forecast base with development scenario. In order to assess the proposed signalised junction with the Granby Gardens development traffic added, the LinSig model has been replicated. The results for the 2025 Forecast Base with Drummond Park scenario as modelled in the Drummond Park TA are shown in Table 7.9, whilst the results in Table 7.10 include Granby Gardens development traffic.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 36 | 53 Revised:

Table 7.9 – Drummond Park TA (2025 Forecast Traffic Scenario) AM Peak PM Peak Movement / Link DoS (%) MMQ DoS (%) MMQ PRC = 15.7% @ 90 sec cycle PRC = 20.4% @ 90 sec cycle A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junction (eastern) High Street Southbound (northern 2/1 48.5 2.3 45.2 3.5 priority intersect) A3026 East (Westbound) 3/1 60.5 10.9 74.7 16.0 A3026 East to High Street (via 7/1 9.9 0.2 16.1 0.8 priority link) A3026 West 8/1 77.7 12.7 65.2 9.8 High Street to A3026 West (via 9/1 34.4 1.1 21.9 0.1 priority link) High Street (left to A3026 East) 10/1 77.8 13.3 65.9 8.6

Table 7.10 – Drummond Park TA (2025 Forecast Traffic Scenario) + Granby Gardens Development Traffic AM Peak PM Peak Movement / Link DoS (%) MMQ DoS (%) MMQ PRC = 8.9% @ 90 sec cycle PRC = 13.3% @ 90 sec cycle A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street priority junction (eastern) High Street Southbound 2/1 48.8 2.7 45.6 3.4 (northern priority intersect) A3026 East (Westbound) 3/1 64.3 12.1 79.4 18.2 A3026 East to High Street (via 7/1 10.6 0.3 16.6 0.7 priority link) A3026 West 8/1 80.3 14.1 61.9 9.8 High Street to A3026 West (via 9/1 38.3 1.6 26.0 0.2 priority link) High Street (left to A3026 East) 10/1 82.7 14.3 75.0 11.0

7.3.23 Table 7.9 shows that with the improvements made to the A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street junction, the junction would operate with spare capacity when 2025 Forecast Base and Drummond Park development traffic is on the network. The maximum Degree of Saturation (DoS) of 77.8% can be seen on the High Street arm (left to A3026 East movement) during the AM Peak, with an associated queue of 13 vehicles. 7.3.24 As a result of adding the Granby Gardens development traffic to the junction, Table 7.10 shows that the maximum DoS increases to 82.7% on the High Street arm during the AM Peak, with a maximum queue of 14 vehicles. The results indicate that the development proposals at Granby Gardens will have minimal impact on the proposed junction, with an increase of 4.9% DoS and one vehicle to the queue. Full modelling outputs are also enclosed in Appendix I.

37 | 53

7.4 Summary 7.4.1 Base junction models were established using LinSig and PICADY for the AM and PM peak periods at three key junctions in the vicinity of the development site; the A3026 Tidworth Road / Astor Crescent signalised junction, and the A3026 Tidworth Road priority junctions with Astor Crescent and the A342 High Street. The models were validated using surveyed traffic flows and queue length data undertaken at the same time, in order to ensure that the models were producing an accurate representation of the operation of the junctions in reality. In order to calibrate the models for both peak periods, capacity adjustments were required on the Astor Crescent arm of the A3026 Tidworth Road priority junction. 7.4.2 Forecast base with consented development traffic models were produced for the future year 2017, using growth factors of approximately 4-5% for the years 2011 to 2017 and 3-4% for the years 2012 to 2017. Development traffic was then included to produce forecast base with development traffic scenarios for 2017. 7.4.3 The modelling results show that the majority of the junctions will be able to accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed development at Granby Gardens in both the AM and PM peak periods of the future year 2017. It has been highlighted that the A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street (eastern) junction will exceed its available capacity in the future year when background traffic growth and consented development traffic is taken into account. However, modelling has been undertaken for the replacement signalised junction as detailed in the Drummond Park development proposals. The results showed that the impact of the Granby Gardens development traffic on the proposed signalised junction has been shown to be minimal. 7.4.4 It can therefore be concluded that the key junctions in the vicinity of the development site have the capacity to accommodate background traffic growth to 2017 including the proposed Drummond Park traffic, in addition to traffic associated with a development of 181 units on the Granby Gardens site, which the two access points via Astor Crescent and Princess Mary Gardens.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 38 | 53 Revised:

8 Conclusions

8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 This Transport Assessment has been produced in support of proposals by Foreman Homes Ltd for a residential development on the existing Granby Gardens site, on the southern edge of Ludgershall, Wiltshire. The site is located on land to the east of New Drove and currently consists of a non- operational garden centre, associated structures and car parking. 8.1.2 Foreman Homes Ltd is proposing an outline planning application for demolition of the existing garden centre and structures, and redevelopment of the site to provide 181 residential dwellings, together with formation of new pedestrian and vehicular access points, open space, play areas, roads and parking. 8.1.3 The site is located on land to the east of New Drove. It is proposed to access the site via two junctions, the first being the existing junction on to Astor Crescent from the north-west corner of the site and a further access via Princess Mary Gardens on the northern perimeter of the site. 8.1.4 The site is located in a predominantly residential area on the southern edge of Ludgershall, on land to the east of New Drove. The site is located 650 metres by road from the centre of Ludgershall. The site is bounded to the north and west by residential areas and to the south and east by agricultural.

8.2 Conclusions 8.2.1 The local highway network consists predominantly of residential distributer roads and link roads, which provide access to the A3026 and into the centre of Ludgershall. The A3026 provides access to areas to the east and west of Ludgershall, whilst the A342 leads north from the town centre. 8.2.2 Traffic surveys commissioned and undertaken on the A3026 Tidworth Road at the Astor Crescent priority and signalised junctions, and the junction with the High Street revealed that the local highway network currently accommodates relatively low volumes of traffic, and that there is minimal queuing observed at local junctions during the peak traffic periods. 8.2.3 There is a good network of footways located in the vicinity of the site which are well lit and provide access to all local residential areas. The local roads are accommodating of cyclists, with the nearest off-road cycle route accessible within 5 minutes of the development site, providing a link between Ludgershall and Tidworth. 8.2.4 Bus service Activ8 operated by Wilts & Dorset currently serves the site with a bus stop located on either side of A3026 Tidworth, 500 metres from the site. This service provides access between Ludgershall and Andover, Tidworth, Amesbury and Salisbury with a 15-minute frequency. 8.2.5 As presented in the Drummond Park Transport Assessment, 2001 Census data for the local wards provided the distribution for journeys to work and a basis for assignment of development traffic at the proposed site. 8.2.6 An analysis of the Personal Injury Accident data for the latest available five year period within a 1km radius from the site revealed that there has been no major discernible trend or clustering of accidents at junctions or links on the local highway network. The records indicate the accidents have occurred at different times of the day and night and for reasons not attributable to the geometry of the highway network.

39 | 53

8.2.7 ACCESSION modelling and pedestrian and cycling isochrones have shown that Ludgershall town centre can be reached within a 5-10 minute walk from the site, the majority of Ludgershall can be reached within a 15-minute walk or a 5-minute cycle. 8.2.8 The site is located within a reasonable distance of a range of employment opportunities, shops, schools, leisure and community facilities, and health facilities. A significant proportion of the shops are located in Ludgershall town centre, while a significant proportion of the employment opportunities are located within a 30-minute journey by public transport. 8.2.9 Vehicular access to the site will be provided at two points by making use of the existing access from Astor Crescent and by forming a new junction with Princess Mary Gardens. The site layout has been designed in accordance with Manual for Streets Guidance and as such the streets are designed to be attractive to pedestrians, well connected, overlooked and with low vehicle speeds. 8.2.10 A total of 413 vehicle parking spaces will be provided on the site, which equates to 2 spaces per dwelling in addition to visitor parking. The spaces will be provided as garage, within curtilage and on- street parking. Cycle storage will be provided within the curtilage of each dwelling and be designed to meet Code for Sustainable Homes requirements. 8.2.11 Trips that are forecast to be generated by the proposed development have been derived using trip rates agreed with Wiltshire County Council (WCC) and distributed onto the local highway network using a distribution based on 2001 Census Travel to Work data. Growth rates were derived from the TEMPRO/NTM combined calculation and applied to the surveyed traffic data to provide forecast baseline traffic for the year 2017. 8.2.12 Capacity analysis of the junctions in the vicinity of the site was undertaken using LINSIG v3 and PICADY 5 computer modelling software. Baseline models were calibrated against observed queue length data and forecast scenarios were run for 2017, both with and without the addition of development traffic. 8.2.13 The modelling results show that with the addition of development traffic, the majority of junctions are forecast to operate within capacity in both the AM and PM peak periods, in 2017. It has been demonstrated that there is sufficient capacity along Astor Crescent and Astor Crescent west and at the junctions with Tidworth Road to accommodate additional traffic emanating from the Granby Gardens development. An independent Road Safety Audit of Astor Crescent is currently being undertaken and will be submitted as an appendix to this report once the audit is complete. The provision of alternative and more direct pedestrian routes into Ludgershall town centre are proposed to support the overall accessibility of the proposed development. 8.2.14 In both peak periods, there is a significant increase in RFC value at the A342 High Street (eastern) junction between 2012 and 2017. It is considered that the majority of this increase can be attributed to the traffic associated with the Drummond Park proposals, with an approximate increase of 25% in turning movements at this junction between the 2017 Base and the 2017 Base + Consented scenarios. 8.2.15 The development proposals for Drummond Park include the provision of a signalised junction at the A3026 Tidworth Road / A342 High Street memorial junction in Ludgershall town centre. After taking into account the development traffic associated with Granby Gardens, assessment of this junction using LinSig established that it would continue to operate with spare capacity. 8.2.16 Subsequent to submitting the scoping note to Wiltshire County Council, it has been requested that traffic associated with Castledown Business Park be taken into consideration as part of this assessment. Despite our best efforts to obtain a copy of the Transport Assessment and accompanying highway mitigation package, it has not been possible to include the development traffic generated by the employment site. With some research, it is understood that the site at

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 40 | 53 Revised:

Castledown has the potential for a building footprint of circa 45,000sqm. Based on a trip rate of around 1.5 per 100sqm floorspace, this equates to circa 675 two-way trips in the AM Peak. When compared with the Castledown site, Granby Gardens is considered to generate less than 15% of the overall development traffic from the two sites. Upon receipt of the trip generation and distribution of traffic associated with the Castledown development, WSP will produce a technical note to support this TAR which assesses the combination of traffic from the two developments, in the context of the highway mitigation package committed to by the Castledown Business Park. 8.2.17 Although traffic associated with the full development at Castledown Business Park has not been included in this assessment, a technical note will be produced which assesses the Castledown traffic added to the ‘2017 Forecast Base + Consented + Development’ scenario contained in this report based on the proposed mitigation package, once further information becomes available. 8.2.18 In concluding this Transport Assessment it is considered that there are no substantive transport related reasons why the proposed residential development of up to 181 residential units on the Granby Gardens site should not be approved.

41 | 53

9 Appendices

Appendix A: Scoping Note and WCC Response

Appendix B: Manual Classified Count (MCC) Survey Results

Appendix C: Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) Survey Results

Appendix D: Audit of Pedestrian Routes

Appendix E: Personal Injury Accident Data

Appendix F: Proposed Site Layout and Site Access Layouts

Appendix G: Road Safety Audits

Appendix H: Travel Plan

Appendix I: Junction Modelling Outputs

Figure 1: Proposed Site Location Plan

Figure 2-5: MCC/ATC 2012 Traffic Flows (AM & PM Peak)

Figure 6: Public Rights of Way Plan

Figure 7: Local Cycle Routes

Figure 8: Pedestrian Accessibility

Figure 9: Cyclist Accessibility

Figure 10: Public Transport Accessibility

Figure 11: Development Traffic Distribution (Internal Site Plan)

Figure 12-13: ‘2017 Base + Consented’ Traffic Flows (AM & PM Peak)

Figure 14-15: Development Traffic Flows (AM & PM Peak)

Figure 16-17: ‘2017 Base + Consented + Development’ Traffic Flows (AM & PM Peak)

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 42 | 53 Revised:

WSP UK Limited Regus House Southampton SO18 2RZ UK Tel: +44 (0)23 8030 2529 Fax: +44 (0)23 8030 2001 www.wspgroup.co.uk

Appendix A: Scoping Note & WCC Response

43 | 53

LAND AT GRANBY GARDENS, LUDGERSHALL Transport Assessment Scoping Note

16/11/2012

Quality Management

Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks ISSUED Date 16/11/2012 Prepared by Grace Blizard Signature Grace Blizard Checked by Stuart Morton Signature Stuart Morton Authorised by Rhod Macleod Signature Rhod Macleod Project number 11790116 Report number File reference J:\11790116 - Granby Gardens - Ludgershall\TEXT\REPORTS\TA Scoping Note (Nov2012).docx

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 16/11/2012 2 | 8

LAND AT GRANBY GARDENS, LUDGERSHALL Transport Assessment Scoping Note

16/11/2012

Client Foreman Homes Group Unit 1 Station Industrial Park Duncan Road Park Gate Hampshire SO31 1BX

Consultant WSP Group Limited Regus House Southampton SO18 2RZ UK

Tel: +44 (0)23 8030 2600 Fax: +44 (0)23 8030 2001 www.wspgroup.co.uk

Registered Address WSP UK Limited 01383511 WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF

WSP Contacts Rhod MacLeod 02380 302568 [email protected] Stuart Morton 02380 302556 [email protected]

3 | 8

1 Scoping Proposal

1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 This note defines the parameters to be used in the Transport Assessment that will accompany a planning application for 181 dwellings on land at Granby Gardens, Ludgershall. It has been prepared in accordance with ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ (DfT / DCLG, 2007) for agreement with Wiltshire Council. 1.1.2 The proposed development site is located on land to the east of New Drove, Ludgershall. Development proposals include two points of access, firstly via the existing junction on to Astor Crescent from the north-west corner of the site. A second access will be provided onto Princess Mary Gardens. The location of the proposed development is shown by the hatching on Figure 1. Each section of the TA where parameters need to be agreed is discussed individually below.

1.2 Accessibility to Key Services 1.2.1 An assessment of the site in relation to accessibility to key services will be undertaken using Accession. This will demonstrate the food, retail, health, employment and education services that can be accessed by walking, cycling and public transport within a 15, 40, 45 and 60 minute journey time. Levels of accessibility calculated from Accession will be presented using background maps and isochrones for the peak and off-peak periods.

1.3 Total Travel Demand 1.3.1 Vehicular trip rates are derived from TRICS 2012(b)v6.10.2 using three different housing land use categories as follows: Ŷ ‘Mixed Private/Non-Private Housing’; Ŷ ‘Mixed Private Housing’; and Ŷ ‘Houses Privately Owned’.

1.3.2 The different trip rates are shown in Table 1 and for a worst case assessment it was decided to calculate development trips based on the trip rate for ‘Houses Privately Owned’, even though some homes on site are likely to be ‘affordable’ or rented housing, which would produce a lower number of trips. The calculated number of vehicular trips generated by 181 homes based on this trip rate is shown in Table 2. 1.3.3 The TRICS sites selected for ‘Houses Privately Owned’ contained an average of 166 dwellings, were located in all regions except for Greater London and Greater Dublin, were surveyed on Tuesday to Thursday, and were predominantly located in suburban or edge of town locations. TRICS outputs are enclosed.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 16/11/2012 4 | 8

Table 1 - Derived Vehicular Trip Rates (Source: TRICS 2012b) AM Peak PM Peak Arrive Depart TOTAL Arrive Depart TOTAL Mixed Private/Non- 0.090 0.187 0.277 0.214 0.141 0.355 Private Housing Mixed Private Housing 0.137 0.394 0.531 0.356 0.229 0.585 Houses Privately Owned 0.151 0.418 0.569 0.398 0.237 0.635

Table 2 - Vehicular Trips Generated by 181 Homes (Houses Privately Owned) Arrive Depart TOTAL AM Peak 27 76 103 PM Peak 72 43 115

1.3.4 To derive multi modal trip rates the TRICS sites identified above were utilised again where multi- modal surveys were undertaken. This was 15 of the 16 original sites and the TRICS outputs are enclosed. The trip rates for non-car modes are shown in Table 3 whilst the calculated number of trips generated by 181 homes based on these trip rates is shown in Table 4.

Table 3 - Derived Person Trip Rates (Source: TRICS 2012b) AM Peak (08:00 – 09:00) PM Peak (17:00 – 18:00) MODE Arrive Depart TOTAL Arrive Depart TOTAL Pedestrian 0.048 0.173 0.221 0.099 0.066 0.165 Public 0.003 0.016 0.019 0.016 0.004 0.020 Transport Cyclists 0.003 0.010 0.013 0.014 0.012 0.026

Table 4 - Generated Person Trips by 181 Homes AM Peak (08:00 – 09:00) PM Peak (17:00 – 18:00) MODE Arrive Depart TOTAL Arrive Depart TOTAL Pedestrian 9 31 40 18 12 30 Public Transport 1 3 3 3 1 4 Cyclists 1 2 2 3 2 5

1.4 Travel Plan 1.4.1 A draft residential Travel Plan will accompany the Transport Assessment and will promote better use of sustainable transport infrastructure and services, thus helping to mitigate the transport demands and potential impacts of the development. The Travel Plan will, inter alia, provide a review of all relevant policy, a site audit of existing transport provision, a toolkit of sustainable travel plan measures, and information on the management, funding, mode-share targets and monitoring.

5 | 8

1.5 Traffic Impact Assessment Existing Traffic Flows 1.5.1 In accordance with the DfT Transport Assessment guidance traffic counts have been previously collected for nearby junctions where there is a predicted increase in traffic queues. The junctions where these criteria were met are listed below: Ŷ A3026 / Astor Crescent signal junction; Ŷ A3026 / Astor Crescent priority junction; and Ŷ A342 High Street / A3026 Tidworth Road.

1.5.2 In this regard traffic counts have been collected for the A3026 / Astor Crescent signal junction and the A3026 / Astor Crescent priority junction. These Manual Classified Count (MCC) surveys were undertaken on Wednesday 8th June 2011, during the peak periods of 07:30-09:30 and 16:30-18:30. Queue lengths for all junction arms were also surveyed at five minute intervals during both survey periods and data on signal timings was collected for a 20 minute period prior to the start of the PM surveys. For the A342 High Street / A3026 Tidworth Road junction, MCC traffic surveys and queue counts were undertaken on Tuesday 21st February 2012, for the peak periods of 07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00. 1.5.3 In order to validate the MCC data for the A342 High Street / A3026 Tidworth Road junction, four Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) surveys were commissioned around the junction to observe all turning movements. These were in place for a continuous 9-day period starting at 00:00 on Tuesday 21st February and ending at 00:00 on Thursday 1st March.

Network Traffic Growth 1.5.4 The survey data discussed above will be growthed up to 2017 for traffic junctions and roads on the local highway network. This will cover five years from the expected planning application submission date. 1.5.5 The survey data will be growthed to the future assessment year using TEMPRO/NTM growth factors obtained from TEMPRO Version 6.2 and dataset Version 54. These growth factors will be adjusted within TEMPRO using dataset AF09 from the National Transport Model. The growth rates will be derived for urban principal and minor roads in the local area of Ludgershall, within the district of Kennet. The growth rates are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 - TEMPRO/NTM Growth Factors

2011 - 2017 2012 - 2017 Road Type AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Minor Roads 1.0475 1.0519 1.0422 1.0458 Principal Roads 1.0383 1.0427 1.0346 1.0382

1.5.6 To ensure a robust assessment of the local highway network traffic flows it is proposed to include the following consented and committed developments within the Transport Assessment: Ŷ Drummond Park, Ludgershall; and Ŷ North East Quadrant, Tidworth.

1.5.7 Traffic associated with the Castledown Business Park is included within the 2011 traffic survey data.

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 16/11/2012 6 | 8

1.5.8 We request confirmation from Wiltshire Council that no further consented or committed developments are required to be considered in this TAR.

Traffic Distribution and Assignment 1.5.9 The traffic distribution and assignments for trips associated with the Granby Gardens proposals will be derived using 2001 Census ‘Travel to Work’ data for the Ludgershall ward consistent with the approach used for the proposed Drummond Park residential site. The distribution is summarised as follows: Ŷ A342 towards Marlborough/Devizes = 10% of vehicle trips; Ŷ A342 towards Andover = 65% of vehicle trips; and Ŷ A3026 towards Tidworth = 25% of vehicle trips.

1.5.10 With two access points contained in the masterplan, it has been assumed that drivers will opt for the closest access point to their origin, bearing in mind their destination to the east/west on the A3026 Tidworth Road. All traffic using the north-east access via Princess Mary Gardens will route east/west at the signalised junction of the A3026 Tidworth Road/Astor Crescent. Of those vehicles using the north-western access onto Astor Crescent, it has been assumed that all traffic heading in the direction of Marlborough/Devizes and Andover will route along the northern side to the signalised junction of the A3026 Tidworth Road/Astor Crescent. All A3026 Tidworth Road Westbound traffic will take the south-western Astor Crescent route. The proposed distribution is illustrated on Figure 2.

Highway Capacity Impact 1.5.11 Highway capacity assessments will be undertaken for the junctions identified above and the TA will identify if the development results in a material impact to highway network performance after the effects of the travel plan, sustainable infrastructure/services and highway mitigation measures have been taken into account.

Road Traffic Accidents 1.5.12 An analysis of road traffic accidents for the last 3 years will be undertaken on the area of road network covered by the proposed traffic survey data. The TA will identify any location where accident rates are greater than expected and any patterns that indicate existing safety issues, particularly with vulnerable road users. 1.5.13 A road safety audit has been undertaken (November 2011) of the existing highway network and of the existing signalised junction of A3026 Tidworth Road / Empress Way. Additionally, road safety audits are to be commissioned for the existing site access junction onto Astor Crescent and for the proposed site access via Princess Mary Gardens.

7 | 8

WSP UK Limited Regus House Southampton SO18 2RZ UK Tel: +44 (0)23 8030 2600 Fax: +44 (0)23 8030 2001 www.wspgroup.co.uk

Proposed Site Location Development Traffic Flow Distribution

10% FIGURE 2

10% 65%

TIDWORTH ROAD

11% 75% 65%

11% 54% 14% EMPRESS WAY 11% 11% 75% T N

E PRINCESS

C MARY S

14% E 54% GARDENS R C

R 32% O T S

14% A SITE

ASTOR CRESCENT

14% 32% SITE Blizard, Grace

From: Wiltshire, Mark Sent: 30 November 2012 08:00 To: Blizard, Grace Subject: RE: Granby Gardens, Ludgershall

Grace, Regret we did not keep the hard copy and did not scan it into our electronic files either(as too big). Therefore unable to help. You will need to purchase it from Buchanans or calculate TRIP generation based on floor areas and TRICS growthed up appropriately. Sorry about this. I think you will find the application K.42723 to be the most useful application, (other applications covered internal road layout and junctions etc

Yours sincerely, Mark Wiltshire, Development Control Engineer. Sustainable Transport, Highways and Transport, Wiltshire Council, County Hall, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8JN. telephone 01225 713448 fax 01225 713207 e mail [email protected]

From: Blizard, Grace [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 November 2012 17:03 To: Wiltshire, Mark Subject: RE: Granby Gardens, Ludgershall

Mark,

The document you have sent is only a supplementary report. Do you have the full Transport Assessment please?

Kind Regards,

Grace Blizard Transport Planner

WSP UK, Regus House, Southampton, Hampshire, SO18 2RZ Tel: +44(0)2380 302600 Fax: +44(0)2380 302001

Website: www.wspgroup.co.uk

We are WSP. United by our difference.

NCE/ACE International Consultant of the Year 2011 Number 1 Transport Consultancy 2011 (NCE Consultants File) Environmental Advisor of the Year 2011

WSP is one of the world's fastest-growing design, engineering and management consultancies. Specialising in property, transport and environmental projects, we work with clients to create built and natural environments for the future.

Confidential This e-mail is confidential to the named recipient. If you have received a copy in error, please destroy it. You may not use or disclose the contents of this e- mail to anyone, nor take copies of it. The only copies permitted are (1) by the named recipient and (2) for the purposes of completing successful electronic transmission to the named recipient and then only on the condition that these copies, with this notice attached, are kept confidential until destruction.

WSP UK Limited Registered Office: WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF Registered Number 01383511 England

1 3 If possible, please consider saving paper by not printing your e-mail.

From: Wiltshire, Mark [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 November 2012 16:47 To: Blizard, Grace Subject: RE: Granby Gardens, Ludgershall

Grace, As busy I have not actually looked at the attached which is from the relevant application K.42723. If it does not provide you with what you want, or if you cannot open it, let me know. Yours sincerely, Mark Wiltshire, Development Control Engineer. Sustainable Transport, Highways and Transport, Wiltshire Council, County Hall, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8JN. telephone 01225 713448 fax 01225 713207 e mail [email protected]

From: Blizard, Grace [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 November 2012 11:00 To: Wiltshire, Mark Cc: Morton, Stuart; MacLeod, Rhod Subject: RE: Granby Gardens, Ludgershall

Dear Mark,

Further to your response regarding the TA Scoping Report for Granby Gardens, this email seeks to provide further information on how the development traffic will use the two accesses, as requested.

Please refer to the attached plan which shows the proposed site masterplan broken down into three distinct areas. These are classified as follows:

Red Area: All trips arising from this area of the site are assumed to use the access via Astor Crescent since this equates to the least cost route. Traffic is then split between the north and west Astor Crescent routes according to the underlying 75%/25% east/west split at the A3026 Tidworth Road.

i.e. there are 59 dwellings within the red section assumed to use the Astor Crescent access. Of these, trips associated with 15 dwellings (25%) are assumed to take the western Astor Crescent in order to travel west via the priority junction at Astor Crescent / A3026 Tidworth Road, and the remaining 44 (75%) will take the northern route of Astor Crescent in order to travel east via the signalised junction of Astor Crescent / A3026 Tidworth Road.

Green Area: All trips arising from this area of the site are assumed to use the access via Princess Mary Gardens since this equates to the least cost route. All traffic is assumed to route through the signalised Astor Crescent / A3026 Tidworth Road junction according to the 75%/25% east/west split.

i.e. there are 82 dwellings within the green section assumed to use the Princess Mary Gardens access. Of these, trips associated with 21 dwellings (25%) are assumed to turn left (westbound) at the signalised junction, with the remaining 61 (75%) turning right (eastbound).

Blue Area: This area was deemed to be less straightforward than the other sections since the distance to each access point is roughly equal. It would be anticipated however, that all westbound traffic would use the Astor Crescent access since it would provide the least cost route and a quicker movement onto the A3026 Tidworth Road

2 than waiting at the signalised junction. Therefore, keeping with the 75%/25% east/west split at A3026 Tidworth Road, 25% of the trips from the blue section are assumed to use the Astor Crescent access. The remaining 75% seeking to travel eastbound has been equally split between the two accesses, travelling eastbound via the signalised junction.

i.e. there are 40 dwellings within the blue section. Trips associated with 10 dwellings (25%) are assumed to be westbound and will use the western Astor Crescent route to the priority junction. Trips arising from the remaining 30 dwellings (75%) are considered eastbound and will route through the signalised junction, so half of these (trips associated with 15 dwellings) will use the northern Astor Crescent route and the other half will use the Princess Mary Gardens route onto Astor Crescent.

If anything is unclear, please do not hesitate to contact me for further clarity.

Kind Regards,

Grace Blizard Transport Planner

WSP UK, Regus House, Southampton, Hampshire, SO18 2RZ Tel: +44(0)2380 302600 Fax: +44(0)2380 302001

Website: www.wspgroup.co.uk

We are WSP. United by our difference.

NCE/ACE International Consultant of the Year 2011 Number 1 Transport Consultancy 2011 (NCE Consultants File) Environmental Advisor of the Year 2011

WSP is one of the world's fastest-growing design, engineering and management consultancies. Specialising in property, transport and environmental projects, we work with clients to create built and natural environments for the future.

Confidential This e-mail is confidential to the named recipient. If you have received a copy in error, please destroy it. You may not use or disclose the contents of this e- mail to anyone, nor take copies of it. The only copies permitted are (1) by the named recipient and (2) for the purposes of completing successful electronic transmission to the named recipient and then only on the condition that these copies, with this notice attached, are kept confidential until destruction.

WSP UK Limited Registered Office: WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF Registered Number 01383511 England

3 If possible, please consider saving paper by not printing your e-mail.

From: Wiltshire, Mark [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 27 November 2012 16:57 To: Blizard, Grace Subject: RE: Granby Gardens, Ludgershall

Grace, OK subject to the points below:

1. You say that Castledown traffic is included in the survey 2011 but only a small part of Castledown has been built and occupied . You therefore should include the expected development consented traffic for Castledown. 2. You will need to provide more evidence showing on what basis you have split the traffic between Princess Mary Gardens and Astor Crescent

Acceptance of the scoping study subject to the above points is not of course any guarantee that no highway objection will be raised to a planning application.

Yours sincerely, Mark Wiltshire, Development Control Engineer. Sustainable Transport, Highways and Transport, Wiltshire Council, 3 County Hall, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8JN. telephone 01225 713448 fax 01225 713207 e mail [email protected]

From: Blizard, Grace [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 November 2012 09:49 To: Wiltshire, Mark Cc: MacLeod, Rhod; Morton, Stuart; [email protected] Subject: Granby Gardens, Ludgershall

Dear Mark,

Please find attached a Scoping Note which sets out the parameters to be used in a Transport Assessment Report to support a new planning application for residential development at Granby Gardens, Ludgershall.

I would be grateful if you could provide any comments at your earliest convenience.

Kind Regards,

Grace Blizard Transport Planner

WSP UK, Regus House, Southampton, Hampshire, SO18 2RZ Tel: +44(0)2380 302600 Fax: +44(0)2380 302001

Website: www.wspgroup.co.uk

We are WSP. United by our difference.

NCE/ACE International Consultant of the Year 2011 Number 1 Transport Consultancy 2011 (NCE Consultants File) Environmental Advisor of the Year 2011

WSP is one of the world's fastest-growing design, engineering and management consultancies. Specialising in property, transport and environmental projects, we work with clients to create built and natural environments for the future.

Confidential This e-mail is confidential to the named recipient. If you have received a copy in error, please destroy it. You may not use or disclose the contents of this e- mail to anyone, nor take copies of it. The only copies permitted are (1) by the named recipient and (2) for the purposes of completing successful electronic transmission to the named recipient and then only on the condition that these copies, with this notice attached, are kept confidential until destruction.

WSP UK Limited Registered Office: WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF Registered Number 01383511 England

3 If possible, please consider saving paper by not printing your e-mail.

______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______

______This email originates from Wiltshire Council and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and may be subject to Copyright or Intellectual Property rights. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete the email from your inbox. Any disclosure, reproduction, dissemination, modification and distribution of the contents of the email is strictly prohibited. Email content may be monitored by Wiltshire Council to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures. No contract is intended by this

4 email, and any personal opinions expressed in this message are those of the sender and should not be taken as representing views of Wiltshire Council. Please note Wiltshire Council utilises anti-virus scanning software but does not warrant that any e-mail or attachments are free from viruses or other defects and accepts no liability for any losses resulting from infected e-mail transmissions. Receipt of this e-mail does not imply consent to use or provide this e-mail address to any third party for any purpose. Wiltshire Council will not request the disclosure of personal financial information by means of e- mail any such request should be confirmed in writing by contacting Wiltshire Council. ______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______

______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______

______This email originates from Wiltshire Council and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and may be subject to Copyright or Intellectual Property rights. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete the email from your inbox. Any disclosure, reproduction, dissemination, modification and distribution of the contents of the email is strictly prohibited. Email content may be monitored by Wiltshire Council to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures. No contract is intended by this email, and any personal opinions expressed in this message are those of the sender and should not be taken as representing views of Wiltshire Council. Please note Wiltshire Council utilises anti-virus scanning software but does not warrant that any e-mail or attachments are free from viruses or other defects and accepts no liability for any losses resulting from infected e-mail transmissions. Receipt of this e-mail does not imply consent to use or provide this e-mail address to any third party for any purpose. Wiltshire Council will not request the disclosure of personal financial information by means of e- mail any such request should be confirmed in writing by contacting Wiltshire Council. ______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______

______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______

______This email originates from Wiltshire Council and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and may be subject to Copyright or Intellectual Property rights. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete the email from your inbox. Any disclosure, reproduction, dissemination, modification and distribution of the contents of the email is strictly prohibited. Email content may be monitored by Wiltshire Council to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures. No contract is intended by this email, and any personal opinions expressed in this message are those of the sender and should not be taken as representing views of Wiltshire Council. Please note Wiltshire Council utilises anti-virus scanning software but does not warrant that any e-mail or attachments are free from viruses or other defects and accepts no liability for any losses resulting from infected e-mail transmissions. Receipt of this e-mail does not imply consent to use or provide this e-mail address to any third party for any purpose. Wiltshire Council will not request the disclosure of personal financial information by means of e-

5 mail any such request should be confirmed in writing by contacting Wiltshire Council. ______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______

6

Appendix B: Manual Classified Count (MCC) Survey Results

Project number: 11790116

Dated: 06/12/2012 44 | 53 Revised: {LÇ9 ILD I {Çw99Ç  ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5" [Ü5D 9w{I![[ {Üwë9ò Çòt9 /[!{{LCL95 ë9IL/[9 ÇÜwb Lb D {Üwë9ò 5!Ç9 ÇÜ9{5!ò  5Üw!ÇLh b            í 9!ÇI9w 5wò Lb /L59b Ç{ b h b 9

ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
9 ILD I {Çw99Ç ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
í
í 9{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
{h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
9!{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ !I9!5 wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ !I9!5 Çh Ç![


    t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          ! 

/!w           

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{  "        

 h Dë            h Dë          

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![      !    t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          

/!w '  ! "    (  

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{        (  

! h Dë            h Dë    !       

 .Ü { & /h !/I         Çh Ç![         ! t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          ! 

/!w ' (  "( " !     

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{     '     

 h Dë         

h Dë         

 .Ü { & /h !/I         Çh Ç![ ! !         t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9    '       

/!w (    (    ! 

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{ ( '      "  

! h Dë     '       h Dë          

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![  !       

Benchmark Data Collection Ltd 1 {LÇ9 ILD I {Çw99Ç  ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5" [Ü5D 9w{I![[ {Üwë9ò Çòt9 /[!{{LCL95 ë9IL/[9 ÇÜwb Lb D {Üwë9ò 5!Ç9 ÇÜ9{5!ò  5Üw!ÇLh b            í 9!ÇI9w 5wò Lb /L59b Ç{ b h b 9

ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
9 ILD I {Çw99Ç ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
í
í 9{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
{h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
9!{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ !I9!5 wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ !I9!5 Çh Ç![


    t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          ! 

/!w  '  '   " (  

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{  (  "      

 h Dë           h Dë          

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![         t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          

/!w '         

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{ '   '  !  '  

! h Dë      !     h Dë          

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![ !        !  t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          ! 

/!w '( " !     "  

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{ "         

 h Dë   '       

h Dë         

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![ !         t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9        '  ! 

/!w  "   '  ( '(   

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{ " ( ! "    "  

! h Dë  (      '    h Dë   '  "     

 .Ü { & /h !/I '  !      ! Çh Ç![     !     t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9           

/!w ( (      '( !  

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{          

! h Dë           

h Dë           .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![ !       ! 

Benchmark Data Collection Ltd 2 {LÇ9 ILD I {Çw99Ç  ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5" [Ü5D 9w{I![[ {Üwë9ò Çòt9 /[!{{LCL95 ë9IL/[9 ÇÜwb Lb D {Üwë9ò 5!Ç9 ÇÜ9{5!ò  5Üw!ÇLh b            í 9!ÇI9w 5wò Lb /L59b Ç{ b h b 9

ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
9 ILD I {Çw99Ç ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
í
í 9{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
{h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
9!{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ !I9!5 wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ !I9!5 Çh Ç![


    t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          ! 

/!w           

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{  "        

 h Dë  '  !   !     h Dë   '        

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![ ! !  !     ! t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          

/!w  ' ! '       

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{    "    '  

! h Dë           h Dë          

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![ !   !    ! t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          ! 

/!w "       '   

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{  "        

 h Dë    !     

h Dë         

 .Ü { & /h !/I         Çh Ç![    !   ! ! t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9           

/!w       '    

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{ " ( !       

! h Dë         

 h Dë            .Ü { & /h !/I         Çh Ç![     !   !

Benchmark Data Collection Ltd 3 {LÇ9 ILD I {Çw99Ç  ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5" [Ü5D 9w{I![[ {Üwë9ò Çòt9 /[!{{LCL95 ë9IL/[9 ÇÜwb Lb D {Üwë9ò 5!Ç9 ÇÜ9{5!ò  5Üw!ÇLh b            í 9!ÇI9w 5wò Lb /L59b Ç{ b h b 9

ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
9 ILD I {Çw99Ç ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
í
í 9{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
{h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
9!{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ !I9!5 wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ !I9!5 Çh Ç![


    t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9   !     (  

/!w "( '   (   ' '   

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{ "        ("  

 h Dë    ! ' '  '  

 h Dë     '      .Ü { & /h !/I  '       Çh Ç![ ! !       ! 

Benchmark Data Collection Ltd 4 {LÇ9 ILD I {Çw99Ç  ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5" [Ü5D 9w{I![[ {Üwë9ò Çòt9 /[!{{LCL95 ë9IL/[9 ÇÜwb Lb D {Üwë9ò 5!Ç9 ÇÜ9{5!ò  5Üw!ÇLh b            í 9!ÇI9w 5wò Lb /L59b Ç{ b h b 9

ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
9 ILD I {Çw99Ç ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
í
í 9{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
{h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
9!{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ !I9!5 wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ !I9!5 Çh Ç![


    t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          ! 

/!w  "  '  !!  (   

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{ "       (  

 h Dë           h Dë           

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![   !  !   ! t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          

/!w       (    

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{          

! h Dë     '       h Dë           

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![ !        ! !! t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9         ! 

/!w '" "   "      

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{ '        

 h Dë         

h Dë          

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![      !    t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9           

/!w    '  !  ' !  

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{        "  

! h Dë     '      

 h Dë            .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![    ! !   ! 

Benchmark Data Collection Ltd 5 {LÇ9 ILD I {Çw99Ç  ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5" [Ü5D 9w{I![[ {Üwë9ò Çòt9 /[!{{LCL95 ë9IL/[9 ÇÜwb Lb D {Üwë9ò 5!Ç9 ÇÜ9{5!ò  5Üw!ÇLh b            í 9!ÇI9w 5wò Lb /L59b Ç{ b h b 9

ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
9 ILD I {Çw99Ç ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
í
í 9{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
{h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
9!{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ !I9!5 wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ !I9!5 Çh Ç![


    t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9         ! 

/!w '" "      ( '   

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{       '   

 h Dë            h Dë           

 .Ü { & /h !/I         Çh Ç![   !!     !  t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          

/!w (' ""  '  !  '( !  

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{   ! (     

! h Dë            h Dë           

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![   !    !  t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9         

/!w   ! " '   ' "(   

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{ '( '        

 h Dë     "    

h Dë   (        

 .Ü { & /h !/I        ' ! Çh Ç![   !    !     t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          ! 

/!w ( " !!     ' !  

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{    "   (  

 h Dë          

 h Dë            .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![     !   ! ! t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9           

/!w  "'  '      

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{        

! h Dë            h Dë           

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![   ! !     

Benchmark Data Collection Ltd 6 {LÇ9 ILD I {Çw99Ç  ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5" [Ü5D 9w{I![[ {Üwë9ò Çòt9 /[!{{LCL95 ë9IL/[9 ÇÜwb Lb D {Üwë9ò 5!Ç9 ÇÜ9{5!ò  5Üw!ÇLh b            í 9!ÇI9w 5wò Lb /L59b Ç{ b h b 9

ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
9 ILD I {Çw99Ç ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
í
í 9{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
{h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
9!{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ !I9!5 wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ !I9!5 Çh Ç![


    t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          ! 

/!w ''   ' "     

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{  "       

 h Dë            h Dë         

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![ !    !    !  t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          

/!w  (   (     

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{        

! h Dë            h Dë          

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![ !        t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9          ! 

/!w ' '  " '     

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{  "        

 h Dë          

h Dë            .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![  !      !  t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9           

/!w  ' ! "    "   

[LDIÇ Dh h 5{        

! h Dë            h Dë          

 .Ü { & /h !/I          Çh Ç![         

Benchmark Data Collection Ltd 7 {LÇ9 ILD I {Çw99Ç  ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5" [Ü5D 9w{I![[ {Üwë9ò Çòt9 /[!{{LCL95 ë9IL/[9 ÇÜwb Lb D {Üwë9ò 5!Ç9 ÇÜ9{5!ò  5Üw!ÇLh b            í 9!ÇI9w 5wò Lb /L59b Ç{ b h b 9

ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
9 ILD I {Çw99Ç ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5
í
í 9{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
{h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/
9!{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ !I9!5 wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ wLD IÇ Çh Ç![ [9CÇ !I9!5 Çh Ç![


    t95![ /ò/[9          a h Çh w /ò/[9       (   

/!w ( (""       " '" ! 

 [LDIÇ Dh h 5{ " "   " '   ' 



 h Dë   '  '  !    h Dë   ' ! '      

 .Ü { & /h !/I '  !      Çh Ç![     !   ! ! ! ! 

Benchmark Data Collection Ltd 8 {LÇ9 I LD I {Çw99Ç  ÇL5 í h wÇI wh !5 " [Ü5 D 9w{I ![[ {Üwë9ò Çòt9 ë9IL/[9 v Ü9Ü9 [9b DÇI {Üwë9ò 5!Ç9 ÇÜ9{5!ò  5Üw!ÇLh b            í 9!ÇI9w 5wò Lb /L59b Ç{ b h b 9

ILDI {Çw99Ç ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5 9 ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5 í  ILDI {Çw99Ç [Lb Y wh !5 {h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ í 9{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ 9!{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ b h wÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ {h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ [!b 9  [!b 9  [!b 9  [!b 9  [!b 9 

                                                                                    !       !       !       !       !       !       !       !       !       !       !       !                                                                                                 

Benchmark Data Collection Ltd 1 {LÇ9 I LD I {Çw99Ç  ÇL5 í h wÇI wh !5 " [Ü5 D 9w{I ![[ {Üwë9ò Çòt9 ë9IL/[9 v Ü9Ü9 [9b DÇI {Üwë9ò 5!Ç9 ÇÜ9{5!ò  5Üw!ÇLh b            í 9!ÇI9w 5wò Lb /L59b Ç{ b h b 9

ILDI {Çw99Ç ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5 9 ÇL5í h wÇI wh !5 í  ILDI {Çw99Ç [Lb Y wh !5 {h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ í 9{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ 9!{Ç .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ b h wÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ {h Ü ÇI .h Ü b 5 Çw!CCL/ [!b 9  [!b 9  [!b 9  [!b 9  [!b 9 

                                                                                                                                                                        !       !       !       !       !       !       !       !       !       !       !       !             

Benchmark Data Collection Ltd 2

Appendix C: Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) Survey Results

45 | 53

Benchmark Data Collection

Tue 21 February 2012 Northbound Time Total RunTot . a  /  /  w  w  w ! ! ! ! ! ! Vmin Mean Vmax >PSL >PSL% Vpp / ë  ë  Ç . .   30 30 85 0000 15 15 0 0 11 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 17.6 23.8 31.7 1 6.7 27.1 0100 10 25 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 22.8 24.4 26.3 0 0 - 0200 9 34 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 22.5 24.9 29.7 0 0 - 0300 10 44 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 17.8 27.3 34.8 3 30 - 0400 23 67 0 0 13 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16.7 24.9 33 2 8.7 26.8 0500 37 104 0 0 30 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 17.5 26.4 39 5 13.5 29.3 0600 120 224 0 0 97 0 16 1 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 15.4 25.5 34.2 11 9.2 29.1 0700 224 448 0 2 202 1 12 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 4.2 23.8 32.7 9 4 27.5 0800 259 707 0 1 239 0 12 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 8.3 22.9 30.2 1 0.4 26.2 0900 196 903 0 2 163 4 16 1 4 0 1 3 2 0 0 5.1 20.6 30.3 3 1.5 24.8 1000 182 1085 1 1 155 1 20 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 8 20.1 31.4 1 0.5 24.2 1100 163 1248 0 0 135 2 15 1 1 0 0 3 5 0 1 7.8 21.9 36.1 4 2.5 25.3 1200 177 1425 1 1 146 2 20 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 9.5 22.5 43.1 5 2.8 26.2 1300 183 1608 1 0 152 2 21 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 8 22 33.7 5 2.7 25.7 1400 204 1812 0 0 176 1 18 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 9.5 21.7 32.1 5 2.5 25.9 1500 252 2064 0 2 226 1 17 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 7.3 21.8 35.4 5 2 25.5 1600 330 2394 2 4 295 2 20 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 8.1 22.5 31.4 3 0.9 26.2 1700 422 2816 1 4 402 2 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5.1 22.5 35.4 10 2.4 25.9 1800 268 3084 2 2 252 0 7 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 6.8 24.1 38.2 18 6.7 27.7 1900 158 3242 1 0 148 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 14 24.6 33.8 9 5.7 28 2000 94 3336 0 0 88 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 13.7 25.2 55.1 6 6.4 28.6 2100 71 3407 0 0 68 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 23.7 34.6 4 5.6 27.1 2200 53 3460 0 1 49 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17.6 25 34.9 5 9.4 28.9 2300 27 3487 0 0 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 14.6 26.1 34.8 7 25.9 31.1 07-19 2860 3487 8 19 2543 18 189 14 12 2 5 30 18 0 2 4.2 22.3 43.1 69 2.4 26.2 06-22 3303 3487 9 19 2944 20 216 15 12 2 6 37 21 0 2 4.2 22.7 55.1 99 3 26.6 06-00 3383 3487 9 20 3017 21 219 15 12 2 6 39 21 0 2 4.2 22.7 55.1 111 3.3 26.6 00-00 3487 3487 9 20 3092 21 236 16 12 2 9 44 24 0 2 4.2 22.8 55.1 122 3.5 26.6

Vehicle speed And Classification Survey - High Street, Ludgershall (Site 1, Near Church Lane) Benchmark Data Collection

Wed 22 February 2012 Northbound Time Total RunTot . a  /  /  w  w  w ! ! ! ! ! ! Vmin Mean Vmax >PSL >PSL% Vpp / ë  ë  Ç . .   30 30 85 0000 7 3494 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 20.7 24.1 28.3 0 0 - 0100 10 3504 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 20.7 26.2 37.6 2 20 - 0200 8 3512 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 21.4 26.7 33.3 2 25 - 0300 8 3520 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.5 27.2 31.7 2 25 - 0400 15 3535 0 0 8 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 18 23.1 33.3 1 6.7 25.3 0500 32 3567 0 0 21 0 7 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 18.2 27 34.1 10 31.3 30.9 0600 107 3674 1 0 80 0 17 1 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 11.3 24.5 44.2 11 10.3 28.4 0700 234 3908 0 2 203 1 14 2 4 0 1 3 3 0 1 3.9 23.8 38.4 12 5.1 27.1 0800 268 4176 1 1 251 2 8 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3.9 22.7 33.1 8 3 26.6 0900 205 4381 0 1 169 2 23 2 0 0 2 4 1 0 1 8.2 22 35.4 4 2 25.9 1000 168 4549 3 0 135 2 17 2 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 9.9 20.3 30.4 1 0.6 24.4 1100 187 4736 0 1 159 0 18 2 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 9.4 21 32.5 1 0.5 24.2 1200 222 4958 0 1 195 1 19 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 4.1 20.9 29.8 0 0 24.4 1300 221 5179 1 1 195 3 15 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 4.1 20.2 33.9 2 0.9 24.2 1400 229 5408 2 1 198 0 18 2 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 7.5 20.2 31.5 3 1.3 24.8 1500 267 5675 0 0 235 1 22 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 6.8 20.4 30.4 2 0.7 24.4 1600 352 6027 1 3 323 2 17 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 4.1 22.1 41.2 5 1.4 25.7 1700 444 6471 1 4 416 1 19 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 7.6 22.1 31.1 3 0.7 25.5 1800 291 6762 0 1 281 1 5 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 9 22.8 33.8 6 2.1 26.2 1900 152 6914 1 0 143 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 6.5 23.7 34.3 6 3.9 27.1 2000 94 7008 0 0 85 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 12.3 23.3 34.9 2 2.1 26.2 2100 62 7070 0 0 59 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.9 24.2 42.2 3 4.8 26.8 2200 62 7132 0 0 59 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16.6 24.6 34.5 3 4.8 27.5 2300 15 7147 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 17.4 24.4 29.2 0 0 26.4 07-19 3088 7147 9 16 2760 16 195 17 16 3 11 25 17 1 2 3.9 21.7 41.2 47 1.5 25.7 06-22 3503 7147 11 16 3127 16 228 18 16 3 12 31 21 1 3 3.9 21.9 44.2 69 2 25.7 06-00 3580 7147 11 16 3200 16 230 18 16 3 12 33 21 1 3 3.9 22 44.2 72 2 25.9 00-00 3660 7147 11 16 3248 16 248 20 16 3 15 39 24 1 3 3.9 22.1 44.2 89 2.4 25.9

Vehicle speed And Classification Survey - High Street, Ludgershall (Site 1, Near Church Lane) Benchmark Data Collection

Thu 23 February 2012 Northbound Time Total RunTot . a  /  /  w  w  w ! ! ! ! ! ! Vmin Mean Vmax >PSL >PSL% Vpp / ë  ë  Ç . .   30 30 85 0000 13 7160 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 22 27.5 36.8 2 15.4 29.3 0100 10 7170 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10.3 22.8 31.8 2 20 - 0200 9 7179 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 21.6 23.7 28.4 0 0 - 0300 6 7185 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.1 26.9 32.4 1 16.7 - 0400 16 7201 0 0 4 0 7 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 16.1 23.5 30.7 1 6.3 26.4 0500 28 7229 0 0 17 0 5 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 10.2 25.3 33.5 4 14.3 29.5 0600 100 7329 0 0 77 0 17 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 24.8 35.2 13 13 29.3 0700 214 7543 0 1 191 0 16 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 5.6 24.2 35.8 9 4.2 27.3 0800 255 7798 1 1 234 0 15 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 7.4 22.6 31.7 5 2 25.9 0900 199 7997 1 1 166 5 17 5 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 21.1 29.5 0 0 24.6 1000 160 8157 0 0 139 1 12 1 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 8.3 22 33.8 4 2.5 26.4 1100 162 8319 1 0 136 1 19 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 6.4 20.6 29.9 0 0 24.2 1200 193 8512 1 2 166 0 17 1 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 9.1 21.8 30.8 2 1 25.1 1300 168 8680 0 0 143 0 17 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 9 22.5 31.9 3 1.8 25.9 1400 207 8887 0 3 184 2 17 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11.2 22 32.4 2 1 25.7 1500 277 9164 2 2 247 3 17 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 5.3 21.7 34.6 3 1.1 25.5 1600 336 9500 1 5 307 2 17 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 7.8 22.4 31.7 5 1.5 25.9 1700 428 9928 0 4 399 0 20 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 8.6 22.7 33.9 7 1.6 26.4 1800 301 10229 0 4 285 1 9 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 9.8 22.3 34.3 4 1.3 25.7 1900 168 10397 0 1 159 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 10.3 22.2 32.8 1 0.6 26.4 2000 108 10505 1 0 100 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9.5 22.8 33 4 3.7 26.8 2100 78 10583 0 0 76 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.7 24.4 37.4 4 5.1 26.8 2200 57 10640 0 0 53 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 16.5 24.4 37 3 5.3 27.5 2300 26 10666 0 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 14.1 26.1 40.3 3 11.5 29.1 07-19 2900 10666 7 23 2597 15 193 16 6 3 12 19 9 0 0 4 22.2 35.8 44 1.5 25.9 06-22 3354 10666 8 24 3009 17 220 23 6 4 13 19 11 0 0 4 22.4 37.4 66 2 25.9 06-00 3437 10666 8 25 3083 17 222 23 6 4 13 24 12 0 0 4 22.4 40.3 72 2.1 26.2 00-00 3519 10666 8 25 3130 17 241 24 6 4 21 30 13 0 0 4 22.5 40.3 82 2.3 26.2

Vehicle speed And Classification Survey - High Street, Ludgershall (Site 1, Near Church Lane)