Transport Critique of the Elsenham Settlement Expansion Proposal within the District Council Draft Local Plan

110031/N09

10 January 2014

Executive Summary

1. This note has been prepared by Vectos who act for Land Securities who are the owner of a significant area of land between Stansted Airport and Great Dunmow.

2. The note examines the transport aspects of the proposals within the UDC Draft Local Plan for a new settlement of circa 2100 residential units and employment development to the north of Elsenham. It should be read in conjunction with the SEA Comparative Assessment prepared by Watermans.

3. A summary of the findings is given below.

4. Road Access: Elsenham has wholly inadequate road access to cater for a major expansion as envisaged within the Draft Local Plan. The road access is characterised by the following:

 None of the three routes to the south of Elsenham are suitable for large increases in traffic (including HGVs). The majority of vehicular trips from Elsenham will wish to pass along one of these three routes towards the M11 or A120.  Surveys indicate the route suggested by the site promoters (Hall Road) has the longest journey time even during peak periods.  HGV traffic will need to access the employment element of the proposals which will lead to major environmental and safety issues.  has particular traffic and environmental problems and therefore attraction of additional traffic through this town is highly undesirable.  Development at Elsenham will lead to significant impacts at junctions in Stansted Mountfitchet and Takeley and at M11 Junction 8.

5. Rail Access: Although Elsenham has a rail station, the rail services to London and Cambridge and intermediate stations are relatively infrequent and there is currently no service to Stansted Airport. The demand for rail services is limited with most trips by residents taking place within the local area (Uttlesford and East Herts).

6. Bus Services: Any bus services provided to serve the site will be significantly constrained by the inadequate highway network. This will lead to extended journey times and a lack of reliability. This will not encourage a shift from the private car to public transport.

7. Evidence base: An inadequate evidence base is provided to demonstrate the acceptability of the proposals. One of the key background papers to the Draft Local Plan is the “Uttlesford

Page: 2

Local Plan Highway Assessment” dated October 2013 and prepared by County Council. However, this report makes no assessment of the proposals at Elsenham. From conversations with Essex CC officers we are advised that this assessment work is being undertaken at the present time. In any case the format of the Essex CC report is inadequate since it only looks at highway capacity and not sustainability issues. It carries out no comparison with other potential sites.

Conclusions

8. We conclude that there is no sound evidence base from a transport perspective which would allow Uttlesford District Council to make a sound decision to select Elsenham as a preferred location for major residential led development.

9. Furthermore, our own detailed analysis demonstrates that Elsenham is not a suitable location for such development. It has inadequate road access and would not provide a suitable sustainable transport strategy.

Page: 3

Introduction

1. This note sets out an appraisal of the transport implications of locating a major mixed use (residential/employment) development at Elsenham.

2. The report considers the following key issues:

 Highway access.  Travel patterns.  Public transport.

3. In the absence of adequate analysis provided in UDCs evidence base our analysis has had to be based on a number of historical documents including David Lock’s representations to the UDC “Core Strategy Policy Choices and Options for Growth” and the WSP document entitled “Initial Road Link Capacity Assessment” (July 2006 with September 2007 Addendum). We have also examined background papers to the Draft Local Plan allocations as contained on the UDC portal. In addition we have examined the transport information submitted with the planning application for 800 units at Elsenham (Ref: UTT/13/0808/OP), submitted by the Fairfield Partnership and subsequently refused by UDC.

Highway Access

4. The essential prerequisite of any large scale new settlement in the district is good road access to the local, regional and strategic highway network. The reasons for this are as follows:

 Notwithstanding encouragement for residents and employees to use public transport, the majority of trips are still likely to be under taken by road vehicles.  Poor highway access leads to congestion, delay and environmental impacts in surrounding towns and villages.  Poor highway access leads to the use of unsuitable roads by light and heavy goods vehicles.  Any significant employment development will attract significant volumes of heavy goods vehicles for which good highway access is essential.  The majority of public transport in the area will be by bus. Buses require good highway access in order to improve journey times and reliability.

5. Demonstrably, the village of Elsenham does not have good access to the regional and strategic highway network and even access to nearby towns is problematic. We note that there have been 183 accidents within the local area in the last 5 years including 2 fatalities. There was some clustering of accidents within Stansted Mountfitchet

6. Other than for local trips, virtually all northbound and southbound journeys will be undertaken using the M11. Similarly, the vast majority of eastbound and westbound trips will be under taken using the A120. Access to both of these roads is at or close to the M11 Junction 8, which is the junction between the M11 and the A120 which also serves Stansted Airport.

Page: 4

7. To pass southwards from Elsenham to this junction requires using one of three routes, all of which are unsatisfactory.

Potential Traffic Routes

8. The three routes to the south of Elsenham are described in the paragraphs below and shown on Figure 1. Whilst Vectos have undertaken their own analysis and journey time surveys, this note refers to information put forward by the Fairfield Partnership themselves in the Transport Assessment supporting the planning application for 800 units.

9. Hall Road: Hall Road heads south from Elsenham, just to the east of the village. It is an unclassified road which passes through Gaunt’s End and Mill End. It skirts the north and eastern boundaries of Stansted Airport.

10. The road is of variable width, does not have footways along the majority of its length and is also not generally subject to street lighting. The alignment is variable with a number of sharp bends. It is clear that this road does not apply with modern design and safety standards.

11. At present, access can be gained from this route onto one of the main access roads from the A120 to Stansted Airport. This is at a location known as Cooper’s End. From this point, vehicles can access the A120 and then the M11. For movements to the M11 (south) the direct slip roads at Junction 8a can be used.

12. However, under a condition within the original planning permission for Stansted Airport, there is a requirement that the Cooper’s End access to the Airport is restricted to public transport only.

13. Once this restriction is implemented, vehicles heading to or from Elsenham would have to pass southbound over the A120 into Takeley and join the old A120 (now the B1256) at the Takeley crossroads. From here, vehicles will either be able to pass westbound towards the M11 Junction 8, or eastbound towards the A120 junction at Great Dunmow. This is the routing assumed by the Fairfield Partnership.

14. There are a number of implications of this as follows:

 Environmental and amenity impacts of additional vehicles passing through Takeley.  The capacity of the Takeley crossroad signals.  The amenity implications of additional traffic on the old B1256.  All traffic to/from Elsenham would require to pass through the main M11 Junction 8 roundabout.

15. Tye Green Road: The second route between Elsenham and the M11/A120 is via Tye Green Road. This route is not considered by the Fairfield Partnership as attracting significant traffic. Presumably this is because they consider it unsuitable for access. Whilst we would agree that it is an unsuitable road for a major access, nevertheless, this will not stop traffic using it if it finds it more convenient, quicker or as a route to avoid congestion elsewhere. It is important to note that the route provides a shorter route to both Bishops Stortford and M11 Junction 8 than the Hall Road route.

Page: 5

16. The route is characterised by a variable width and poor alignment. It passes through a number of villages and communities including Tye Green and Bur ton End.

17. It is inevitable that by locating major development at Elsenham, additional traffic will be attracted to this unsuitable route, thus leading to difficulties with safety and amenity for local residents.

18. Stansted Road: This route passes to the west of Elsenham over the M11 and through Stansted Mountfitchet before joining the A120 immediately to the north of Bishops Stortford.

19. However, as acknowledged in the TA and other reports, this route experiences traffic congestion around Stansted Mountfitchet during peak periods. Specifically, the following problems have been identified by Vectos:

 On-street parking: the carriageway width on Chapel Hill and Lower Street through the centre of Stansted Mountfitchet is approximately 5-6 metres. Frequent on-street parking further narrows the available carriageway space, causing slow-moving traffic and augmenting queuing and delays during peak periods. Residential properties line the main route through the village and most properties do not have off-street parking, compounding the problem. The width of adjoining footways is narrow in places which limits the potential for highway improvements.  Single carriageway bridge: The road bridge on the B1051 at Grove Hill is too narrow to allow for the two-way flow of traffic. As a result it is one-way and controlled by traffic signals which permit the movement of traffic from alternate directions. This causes queuing in both directions and severely restricts highway capacity on the B1051 which is orientated in an east-west direction between the B1383 in the west, through Elsenham to the B184 at in the east.  Junction of B1051 Chapel Hill/B1383 Cambridge Road: This junction suffers from poor right turning visibility from Chapel Hill. The B1383 continues north to connect with junction 9 of the M11 and therefore this junction represents an important intersection between a north-south and east-west route.  Tight road alignment: The position of the Old Bell hotel on the B1383 Silver Street creates a tight road alignment, which can slow the movement of traffic.

20. It is also relevant to note David Lock Associates assessment of traffic conditions in Stansted Mountfitchet contained within their representations on behalf of the Fair field Partnership (January 2007). When considering further development at Stansted Mountfitchet they advised:

21. “The town has a particular issue with traffic. The B1383 runs through Stansted Mountfitchet and increases in traffic will be taken through the town. The sensitive landscape setting of the town not only limits potential for new growth, but also has implications for the potential to bypass the town. Any bypass would have significant and far reaching adverse impacts on the landscape quality and could also impact on historic assets and flood planning. Congestion issues also exist at the southern end of the B1383 that would be exacerbated by large scale development here.”

Page: 6

22. The TA seeks to suggest that the main route to be used by traffic is Hall Road. This is in order to avoid assigning traffic via Stansted Mountfitchet.

23. The analysis in the TA shows that the route between Elsenham and Bishop Stortford via Stansted Mountfitchet is quicker than via Hall Road in all cases except one hour of the day (08:00 to 09:00). Taking a normal active day of 16 hours (07:00 to 23:00) this means that for only 6% of the time is the route quicker, based on the TA analysis. In fact, it is not necessarily the case that the route is slower between 08:00 to 09:00 based on our own observations.

24. The TA tables themselves show the very significant increase in journey time that would come from using the Hall Road route. In general the Hall Road route takes around 18-20 minutes whereas the route via Stansted Mountfitchet takes 11-12 minutes. This is not surprising given that the route is approximately 15.3km compared with 8.5km via Stansted Mountfitchet ie almost twice the distance.

25. Similarly it is quicker to travel through Stansted Mountfitchet to get to the M11 Junction 8 than use Hall Road. The respective distances are 8.4km and 12km.

26. It is suggested that certain highway interventions could be introduced in order affect journey times and route choice. No evidence is provided that the journey time along Hall Road could be improved given existing constraints (eg bends) and we do not consider increasing speeds is an appropriate approach in terms of highway safety.

27. Therefore, we consider it is inevitable that a development at Elsenham will lead to very significant increases in traffic passing through Stansted Mountfitchet. Even if, congestion at peak times discourages traffic from using the route (and encourages use of other unsatisfactory routes), during off peak times when congestion is less, then significant traffic will elect to use this route. This will have a significant detrimental effect on issues of acknowledged importance such as safety, amenity and environmental impact.

Page: 7

Plan 1: Three Transport Routes to the South of Elsenham

Page: 8

Junction Capacity

28. A further important factor is the effect that traffic from the proposed development at Elsenham will have on junction capacity.

29. The most significant junction capacity issues are likely to arise at the following locations:

 Within Stansted Mountfitchet.  At the M11 Junction 8.  At the Takeley Crossorads.

30. As noted in the Executive Summary, no up to date traffic analysis has been undertaken within the latest report prepared by Essex County Council. Therefore, there is no evidential basis for determining if traffic generated by the proposed settlement can be accommodated on the surrounding highway network. This is particularly important given the critical nature of junctions within Stansted Mountfitchet and at the M11.

31. However, within the TA to support the planning application for 800 units some capacity analysis is presented which shows a number of junctions operating over capacity. Clearly this situation will be considerably worse with 2100 units and employment development.

32. Within Stansted Mountfitchet there are 2 critical priority junctions; at the Chapel Hill/ Cambridge Road junction and the Chapel Hill/Church Road junction. Capacity issues at these junctions will lead to potential safety problems since they are under priority control and therefore people will be tempted to take higher risks when exiting from the minor road. In both cases, traffic travelling from Elsenham has to give way to other traffic at the priority junction.

33. In addition, there is a set of signals at the B1051/B1351 junction. These are required due to the narrow width of the carriageway on Grove Hill at this point. No evidence is presented to show that this critical location on the network would be able to cope with additional traffic from the proposed development at Elsenham. Whilst it is suggested that little traffic would use this route (possibly due to the capacity constraints) this is unlikely to be the case in reality due to the shorter journey distance. Therefore, additional traffic will use the route and cause additional congestion and safety and environmental problems.

34. For traffic using the Stansted Road and Hall Road routes, all traffic has to pass through the roundabout at M11 Junction 8 and cannot use the slip roads from the M11 south to A120 east.

35. A significant proportion of traffic from the proposed development at Elsenham would pass through the M11 junction. This junction is already subject to some capacity problems and these would be exacerbated by further development at Stansted and elsewhere in the region.

36. With the closure of the Coopers End entrance to Stansted Airport, any traffic heading to or from Elsenham and using Hall Road will need to pass through Takeley and in particular the crossroads within the village itself. No analysis has been under taken on how the junction would cater for additional traffic flows generated by the development. This is particularly

Page: 9

important since any capacity improvements are likely to be problematic due to existing land and property constraints.

37. The decision to select Elsenham as the preferred location for future development has been taken without any proper up to date consideration of junction capacity issues, even at a strategic level.

Summary

38. In summary, the road access to Elsenham is wholly inadequate to cater for the proposed allocation in the Draft Local Plan. This is for a number of reasons including:

 A significant proportion of traffic is expected to travel south of Elsenham towards the A120 and M11.  None of the three routes to the south which traffic can take are suitable for significant increases in traffic volume. Traffic will use the route which it finds most convenient and shortest in journey time and cost and therefore traffic is likely to be attracted to routes such as Stansted Road through Stansted Mountfitchet and Tye Green Road rather than just the “preferred” route via Hall Road.  Stansted Mountfitchet has particular traffic and environmental problems as has been identified by David Lock Associates. Therefore, attraction of significant additional traffic to this route is highly undesirable and will lead to environmental and safety concerns.  Inadequate routes are provided for the HGV traffic travelling to the employment element of the scheme.  Development at Elsenham will have a significant effect on junctions within Stansted Mountfitchet, Takeley and at the M11.  The inadequate highway access will lead to difficulties for provision of high quality, reliable public transport.

Public Transport

39. There are two modes of public transport which currently serve Elsenham and would serve any additional residential led development. These are rail services and bus services.

Rail Services

40. There is an existing rail station at Elsenham which is on the London to Cambridge line. The current frequency of service is relatively low with 2 services per hour both northbound (to Cambridge) and southbound (to London) during the peak periods and 1 service per hour during the off peak periods. The journey time to London is approximately 1 hour, with the journey time to Cambridge being approximately half an hour.

41. Census data for the Elsenham ward shows that 11% of journeys to work are undertaken by train at present. This is consistent with the Census data that shows that the majority of those living in Uttlesford work within the District or neighbouring districts. Within the Elsenham ward 14% of residents work in London. It is important to note that these figures are only for journeys to work and it is likely that the percentage for other journeys, which will be more

Page: 10

local in nature (e.g. school, retail and commuter uses) will have a much smaller percentage using rail.

42. It can therefore be seen that, whilst of some value, the rail station will not serve the majority of trips that will be made by residents.

Bus Services

The difficulty with bus services serving Elsenham is the quality of the highway infrastructure. The constraints on the highway network are likely to lead to potential extended journey times for bus services and a reduction in reliability.

Summary

43. We therefore conclude that it is not correct to conclude that a major residential development at Elsenham would be well served by sustainable modes of transport. Whilst the rail station is of some value it serves the minority of trips. The greater potential use of public transport is by bus. However, the quality and reliability of services will be very significantly constrained by the inadequate highway network in the area. Summary and Conclusions

44. This report has considered proposals for a residential development to the north of Elsenham comprising approximately 2100 residential units along with employment development.

45. We conclude that there is no sound evidence base from a transport perspective which would allow Uttlesford District Council to make a sound decision to select Elsenham as a preferred location for major residential led development.

46. Furthermore, our own detailed analysis, summarised in this report, demonstrates that Elsenham is not a suitable location for such development. It has inadequate road access, would have a significant detrimental impact on Stansted Mountfitchet and would not provide a suitable sustainable transport strategy.