A Park for Agritech, Hinxton Further Addendum to the Environmental Statement Smithsonhill
A park for AgriTech, Hinxton Further Addendum to the Environmental Statement SmithsonHill
New technical appendix J2: TN01 Traffic Modelling Report
Terence O’Rourke Ltd 2019 35
A Planning Appeal by SMITHSONHILL LIMITED
In respect of A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON
Traffic Modelling Report
August 2018 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
DOCUMENT SIGNATURE AND REVIEW SHEET
Project Details
Project Title: A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON
Project No.: 1803-72 Report No.: 1803-72/TN/01
Client: SmithsonHill Limited
Prepared By: Checked By: Approved for issue
Giovanni Di Guardo / Name Rupert Lyons Daniel Ekstrand Daniel Ekstrand
Signature GDG / DE RTBL DE
Date 20/8/2018 20/8/2018 22/8/2018
Document Review
Revision Date Description Checked By
Issued by:
Bristol Transport Planning Associates Cambridge 25 Southampton Buildings London London Manchester WC2A 1AL Oxford Welwyn Garden City
020 3709 9405 [email protected] www.tpa.uk.com
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 i A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
CONTENTS PAGE
1 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY 1 2 INTRODUCTION 4 The Purpose of this Technical Note Traffic Modelling Assumptions 3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 10 Delay Assessment 4 RESIDUAL IMPACT FOLLOWING MITIGATION 13 Enhanced Off-site Highway Works Stage I Road Safety Audit Junction Capacity Assessments (with enhanced off-site highway works) Delay Assessments (with enhanced off-site highway works) 5 SENSITIVITY TESTS 25 Wellcome Traffic Flows Uttlesford Sensitivity Flows (from ABA Transport Assessment) Junction Capacity Assessments (Sensitivity test with enhanced off-site highway works) Delay Assessments (with enhanced off-site highway works) 6 CONCLUSIONS 30
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 ii A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Trip Rates per Employee – Land Use B1 Table 2.2 Total Person Trip Rate – Land Use B1 Table 2.3 Multi-Modal development trips BAU Scenario Table 2.4 Vehicle Trip Distribution Table 3.1 Summary of Total Junction Delay in the Study Area (seconds per vehicle): ABA assessment Table 3.2 Summary of Total Junction Delay in the Study Area following model corrections (seconds per vehicle) Table 4.1 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 1 (M11) Table 4.2 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 2 (Hunts Road) Table 4.3 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 3 (Moorfield) Table 4.4 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 7 (A505 / A1301) Table 4.5 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 9 (A1307/ A11 Roundabout) Table 4.6 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 11 (A1301/ Site Access Road) Table 4.7 Summary of Total Junction Delay in the Study Area (summed across respective junction approaches expressed in seconds per vehicle or PCU): with TPA mitigation Table 4.8 Route Based Delay Results (seconds) Table 4.9 Comparison of the Delays between the TPA BAU scenario and the Future Base scenario Table 5.1 Sensitivity Test: Wellcome Genome Campus Trip Generation Table 5.2 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 1 (M11) Table 5.3 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 2 (Hunts Road) Table 5.4 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 7 (A505 / A1301) Table 5.5 Summary of Total Junction Delay Sensitivity Scope (summed across respective junction approaches expressed in seconds per vehicle or PCU)
LIST OF APPENDICES
A South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Refusal of Planning Permission Notice, dated 13 March 2018 B Enhanced off-site highway works C Designer`s Response Reports to Stage 1 Road Safety Audits D Modelling Outputs and Parameter Drawings E Sensitivity Test: TRICS Reports F Wellcome Genome Campus Trip Generation and Distribution
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 iii A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Vehicle Trip Distribution Figure 4.1 Routes for route based delay comparison
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 iv A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
1 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
1.1 This Technical Note has been prepared by Transport Planning Associates in order to provide further analysis of the transport planning evidence base prepared by Alan Baxter Associates (ABA) and others on behalf of SmithsonHill in the context of the relevant reasons for refusal of SmithsonHill’s outline planning application to South Cambridgeshire District Council for a park for AgriTech in Hinxton.
1.2 The Council’s principal allegations are that:
the road network in this locality is already congested; there is insufficient information in the ABA Transport Assessment to demonstrate the full extent of the development’s impact on the local highway network; there is uncertainty on the impacts of the development on the strategic highway network; and the applicant has not demonstrated that the scheme would have a satisfactory impact on the local highway network.
1.3 This Technical Note also provides additional analysis of the evidence base and considers alternative highway infrastructure improvement proposals to mitigate the transport impact of the proposed development.
Traffic Modelling
1.4 As a first step, this Technical Note comprises a review of the traffic modelling assumptions employed in the transport planning evidence base to derive the scope and extent of the site access arrangement and the off-site highway works required to provide suitable vehicular access to, and to mitigate the traffic impact of, the proposed development.
1.5 We conclude that ABA’s derivation of existing and forecast base traffic flows is in accordance with good practice, although given the extent of the consideration of traffic associated with committed development, it is considered that the application of TEMPro growth factors is likely to be overly robust.
1.6 Our review of ABA’s traffic generation calculation reveals that ABA’s use of the TRICS-based methodology represents a reasonable worst case estimate of forecast peak hour development traffic flows.
1.7 Notwithstanding the commitment in the ABA Transport Assessment to achieve the Target mode share of 50% (of car drivers) through the active management of staff and visitor car parking and the provision and implementation of various travel planning initiatives, the traffic modelling and subsequent capacity analyses that inform the site access arrangement and off- site highway works required is based on a Business as Usual assessment that assumes that
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 1 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
79% of person trips to and from the proposed development will be made by car drivers. Again, that is likely to result in an overly robust assessment.
1.8 ABA’s trip distribution has been calculated based on the Census Journey to Work data for the area where the site is located (South Cambridgeshire Middle Layer Super Output Area 017) and we consider that methodology is fit for purpose in accordance with conventional assumptions with regard to journeys to work.
1.9 The calibration and validation of the junction models employed in the ABA Transport Assessment are in accordance with the request of the Local Highway Authority.
1.10 ABA’s analysis indicated that an overall benefit was brought to the highway network following the ABA Transport Assessment proposals. However further investigation into the results revealed errors in the modelling and in the proposed designs. In light of this further analysis of the information contained in the ABA Transport Assessment was undertaken.
Proposed Off-site Highway Works
1.11 Our review of the ABA proposed off-site highway works revealed some unnecessary departures from standards and our optioneering exercise determined some alternative strategies that will enhance the effectiveness of the proposed works. We have also identified some additional off-site highway works which fully mitigate the Business As Usual scenario.
1.12 The new proposed mitigation package has been subject to a Stage I Road Safety Audit.
Further Traffic Modelling
1.13 Our further traffic modelling of an enhanced package of off-site highway works shows that the performance of the highway network within the study area would be significantly improved. Incorporation of that enhanced package of works delivers improvements (in the delay experienced by vehicles on the approaches to the junctions within the study area) of 56.5% and 75.3 % in the AM and PM peak periods, respectively.
1.14 Further analysis of three key routes through the study area reveals significant (circa 20-25 minutes) reductions in eastbound journey times during the AM peak period and in westbound journey times in the PM peak period.
Sensitivity Testing
1.15 We have undertaken sensitivity testing of the junctions previously considered by ABA (that assumes the unmitigated traffic impact of the proposed Wellcome Genome Campus and North Uttlesford Garden Settlement developments). This reveals that:
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 2 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
the approaches to Junction 10 of the M11 (Junction 1) continue to show improved performance when compared to the 2030 Baseline (do nothing scenario); the approaches to the Hunts Road Junction (Junction 2) continue to show significantly improved performance when compared to the 2030 Baseline (do nothing scenario); and with the exception of the A505 eastbound approach and the A1301 southbound approach (in the AM peak period) and the A1301 northbound approach (in the PM peak period), the other approaches to the A505/ A1301 Roundabout (Junction 7) continue to show improved performance when compared to the 2030 Baseline (do nothing scenario). In respect of those two approaches, further off-site highway works will be required in order to accommodate the cumulative impact of the proposed developments.
Conclusions
1.16 Overall, our further analysis demonstrates that there was sufficient data contained within the transport planning evidence base prepared by ABA to determine that it had undertaken an overly robust analysis of the traffic impact of the proposed development.
1.17 Moreover, and based on a worst case (Business as Usual) assessment, we consider that the evidence base adequately demonstrated that the scope and extent of the off-site highway works proposed by ABA were capable of yielding a beneficial impact when compared to the 2030 Baseline (do nothing scenario). With our proposed further enhanced off-site highway works we have demonstrated that they will.
1.18 Furthermore, we consider that an enhanced package of highway works can be delivered that will result in significantly reduced journey times for drivers in the study area.
1.19 For those reasons, we consider that the reasons for refusal are unfounded.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 3 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 This Technical Note has been prepared by Transport Planning Associates (“TPA”, “we” and/ or “our”) in accordance with the instructions received from SmithsonHill Limited (“SmithsonHill”). It relates to the refusal of SmithsonHill’s outline planning application1 to South Cambridgeshire District Council (the “District Council”) for:
“an AgriTech Park comprising 112,000m2 of gross employment floor space, supporting infrastructure, amenities and landscape works including publicly accessible informal space, enhancements to parkland vehicle and cycle parking, bus and cycle interchange on land west of A1301/north of A505, infrastructure works including vehicular access, highway improvement works, pedestrian and cycle bridge and primary electricity sub station and associated works” (the “proposed development”)
2.2 The application was refused by Notice dated 13 March 2018.
2.3 Nine reasons for refusal (“RfR”) are cited in the District Council’s Refusal of Planning Permission [Appendix A]. Insofar as they relate to traffic impact, the District Council’s principal allegations are that:
the road network in this locality is already congested (RfR 5 & 6); there is insufficient information in the Alan Baxter Associates Transport Assessment to demonstrate the full extent of the development’s impact on the local highway network (RfR 5); there is uncertainty as to the impacts of the development on the strategic highway network (RfR 5); and that the applicant has not demonstrated that the development would have a satisfactory impact on the local highway network (RfR 5).
The Purpose of this Technical Note
2.4 This Technical Note reviews the transport planning evidence base prepared by Alan Baxter Associates (“ABA”) and others on behalf of SmithsonHill in the context of the District Council’s reasons for refusal2 together with the associated cross-referenced transport and land use planning policy.
1 Application Number S/4099/17/OL 2 5; 6;
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 4 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
Traffic Modelling Assumptions
Existing Traffic Flows
2.5 Section 7 of the ABA document A Park for AgriTech, Hinxton, Transport Assessment, Prepared for SmithsonHill, February 2018 detailed the traffic surveys that ABA undertook for the study area. Classified traffic flow counts were undertaken for a neutral two-week period Monday, 23 January to Sunday, 5 February 2017 for the following road links by means of Automated Traffic Counter (“ATC”):
A505 M11 A11 A1301 A1307
2.6 Fully classified turning movements and queue lengths were surveyed within the same period on Wednesday, 1 February 2017 from 07:00 to 10:00 and from 16:00 to 19:00 at the following junctions:
A505/M11 A505/Hunts Road A505/Moorfield Road A505/Station Road A505/A1301 Roundabout A505/A11/Pampisford Road (all movements) A11/A1307 A1301/New North Road/Private Access A1301/Hunts Lane A1301/Wellcome Campus A1301/A11 B184/Newmarket Road/Walden Road/Field Farm Drive
2.7 The data shows that the critical peak period is the morning (07:00-10:00hrs) with 08:00-09:00 the peak hour within that period. Further analysis confirms that the turning movement and queue length surveys were undertaken on an average day within the two-week survey period.
2.8 Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) surveys were undertaken in order to identify the extent of rat-running traffic using local roads through Duxford, Hinxton and Ickleton to bypass congestion on the A505 and A1301.
2.9 In summary, of the vehicles recorded travelling between the Wellcome Trust Roundabout and Hunts Road Roundabout, 88% travelled via A1301 and A505 along the main roads with 10% travelling through Duxford and the village of Hinxton and the remaining 2% travelling through
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 5 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
Ickleton. On average journey times on the main roads were recorded as 3.5 minutes quicker than via the villages.
Junction Model Validation
2.10 Using the turning counts, junction models were validated by ABA and the validation against queue lengths was included in the ABA Transport Assessment. Intercept values adjustments were explained within the ABA Transport Assessment in accordance with a request made by Cambridgeshire County Council (the “County Council” and/ or the “Local Highway Authority”)3. These models later formed the basis for the forecasting that was undertaken and subsequent impact assessments.
Background Growth
2.11 The ABA Transport Assessment assumes background traffic growth estimated using TEMPRO factors for the period 2017 to 2030. We have noted that no committed highway capacity improvement schemes have been identified for the junctions or links within the assessment area to mitigate this background growth.
Committed Development Flows
2.12 We understand that that the following committed developments located near to the site were agreed with the County Council and the District Council to be included in the ABA Transport Assessment:
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (App Ref: S/1099/14/RM) Chesterford Research Park (Selwyn and Sidney Sussex Buildings) Former Spicer Site (App Ref: S/2091/14/FL) 8 Greenacres Duxford (App Ref: S/0276/15/OL) Babraham Research Campus (App Ref: S/1676/14/OL) Granta Park (App Ref: S/1110/15/OL) Lion Works, Whittlesford (App Ref: S/0746/15/OL) Site 6, Granta Park (App Ref: S/2254/15/FL) Sawston Trade Park Expansion (pp Ref: S/2284/17/OL)21
2.13 Traffic from unoccupied elements of these developments has been extracted from their individual Transport Assessments and included in the Future Baseline scenario.
2.14 Further development sites were identified by ABA. These either did not have committed status or would not have any material traffic impact.
3 §7.4 in the Pre application advice prepared by Transport Assessment Team, Author Emily Butler, dated 14 September 2017
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 6 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
Trip Generation
2.15 It is understood that the Trip Rate Information Computer System v7.3.4 (“TRICS”) database was used to ascertain suitable trip rates for the proposed development. Based on the selected parameters for land use B1 (business park) five sites were selected.
2.16 Given the variation in gross floor area (“GFA”) and number of employees for the selected sites, trip rates have been determined per employee in order to “provide the most comparative trip rate”. The resultant trip rates from the ABA Transport Assessment are illustrated in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Trip Rates per Employee – Land Use B1
Total Trip Rates
Arrivals Departures Totals AM 08:00-09:00 0.365 0.044 0.409 PM 17:00-18:00 0.036 0.289 0.325 Daily 07:00-19:00 1.204 1.174 2.378 Source: Table 8.3 AgriTech, Hinxton, Transport Assessment, Prepared for SmithsonHill, February 2018
2.17 The anticipated trip rates to be generated by the masterplan has been calculated by applying the proposed number of employees (4,000) to be accommodated at the site. Table 2.2 summarises the proposed Total Person Trip Rates.
Table 2.2 Total Person Trip Rate – Land Use B1
Total Person Trips
Arrivals Departures Totals AM 08:00-09:00 1,460 176 1,636 PM 17:00-18:00 144 1,156 1,300 12HR 07:00-19:00 4,816 4,696 9,512 Source: Table 8.5 AgriTech, Hinxton, Transport Assessment, Prepared for SmithsonHill, February 2018
2.18 The Local Highway Authority suggested that the approach of using trip rates derived from the Business Park category in TRICS did not correlate closely enough with the proposed development and requested a first principles approach be adopted. ABA therefore undertook a sensitivity test within the Transport Assessment.
2.19 The sensitivity test, which broke down employment into an indicative mix of different use classes, confirmed the AM period (0800-0900) being the critical peak. It produced similar, but lower, trip rates compared to those produced assuming a standard TRICS 02/B Business Park use across the site.
2.20 ABA concluded that the initial trip generation exercise presented a robust worst case estimate during the peak periods. This was based on accommodating up to 4,000 employees on site.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 7 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
We endorse this methodology and have therefore also adopted these trip rates for the purpose of this report.
2.21 When further analysing the mode share ABA adopted two methodologies: a Target mode share scenario of 50% car drivers, and a Business As Usual case (“BAU”) scenario assuming a 79% car driver mode share. During the scoping of the ABA Transport Assessment, the County Council requested that the BAU scenario should be assessed in case the Target mode share wasn’t achieved. We have therefore focused on the BAU scenario throughout this report in order to ensure a robust assessment.
Table 2.3 Multi-Modal development trips BAU Scenario
Mode Split AM PM 12Hr
(Primary Mode of travel) 08:00-09:00 17:00-18:00 07:00-19:00 Arr 1,156 114 3,813 Car Driver 79% Dep 139 915 3,718 Tot 1,295 1,029 7,532 Arr 67 7 220 Car Passenger 5% Dep 8 53 214 Tot 75 59 434 Arr 24 2 79 Rail 2% Dep 3 19 77 Tot 27 21 156 Arr 103 10 338 Bus 7% Dep 12 81 330 Tot 115 91 668 Arr 65 6 215 Cycle 5% Dep 8 52 210 Tot 73 58 426 Arr 42 4 139 Pedestrian 3% Dep 5 33 136 Tot 47 38 275 Arr 1,460 144 4,816 Total 100% Dep 176 1,156 4,696 Tot 1,636 1,300 9,512
Trip Distribution
2.22 Trip distribution has been calculated based on the Census Journey to Work (2011) data for South Cambridgeshire MSOA 017. It was noted that in the ABA Transport Assessment different sets of percentages were shown in the text and in the appendices. ABA confirmed (and TPA has verified) that the correct ones, used in the assessment, are those included in Appendix 6 of the ABA Transport Assessment, which are reproduced at Table 2.4. Figure 2.1 identifies the location of travel and percentage of distribution.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 8 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
Table 2.4 Vehicle Trip Distribution
Code Direction % A M11 North 23% B A1301 North 9% C A1307 North West 2% D A11 North 28% E A1307 South East 3% F Abington 0% G B184 6% H M11 South 9% I Chesterford 4% J Hinxton 0% K Whittlesford 1% L A505 West 15% ALL ALL 100% Note – Rounded figures
Figure 2.1 Vehicle Trip Distribution
D 28% C 2%
E 3%
F 0% K 1% B 9% A 23%
L 15%
J 0%
G I 6% 4%
H 9%
Note – Rounded figures
2.23 In our view the distribution methodology adopted by ABA fit for purpose and uses conventional assumptions in regard to journey to work.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 9 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
3.1 This section of the report presents the combined delay for all junctions within the study area, extracted from the individual junction models in the ABA Transport Assessment.
3.2 The scenarios presented for the AM and PM peak period include:
Future baseline; and BAU scenario (with ABA mitigation).
Delay Assessment
3.3 The delays as reported in the ABA Transport Assessment have been summed for each approach for all the junctions assessed by scenario, in order to get a proxy for total delay for each junction.
Table 3.1 Summary of Total Junction Delay in the Study Area (seconds per vehicle): ABA assessment
Future Base Future Base BAU BAU Jct Name AM PM AM PM
1 M11/A505 Roundabout 871 469 474 47 A505/Hunts Road 2 1,326 1,506 480 454 Roundabout4 3 A505/Moorfield Road Junction 192 78 1,537 136 5 A505/Station Road Junction 1,014 33 1,028 35 A505/Bus-Cycle Interchange 6 0 0 119 45 Access 7 A505/A1301 Roundabout 2,148 11,2555 195 522 9 A1307/A11 Roundabout 3,221 651 3,3126 1,480 11 A1301/Main Site Access 0 0 60 25 A1301/North End Road 12 25 22 28 24 Junction 13 A1301/Hunts Lane Junction 21 7 25 7 A1301/Wellcome Trust 14 14 13 20 15 Roundabout 15N A1301/A11 North Roundabout 19 23 23 30 15S A1301/A11 South Roundabout 27 14 19 17 B184/Newmarket Road 16 21 21 23 25 Roundabout TOTAL (seconds) 8,960 14,092 7,343 2,862 TOTAL (hours) 2.49 3.91 2.04 0.80 Source: Summary tables ABA Transport Assessment Chapter 7 -17.5% -79.7%
4 Assumes traffic signal controlled ABA mitigation results for BAU scenarios. It should be noted that pedestrian demand was not included in the ABA analysis. 5 An error has been identified in the ABA modelling for this scenario. 6 An error has been identified in the ABA modelling for this scenario.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 10 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
3.4 Our investigation into the results revealed errors and omissions in the modelling as well as for the proposed designs.
3.5 The modelling errors or omissions related to four junctions.
The lane simulation used for the Junction 2 overestimates the capacity at this location. The modelling of the proposed traffic signal controlled mitigation proposals for the BAU scenario did not account for the pedestrian phases. A highway scheme was not presented for Junction 3, although ABA indicated that a traffic signal controlled solution could work in this location. The base forecast model for the PM peak period for Junction 7 had numbers transposed, resulting in an overestimation in delay. The BAU scenario for the AM peak period had development traffic unassigned, resulting in an under representation of development impact at Junction 9. In addition the circulatory flow calculation had not been undertaken for any future year assessments.
3.6 We note that all of these errors were not picked up the County Council.
3.7 Table 3.2 below sets out the results with the errors corrected.
Table 3.2 Summary of Total Junction Delay in the Study Area following model corrections (seconds per vehicle)
Future Base Future Base BAU BAU Jct Name AM PM AM PM
1 M11/A505 Roundabout 871 469 474 47 2 A505/Hunts Road Roundabout 1,326 1,506 480 454 3 A505/Moorfield Road Junction 192 78 1,537 136 5 A505/Station Road Junction 1,014 33 1,028 35 A505/Bus-Cycle Interchange 6 0 0 119 45 Access 7 A505/A1301 Roundabout 2,148 1,925 195 522 9 A1307/A11 Roundabout 1,834 103 2,067 141 11 A1301/Main Site Access 0 0 60 25 A1301/North End Road 12 25 22 28 24 Junction 13 A1301/Hunts Lane Junction 21 7 25 7 A1301/Wellcome Trust 14 14 13 20 15 Roundabout 15N A1301/A11 North Roundabout 19 23 23 30 15S A1301/A11 South Roundabout 27 14 19 17 B184/Newmarket Road 16 21 21 23 25 Roundabout TOTAL (seconds) 7,512 4,214 6,098 1,523 TOTAL (hours) 2.09 1.17 1.69 0.42 -18.8% -63.9%
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 11 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
3.8 This shows that the off-site highway works proposed by ABA were capable of yielding a beneficial impact when compared to the 2030 Baseline (do nothing scenario).
3.9 In regard to the design parameters for the ABA schemes, we concluded that:
The offsite highway works proposed for Junction 1, although providing an overall improved operation, predicted increased queuing along the M11 southbound off-slip road. Refinements to the proposed design were therefore desired; ABA did not presented any offsite highway works for Junction 3; Junction 7 allowed for wider entry widths than recommended by the DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges); Insufficient deflection had been provided at Junction 11.
3.10 In light of these conclusions we undertook further analysis of the information contained in the ABA Transport Assessment. This is covered in Chapter 4 of this Technical Note.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 12 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
4 RESIDUAL IMPACT FOLLOWING MITIGATION
4.1 We have concluded that amendments to the proposed off-site highway improvements will provide increased confidence, following the errors and/or omissions in the ABA analysis. Our analysis shows that these enhanced off-site highway works will fully mitigate the traffic impact of the proposed development and provide an overall improvement in the predicted operation of the highway network. We have developed the preliminary design of these further improvements, which have been incorporated into our analysis. The results are presented in this section of the report.
Enhanced Off-site Highway Works
M11/A505 Roundabout (Junction 1)
4.2 ABA proposed and assessed the following mitigation measures:
Introduction of an extra left hand turn-only lane from the north arm of the M11 slip road southbound approach to the A505 east eastbound Introduction of an extra left hand turn-only lane from the A505 East westbound to the M11 south slip road heading southbound Introduction of an extra left hand turn-only lane from the south arm of the M11 slip road northbound to the A505 west westbound Adjustments to the approach width on the A505 West arm Adjustments to the on-slips to the M11
4.3 We have amended this proposal, as can be seen at PL01B, included within Appendix B. The introduction of traffic signal control of the intersection of the southbound slip road arm and the circulatory carriageway will provide sufficient traffic management control of the safety risks arising from the predicted increased queuing and delay on the off-slip road.
4.4 We therefore propose the following mitigation measures:
Traffic signal control of the southbound off slip of the M11 only; Widening to three 3.5m wide lanes for 52m from the stop line (approximately 62m from the give way line) on the same southbound off-slip approach; Widening to three lanes in limited sections of the circulatory carriageway; Markings along all arms of the circulatory carriageway to create two lanes; Pedestrian crossing with associated phase along the existing footpath crossing the northbound off-slip.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 13 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
A505/Hunts Road Roundabout (Junction 2)
4.5 We have developed a revised traffic signal controlled solution for this junction, which outperforms the roundabout and traffic signal controlled solution presented in the ABA Transport Assessment. The proposed mitigation scheme can be seen at PL02B, included within Appendix B.
A505/ Moorfield Road Junction (Junction 3)
4.6 We have developed a traffic signal controlled solution for this junction, incorporating the pedestrian crossings, whilst retaining and catering for the existing traffic movements. This is consistent with the ambition of Whittlesford Parish Council to deliver a signalised pedestrian crossing at this junction to improve linkages between the villages of Whittlesford and Duxford, as referred to within its latest draft Neighbourhood Plan dated 30th July 2018.
4.7 The proposed mitigation scheme can be seen at PL03B, included within Appendix B. It should be noted that the forward visibility on the approach from the north does not provide the 40mph visibility requirement of 120m, however a reduced visibility of approximately 105m can be provided to the primary signal head, which is 15m more than recommended for a 30mph road.
A505/A1301 Roundabout (Junction 7)
4.8 We have further developed the ABA scheme so that it retains the principle of widening all four arms of the roundabout from a 2-lane to a 3 lane entry, although at a reduced maximum of 10.5m width, which is DMRB compliant. To achieve this, longer flares being proposed as shown at PL04A, included within Appendix B.
A1307/ A11 Roundabout (Junction 9)
4.9 The ABA Transport Assessment concluded that there would be an impact on the southbound off-slip but did not propose any mitigation schemes in response to this impact. We have considered a preliminary design easily accommodated within the existing highway boundary which would increase the capacity and provide a net benefit in regard to overall operation. This is achieved by providing a widened entry (from 6.2m to 7.0m) on the Northern (southbound) approach and a longer flare (from 9m to 15m).
4.10 A sketch of the proposed widening, which is obtained without the need to widen the carriageway, but simply creating two lanes at the approach by amending the road markings, is illustrated at drawing SK01 (Appendix B).
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 14 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
A1301/ Site Access Road (Junction 11)
4.11 We have revisited the roundabout design of the main site access junction to provide a solution that operates within design capacity and more deflection on the northbound approach. The proposed roundabout access junction can be seen at PL05B, included within Appendix B.
Stage I Road Safety Audit
4.12 The above presented mitigation package at Junctions 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11 have been subject to a Stage I Road Safety Audit (RSA). The RSA was carried out by an independent Audit team, Alpha Consultants, in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Highways Directive (HD) 19/15. Two separate Audits were undertaken; one at the proposed mitigation at Junction 10 of the M11 (here referred to as Junction 1), and one for the junctions along the A505 corridor (Hunts Road, Moorfield Road, the A1301 roundabout) and the Site Access on the A1301.
4.13 The two RSAs have identified four and eight problems, respectively, across the two Audits for the five junctions and set out recommendations to address them. Designer`s Response Reports (DR01 and DR02) considering each issue and recommendation have been prepared by TPA, providing a commentary on their findings. The two Designers Response Reports include the external Audits by Alpha Consultants and are reproduced within Appendix C.
4.14 The already presented proposed layouts (TPA drawings PL01B, PL02B, PL03B, PL04A and PL05B) represent the revised drawings that take the RSA comments and recommendations into account. The drawings that were subject to the audits are illustrated within the RSA reports.
Junction Capacity Assessments (with enhanced off-site highway works)
4.15 We have undertaken further capacity analysis in relation to the above described mitigation schemes in order to demonstrate the improvements they are predicted to bring to the highway network. We have created individual junction models for all the improvements, apart from Junction 1 and 2. Due to the proximity of the two junctions and the proposed traffic signal controlled operation, they benefit from being included within the same modelled network.
4.16 Where the junction is not under traffic signal control the delay is expressed in seconds, as experienced by an average vehicle and the performance is expressed in Ratio of Flow to Capacity (“RFC”). If the junction is under traffic signal control then the delay is expressed as seconds per PCU and the performance is expressed in Degree of Saturation (“Deg Sat”). The differences between the two measurements is borne in mind when the final conclusions are drawn.
4.17 All updated modelling results have been included, with the modelling parameter drawings, at Appendix D. It should be noted that all the Future Base scenarios include the error corrections previously identified in Chapter 3.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 15 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
M11/A505 Roundabout (Junction 1)
Table 4.1 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 1 (M11)
2030 BAU scenario 2030 Future Base (with TPA mitigation) Mean Average Delay Queue Deg Sat Max RFC Delay (s/veh) (Veh) (%) Queue (s/PCU) (PCU) AM Peak North (M11 1.19 363 97 86.9 32 14 southbound off-slip) East (A505) 1.12 197 121 61.9 3 1 South (M11 0.79 49 3 16.5 2 0 northbound off-slip) West (A505) 1.15 262 97 72.6 5 1 Circulatory - - - 86.5 29 14 carriageway PM Peak North (M11 1.10 171 56 81.4 26 9 southbound off-slip) East (A505) 1.15 261 144 73.8 4 1 South (M11 0.48 19 1 9.6 2 0 northbound off-slip) West (A505) 0.86 18 6 75.1 7 2 Circulatory - - - 87.1 27 12 carriageway Source: Alan Baxter Transport Assessment (Future Base); LinSig v. 3.2.27.0 (BAU Scenario)
4.18 Following the implementation of the enhanced off-site highway works put forward by TPA we predict that the junction is predicted to operate within design capacity in the BAU scenario, as can be seen from the above table. This is a significant improvement on what would otherwise occur in a future baseline situation, in particular on the southbound off-slip of the M11, where the queues otherwise would extend onto the motorway and impact safety.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 16 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
A505/Hunts Road Roundabout (Junction 2)
4.19 The ABA Transport Assessment contain the results of the future baseline scenario using lane simulation, which was undertaken following recommendation by highway officers7. As a consequence RFC results could not be reported.
Table 4.2 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 2 (Hunts Road)
2030 BAU scenario 2030 Future Base (with TPA mitigation) Mean Average Delay Queue Deg Sat Max RFC Delay (s/veh) (Veh) (%) Queue (s/PCU) (PCU) AM Peak
West (A505) N/A 710 135 88.2 39 27
South (Hunts Road) N/A 169 459 89.2 70 30
East (A505) N/A 447 25 89.3 48 37
PM Peak
West (A505) N/A 318 335 97.7 148 29
South (Hunts Road) N/A 1,034 80 97.4 96 27
East (A505) N/A 154 69 98.4 70 63
Source: Alan Baxter Transport Assessment (Future Base); LinSig v. 3.2.27.0 (BAU Scenario)
4.20 Following the implementation of the enhanced off-site highway works that we propose the junction is predicted to operate with significantly less queueing and delay, just above design capacity, in the BAU scenario, as can be seen from the above table. This is a significant improvement on what would otherwise occur in a future baseline scenario, where the delays and queues are predicted to be severe.
7 §7.4 in the Pre application advice prepared by Transport Assessment Team, Author Emily Butler, dated 14 September 2017
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 17 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
A505/ Moorfield Road Junction (Junction 3)
Table 4.3 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 3 (Moorfield)
2030 BAU scenario 2030 Future Base (with TPA mitigation) Mean Average Delay Queue Deg Sat Max RFC Delay (s/veh) (Veh) (%) Queue (s/PCU) (PCU) AM Peak North (Moorfield 0.89 161 6 92.9 124.6 32 Road Duxford) East (A505) 0.51 19 1 91.7 67.2 66 South (Moorfield 0.14 12 0 14.4 7 1 Road) West (A505) - - - 93.7 55 61
PM Peak North (Moorfield 0.42 49 1 80.5 97 11 Road Duxford) East (A505) 0.41 14 1 80.3 25 40 South (Moorfield 0.37 15 1 48.4 36 5 Road) West (A505) - - 59.9 17 18
Source: Alan Baxter Transport Assessment (Future Base); LinSig v. 3.2.27.0 (BAU Scenario)
4.21 Following the implementation of the enhanced off-site highway works that we propose the junction is predicted to operate just above design capacity, in the BAU scenario, as can be seen from the above table. This is a similar performance to what would otherwise occur in the future baseline situation, but with the added benefit of controlled pedestrian crossings across the A505.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 18 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
A505/A1301 Roundabout (Junction 7)
Table 4.4 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 7 (A505 / A1301)
2030 BAU scenario 2030 Future Base (with TPA mitigation)
Delay Queue Delay Queue RFC RFC (s/veh) (Veh) (s) (Veh) AM Peak
East (A505) 1.20 409 116 0.95 33 14
South (A1301) 1.22 455 66 0.54 5 1
West (A505) 1.36 853 367 1.14 224 165
North (A1301) 1.20 431 95 1.12 220 65
PM Peak
East (A505) 1.43 1096 322 0.75 7 3
South (A1301) 1.11 238 38 1.12 185 82
West (A505) 1.11 193 99 0.83 10 5
North (A1301) 1.21 398 91 0.88 26 7
Source: Junctions 9 v.9.0.2.5947
4.22 Following the implementation of the enhanced off-site highway works that we propose the junction is predicted to operate with significantly less queueing and delay in the BAU scenario, as can be seen from the above table during the AM peak in particular. This is a significant improvement on what would otherwise occur in a future baseline scenario. It is noted that the RFC is 0.01 higher on the southern arm in the PM peak, and whilst this could be improved further it is further noted that the delay is reduced compared to the future baseline scenario. We also consider that the benefit put on the eastern approach greatly outweighs the increase in queue on the southern approach.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 19 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
A1307/ A11 Roundabout (Junction 9)
4.23 As already noted in paragraph 4.9 above, it has been assumed that on the North approach the entry width would be extended from 6.2m to 7.0m and the flare would be extended from 9m to 15m.
Table 4.5 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 9 (A1307/ A11 Roundabout)
2030 BAU scenario 2030 Future Base (with TPA mitigation)
Delay Queue Delay Queue RFC RFC (s/veh) (Veh) (s) (Veh) AM Peak North (A11 2.15 1,813 292 1.81 1,031 212 Southbound off-slip) East (A1307) 0.58 4 1 0.62 4 1 South (A11 0.81 13 4 0.84 15 5 Northbound off-slip) West (A1307) 0.50 4 1 0.52 4 1
PM Peak North (A11 0.93 91 8 0.77 35 3 Southbound off-slip) East (A1307) 0.36 2 1 0.36 2 1 South (A11 0.68 6 2 0.71 6 2 Northbound off-slip) West (A1307) 0.52 4 1 0.53 4 1
Source: Junctions 9 v.9.0.2.5947
4.24 Following the implementation of mitigation proposals that we propose the junction is predicted to operate with significantly less queueing and delay, just above design capacity, in the BAU scenario, as can be seen from the above table. This is a significant improvement on what would otherwise occur in a future baseline scenario. It is however acknowledged that Highways England would be likely to have provided a solution at this approach before the above RFC was reached.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 20 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
A1301/ Site Access Road (Junction 11)
Table 4.6 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 11 (A1301/ Site Access Road)
2030 BAU scenario 2030 Future Base (with TPA amendments) Delay Queue Delay Queue RFC RFC (s) (Veh) (s) (Veh) AM Peak
North (A1301) - - - 0.87 17 7
East (Site Access) - - - 0.13 4 0
South (A1301) - - - 0.58 6 2
PM Peak
North (A1301) - - - 0.28 3 0
East (Site Access) - - - 0.86 22 6
South (A1301) - - - 0.56 9 1
Source: Junctions 9 v.9.0.2.5947
4.25 The proposed access roundabout has been altered, as described earlier at paragraph 4.11 above, and is now predicted to operate satisfactorily during the AM and PM peak in the BAU scenario.
Delay Assessments (with enhanced off-site highway works)
4.26 In order to get a holistic comparison of the beneficial impact that the further improvement schemes bring to the operation of the highway network we have undertaken two sets of comparisons in regard to the delay across the network. The first comparison is undertaken at a network wide level and the second is made on a route by route basis.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 21 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
Network Delay Comparison
Table 4.7 Summary of Total Junction Delay in the Study Area (summed across respective junction approaches expressed in seconds per vehicle or PCU): with TPA mitigation
BAU (TPA Future Base Jct Name Mitigation) AM PM AM PM
1 M11/A505 Roundabout 871 469 71 64
2 A505/Hunts Road Roundabout 1,326 1,506 157 313
3 A505/Moorfield Road Junction 192 78 199 157
5 A505/Station Road Junction8 1,014 33 1,028 35 A505/Bus-Cycle Interchange 6 0 0 119 45 Access 7 A505/A1301 Roundabout 2,148 1,9259 476 228
9 A1307/A11 Roundabout 1,834 103 1,054 47
11 A1301/Main Site Access 0 0 28 34
12 A1301/North End Road Junction 25 22 28 24
13 A1301/Hunts Lane Junction 21 7 25 7 A1301/Wellcome Trust 14 14 13 20 15 Roundabout 15N A1301/A11 North Roundabout 19 23 23 30
15S A1301/A11 South Roundabout 27 14 19 17 B184/Newmarket Road 16 21 21 23 25 Roundabout TOT (s) 7,512 4,214 3,269 1,042
TOT (h) 2.09 1.17 0.91 0.29
BAU Difference compared to Future Base -56.5% -75.3%
Route Based Delay Comparison
4.27 Rather than merely looking at the total delay in the network we have analysed a series of routes encompassing the study area, which can be seen at Figure 4.1.
8 An assumption of 1,000s on the northern approach have been made for the AM peak in all scenarios due to absence of delay information in the results 9 Includes for corrected modelling results in the ABA future baseline model
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 22 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
Figure 4.1 Routes for route based delay comparison
Route 3 Route 2
Route 1
4.28 The routes have been analysed in eastbound/ southbound (EB/ SB) and westbound/ northbound (WB/ NB) directions by accumulating the delay on each junction approach for the junctions included in the ABA Transport Assessment and the results have been summarised at the table below. The methodology adopted illustrates a fair representation of what the predicted experience in delay would be when travelling along these routes in the future, with or without the development proposals. The comparison has been undertaken utilising the error corrected models for the Future Base scenario.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 23 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
Table 4.8 Route Based Delay Results (seconds)
Future Base BAU (TPA Mitigation) AM PM AM PM 1 EB 1,825 529 369 210 2 EB 1,926 682 367 203
3 SB 470 435 279 72 1 WB 854 1,562 214 344 Routes 2 WB 854 1,562 214 344 3 NB 487 273 50 239
4.29 Table 4.9 below sets out the difference in delay between the TPA BAU scenario and the Future Base scenario, in order to highlight the beneficial impact of the proposed mitigation in the BAU scenario. The AM and PM peak Future Base scenarios delays have been subtracted from the delays predicted in the corresponding BAU scenario.
Table 4.9 Comparison of the Delays between the TPA BAU scenario and the Future Base scenario
Impact (s) Impact (min)
AM PM AM PM
1 EB -1456 -319 -24 -5 2 EB -1559 -479 -26 -8
3 SB -191 -363 -3 -6 1 WB -640 -1218 -11 -20 Routes 2 WB -640 -1218 -11 -20 3 NB -437 -34 -7 -1 Note: Negative = Reduction compared to Future Base
4.30 The results clearly demonstrate that improvements are predicted across all routes and that a significant 20+ minute reduction in delay is predicted along Routes 1 and 2 in the eastbound direction during the AM peak and the westbound direction in the PM peak period. This is in addition to the benefit brought by the controlled pedestrian crossings, which will enable pedestrians and cyclists to cross more safely at Junction 1, 2 and 3.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 24 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
5 SENSITIVITY TESTS
5.1 We have undertaken sensitivity tests assessing the cumulative impact of the proposed development, the proposed Wellcome Genome Campus and the proposed North Uttlesford Garden Village (“NUGV)” developments. The results of this analysis have been included within this section of the report.
Wellcome Traffic Flows
5.2 No planning application has yet been made by Wellcome Genome Campus and therefore we have developed a methodology based on the information provided in the EIA scoping report produced by Quod10 where it is stated that the proposal includes for 175,000 sqm of employment (mainly land use B1) and 1,500 residential dwellings. As it is understood that a proportion of the dwellings (proportion yet to be confirmed) are likely to be for campus staff11, TPA have made an assumption of that between 10 and 50% of the dwellings will be linked to the employment element, thus internal to the proposed campus.
5.3 The following trip generation has been calculated for Wellcome Genome Campus.
Table 5.1 Sensitivity Test: Wellcome Genome Campus Trip Generation
AM PM Arr Dep Arr Dep
Employment 1 0.904 0.112 0.036 0.591 (sqm GFA) 175,000 1,582 196 63 1,034
Resi 1 0.152 0.399 0.364 0.168 (units) 1,500 228 599 546 252 10% 60 60 25 25 Employment 1,522 196 63 1,009
With Residential 228 539 521 252 Internalisation 50% 299 299 126 126 Employment 1,283 196 63 908 Residential 228 299 420 252 Source: TRICS
5.4 The full TRICS trip rate reports have been included at Appendix E.
5.5 The employment trips have been distributed on the network using the same origins and destinations as the Agritech proposals, and a new journey to work analysis has been
10 Quod | Q080385 Wellcome Genome Campus Development| EIA Scoping Report | June 2018 11 Ibid §13.6
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 25 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
undertaken using Census data for the residential element. The full distribution assessment and resultant turning movements in the study area have been included at Appendix F. These turning movements have been applied to the sensitivity tests in this report.
Uttlesford Sensitivity Flows (from ABA Transport Assessment)
5.6 As a sensitivity test, the ABA Transport Assessment assessed the likely impact of the NUGV, Chesterford Research Park and other draft allocations in Uttlesford District’s emerging Local Plan. The scenarios included were:
2033 Uttlesford with Development – Business-as-Usual; and, 2033 Uttlesford with Development – Target.
5.7 This sensitivity test used projected traffic flows contained in the report South Cambridgeshire Junctions Assessments (WYG, May 2017) which was produced on behalf of Uttlesford District Council as part of their Local Plan Transport Study. The test excluded any junction improvements works in relation to the Local Plan.
5.8 For the purposes of our assessment the flows from the Uttlesford Sensitivity Flows (BAU) in the ABA Transport Assessment have been applied to the sensitivity tests in this report.
Junction Capacity Assessments (Sensitivity test with enhanced off-site highway works)
5.9 The junction assessments from the ABA Transport Assessment have been replicated and the analyses have been re-run with the addition of the predicted Wellcome Genome Campus traffic flows and the NUGV traffic flows. The BAU scenario has then been re-run with the addition of the predicted Wellcome Genome Campus traffic flows and the NUGV traffic flows for the proposed new junction designs developed by TPA. This exercise has been undertaken for the same junctions that were subject to the Uttlesford sensitivity test in the ABA Transport Assessment, which were:
M11/A505 Roundabout (Junction 1); A505/Hunts Road Roundabout (Junction 2); and A505/A1301 Roundabout (Junction 7).
5.10 Only the 50% assumption for Wellcome Genome Campus has been presented in the tables below, as this is considered to be a more robust assumption. An unmitigated addition of development traffic with a lower amount of linked trips (e.g. 10%) would generate a disproportionate amount of additional delay, because the delay increases exponentially when a junction is predicted to operate well above its maximum theoretical capacity. This is the case for a future baseline scenario; a scenario where no infrastructure improvements are committed. This is not the case in the BAU scenario due to our proposed enhanced off-site highway improvements, which are predicted to provide a net benefit to the network. The full modelling outputs for both the 10 and 50% assessment are included at Appendix D.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 26 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
M11/A505 Roundabout (Junction 1)
Table 5.2 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 1 (M11)
2030 BAU scenario Sensitivity 2030 Future Base Sensitivity (with TPA mitigation) Mean Average Delay Queue Deg Sat Max RFC Delay (s) (Veh) (%) Queue (s/PCU) (PCU) AM Peak North (M11 1.74 2,303 633 108.3 181 69 southbound off-slip) East (A505) 1.27 579 322 70.7 3 1 South (M11 0.55 17 1 19.1 2 0 northbound off-slip) West (A505) 1.45 1,114 360 91.2 17 5 Circulatory - - - 109.8 210 61 carriageway PM Peak North (M11 1.57 1,010 279 105.4 146 35 southbound off-slip) East (A505) 1.44 1,178 617 76.0 4 2 South (M11 0.34 10 1 12.0 2 0 northbound off-slip) West (A505) 0.99 63 22 97.1 36 13 Circulatory - - - 102.1 95 33 carriageway
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 27 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
A505/Hunts Road Roundabout (Junction 2)
Table 5.3 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 2 (Hunts Road)
2030 BAU scenario Sensitivity 2030 Future Base Sensitivity (with TPA mitigation) Mean Average Delay Queue Deg Sat Max RFC Delay (s) (Veh) (%) Queue (s/PCU) (PCU) AM Peak
West (A505) - 1,780 1433 100.3 30 35
South (Hunts Road) - 775 345 104.9 188 56
East (A505) - 283 51 101.3 100 55
PM Peak
West (A505) - 862 439 107.4 206 58
South (Hunts Road) - 1,846 1,297 102.8 130 33
East (A505) - 96 17 108.5 216 121
A505/A1301 Roundabout (Junction 7)
Table 5.4 Junction Modelling Results - Junction 7 (A505 / A1301)
2030 BAU scenario Sensitivity 2030 Future Base Sensitivity (with TPA mitigation)
Delay Queue Delay Queue RFC RFC (s) (Veh) (s) (Veh) AM Peak East (A505) 1.51 1,409 321 1.10 180 89
South (A1301) 1.67 2,047 394 0.80 12 4
West (A505) 1.89 2,983 1309 1.55 1,392 878
North (A1301) 1.54 1,550 329 1.36 941 241
PM Peak
East (A505) 1.61 1,778 483 0.85 13 5
South (A1301) 2.32 4,772 858 1.76 1,459 668
West (A505) 1.28 607 278 0.94 24 13
North (A1301) 1.36 839 190 1.06 123 40
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 28 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
Delay Assessments (with enhanced off-site highway works)
Network Delay Assessment
Table 5.5 Summary of Total Junction Delay Sensitivity Scope (summed across respective junction approaches expressed in seconds per vehicle or PCU)
2030 BAU scenario Future Base Sensitivity Sensitivity Jct Name (with TPA mitigation) AM PM AM PM
M11/A505 1 4,013 2,262 413 283 Roundabout A505/Hunts Road 2 2,837 2,804 318 552 Roundabout A505/A1301 7 7,990 7,996 2,525 1,619 Roundabout
TOTAL (seconds) 14,840 13,062 3,256 2,454
TOTAL (hours) 4.1 3.6 0.9 0.7
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 29 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
6 CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Overall, our further analysis demonstrates that there was sufficient data contained within the transport planning evidence base prepared by Alan Baxter Associates to determine that it had undertaken an overly robust analysis of the traffic impact of the proposed development.
6.2 Moreover, and based on a worst case (Business as Usual) assessment, we consider that the evidence base adequately demonstrated that the scope and extent of the off-site highway works proposed by ABA were capable of yielding a beneficial impact when compared to the 2030 Baseline (do nothing scenario). With our proposed further enhanced off-site highway works we have demonstrated that they will.
6.3 Furthermore, we consider that an enhanced package of highway works can be delivered that will result in significantly reduced journey times for drivers in the study area.
6.4 For those reasons, we consider that the reasons for refusal are unfounded.
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Page 30 of 30 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
APPENDIX A
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Appendix A Form 5 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL Ref. S/4099/17/OL CAMBRIDGESHIRE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION Decision Date: 13 March 2018 ______
Nick Guildford Terence O'Rourke Ltd Everdene House Deansleigh Road Bournemouth BH7 7DU
The Council hereby refuses permission for Outline planning application (all matters reserved) for development of an AgriTech technology park comprising up to 112,000 sqm (gross) employment floorspace, supporting infrastructure, amenities and landscape works including publicly accessible informal open space, enhancements to parkland; vehicle and cycle parking; service areas; bus / cycle interchange on land west of the A1301 / north of A505; and infrastructure works including new vehicular accesses, highway improvement works, pedestrian and cycle links with bridge crossings over A1301 / A505 and River Cam, site re-profiling, drainage works, foul and water pumping stations and primary electricity sub station; telecommunications infrastructure and other associated works.
At: Land to the east of the A1301, south of the A505 near Hinxton and west of the A1301, north of the A505 near Whittlesford For: Emma Fletcher, SmithsonHill Limited
In accordance with your application dated 20 November 2017
for the following reasons:-
1. The proposal represents an unsustainable form of development located outside of the village development framework and within the open countryside. The proposed site has not been allocated or put forward for development in the current Local Development Framework or emerging Local Plan. The development is therefore contrary to Policies DP/7 and ET/3 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies DPD 2007, Policy S7/8 of the Core Strategy DPD and Policies S/5, S/7, E/15 and E/16 of the draft South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2014.
2. The Council’s emerging Local Plan is at an advanced stage of preparation. The proposed site is not allocated for any development in the current Local Development Framework or emerging Local Plan. The scale of the proposal is such that, if permission were granted now, it would undermine the plan-making process and sustainability of the Local Plan by predetermining decisions about the scale, location and phasing of new development that are central to the emerging Local Plan given its advanced stage. It is therefore considered the proposal is premature in light of draft policies S/5 and S/6 of the submitted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2014 and Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 21b-014-20140306 of the National Planning Practice Guidance. 3. The proposed site for the bus/cycle interchange and the northernmost end of the foot, cycle and equestrian bridge are located within the Cambridge Green Belt wherein there is a presumption against development for purposes other than those categories specified in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012.
The proposal is considered to fall outside of these specified categories and is inappropriate development by definition. The location of the development would cause substantial and irreversible harm to the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with the following national Page 1 of 5 Form 5 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL Ref. S/4099/17/OL CAMBRIDGESHIRE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION Decision Date: 13 March 2018 ______
Green Belt purpose (paragraph 80 of the NPPF) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Additionally, the proposal would conflict with the following local Green Belt Purposes (Policy ST/1 of the Core Strategy DPD, 2007):
a) To maintain and enhance the quality of its setting;
The very special circumstances put forward by the Applicant are not considered to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other harm (listed in the additional reasons for refusal below). Consequently, the proposal is contrary to: paragraphs 7, 17, 80, 87, 88, 89 and 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Policy ST/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Core Strategy DPD 2007 and Policies GB/1 and GB/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies DPD 2007 and Policy NH/8 of the draft South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2014. 4. Insufficient information has been submitted as part of the assessment for the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). Notwithstanding the insufficient information submitted, the proposal for the Agritech technology park by virtue of its location, scale, height, size, bulk and mass together with the increase in land levels to the east would result in the introduction of substantial incongruous built form into the rural countryside. The proposal would be excessively prominent, resulting in the loss of open, rural countryside and harm to the visual amenity of the area. The mitigation proposed would fail to overcome this harm. The proposed location of the bus/cycle interchange development and the northernmost end of the foot, cycle and equestrian bridge would harm the open, rural agricultural character of this site. The development would add built form and an incongruous bridge structure into the open arable, rural landscape, encroaching into the countryside. For these reasons, the development would fail to preserve or enhance the local character of the area and would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the countryside and landscape character. The development is therefore contrary to paragraphs 7 and 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Policies DP/1 (1p), DP/2 (1a), DP/3 (2m) and NE/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies DPD 2007 and Policy HQ/1 of the draft South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2014. 5. Motorists would access the proposed development via the A1301 and a single access junction. The road network in this locality is already congested, as acknowledged in the submitted Transport Assessment (TA). There is insufficient information in the Transport Assessment to demonstrate the full extent of the development’s impact on the local highway network. This information is fundamental to trip generation and distribution evidence base, and therefore there is uncertainty on the impacts of the development on the strategic highway network. Consequently, the application has not demonstrated it would have a satisfactory impact on the local highway network and that it would amount to sustainable development. The application is therefore contrary to: paragraphs 7, 17 and 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and policies DP/1 and DP/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies DPD 2007. 6. Motorists would access the proposed development via the A1301 and a single access junction. The road network in this locality is already congested, as acknowledged in the submitted Transport Assessment (TA). A stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit has not been carried out on all the submitted drawings to allow the therefore be contrary to: paragraphs 7, 17 and 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies DP/1, DP/3 (1b), DP/4 and TR/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies DPD 2007. 7. Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the proposed low levels of car and cycle parking and non car travel for the development would be sufficient to meet demand and would not result in inappropriate parking and demand on local and surrounding streets, resulting in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The application Page 2 of 5 Form 5 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL Ref. S/4099/17/OL CAMBRIDGESHIRE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION Decision Date: 13 March 2018 ______
would therefore be contrary to: paragraphs 7, 17 and 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Policies DP/1, DP/3 (1b), DP/4 and TR/2 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies DPD 2007. 8. The proposed site lies adjacent to, and within the setting of the Grade II listed Hinxton Grange, its Grade II listed stables and coach house, and designed landscape. The house dates from c.1835 and is set within its own formal garden and parkland, with open views from Hinxton Grange across the designed landscape, to the open countryside to the west. The proposal by virtue of its size, scale, siting, location and proximity would result in harm to the setting and significance of the designated and non-designated heritage assets (which would be less than substantial). Any harm to the significance of a listed building requires a clear and convincing justification in accordance with s.66(1) of the Planning and Listed Buildings Act (1990). The application would therefore be contrary to paragraphs 7, 17 of the NPPF 2012, Policy CH/4 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework, Development Control Policies DPD, 2007 and the Listed Buildings Supplementary Planning Document 2009, which states that development proposals should ensure that all new development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the listed building, s.66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act 1990. The application would also be contrary to Policy CH/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework. In Framework terms, the harm to the designated heritage assets would be less than substantial therefore the test set out in Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework would apply. Paragraph 135 of NPPF requires the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated asset to be taken into account in determining an application, and a balanced judgement formed. 9. The proposed development comprises 33 hectares of grade 2 ‘very good’ and 3a ‘good to moderate’, and 38 hectares of grade 3b ‘moderate quality’ and grade 4 ‘poor quality’ agricultural land. This would represent a significant loss of ‘the best and most versatile agricultural land’ as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The application does not demonstrate that sustainability considerations and the need for development in this location are sufficient to override the need to protect the agricultural value of the land. Consequently, the development would cause significant and irreversible loss of agricultural land and farmland biodiversity contrary to: paragraphs 7, 17 and 112 of the NPPF 2012; Policy NE/17 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies DPD 2007; and Policy NH/3 of the draft South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2014.
Informatives
1. For the avoidance of doubt the following plans are refused: 235701B-LA-001 A0, 235701B-LA- 001 A3, 235701B-LA-PP101 Rev A, 235701B-LA-PP103, 235701B-LA-PP104, 235701B-LA- PP105, Environmental Statement November 2017 & Environmental Statement Addendum Feburary 2018.
General
1. Statement as to how the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner on seeking solutions
The LPA positively encourages pre-application discussions. Details of this advice service can be found on the Planning pages of the Council’s website www.scambs.gov.uk. If a proposed development requires revisions to make it acceptable the LPA will provide an opinion as to how this might be achieved. The LPA will work with the applicant to advise on Page 3 of 5 Form 5 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL Ref. S/4099/17/OL CAMBRIDGESHIRE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION Decision Date: 13 March 2018 ______
what information is necessary for the submission of an application and what additional information might help to minimise the need for planning conditions. When an application is acceptable, but requires further details, conditions will be used to make a development acceptable. Joint Listed Building and Planning decisions will be issued together. Where applications are refused clear reasons for refusal will identify why a development is unacceptable and will help the applicant to determine whether and how the proposal might be revised to make it acceptable.
In relation to this application, it was considered and the process managed in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. A delegation report or committee report, setting out the basis of this decision, is available on the Council’s website.
To help us enhance our service to you please click on the link and complete the customer service questionnaire: www.surveymonkey.com/s/2S522FZ
Stephen Kelly Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire
South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne Business Park, Cambourne, Cambridge, CB23 6EA
SEE NOTES OVERLEAF
Page 4 of 5 Form 5 SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL Ref. S/4099/17/OL CAMBRIDGESHIRE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION Decision Date: 13 March 2018 ______
NOTES Appeals to the Secretary of State
If you are aggrieved by the decision of your Local Planning Authority to refuse permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
If you want to appeal, then you must do so using a form which you can get from the Customer Support Unit, Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN.
Alternatively, an online appeals service is available through the Appeals area of the Planning Portal - see www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs. The Planning Inspectorate will publish details of your appeal on the internet. This may include a copy of the original planning application form and relevant supporting documents supplied to the local authority, together with the completed appeal form and information you submit to the Planning Inspectorate. Please ensure that you only provide information you are happy will be made available to others in this way, including personal information belonging to you. If you supply personal information belonging to a third party please ensure you have their permission to do so. More detailed information about data protection and privacy matters is available on the Planning Portal.
Fully completed appeal forms must be received by the Planning Inspectorate within six months of the date of this decision notice except where the property is subject to an enforcement notice, where an appeal must be received within 28 days.
The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but he will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving the notice of appeal.
The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to him that the Local Planning Authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have granted it without the conditions it imposed, having regard to the statutory requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a development order.
In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the Local Planning Authority based its decision on a direction given by him.
Purchase Notices
If either the Local Planning Authority or the Secretary of State for the Environment refuses permission to develop land or grants it subject to conditions, the owner may claim that he can neither put the land to a reasonable beneficial use in its existing state nor render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted.
In these circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the District Council in whose area the land is situated. This notice will require the Council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Page 5 of 5 A Park for AgriTech, HINXTON SmithsonHill Limited Traffic Modelling Report
APPENDIX B
1803-72/TN/01 Transport Planning Associates August 2018 Appendix B Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Superplan Data with the permission of The Controller Controller The of permission the with Data Superplan OrdnanceSurvey Reproduced from of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright - Licence No. AL100034021 A1 NOTES: ORIGINAL PLOT SIZE CCC Highway Boundary
See inset below
B 20/08/18 Amendments further to the RSA GDG DE RTBL
A 25/07/18 Amendments to road markings GDG DE RTBL
Rev Date Details Drawn Checked Approved by by by
Bristo l Cambridge London Manchester Oxford Welwyn Garden City
Transport Planning Associates
25 Southampton Buildings London WC2A 1AL 020 3709 9405 www.tpa.uk.com
CLIENT:
PROJECT: W S E A PARK FOR AGRITECH,
INDICATIVE HINXTON
TITLE: PROPOSED MITIGATION AT JUNCTION 1: M11 JUNCTION 10
STATUS: F O R I N F O R M A T I O N
SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED:
W 1:500 26/06/18 GDG DE RTBL S E JOB NO: DRAWING NO: REVISION: 1803-72 PL01 B INDICATIVE RESERVED COPYRIGHT Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Superplan Data with the permission of The Controller Controller The of permission the with Data Superplan OrdnanceSurvey Reproduced from of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright - Licence No. AL100034021 A1 NOTES: ORIGINAL PLOT SIZE CCC Highway Boundary
B 20/08/18 Amendments further to the RSA GDG DE RTBL
A 03-08-18 Crossing amended; Secondary Signals added GDG RTBL RTBL
Rev Date Details Drawn Checked Approved by by by
Bristo l Cambridge London Manchester Oxford Welwyn Garden City
Transport Planning Associates
25 Southampton Buildings London WC2A 1AL 020 3709 9405 www.tpa.uk.com
CLIENT:
PROJECT: A PARK FOR AGRITECH, HINXTON
TITLE: PROPOSED MITIGATION AT JUNCTION 2: A505 / HUNT`S ROAD
STATUS: F O R I N F O R M A T I O N
SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: 1:500 26/06/18 GDG DE RTBL W E S JOB NO: DRAWING NO: REVISION: 1803-72 PL02 B INDICATIVE RESERVED COPYRIGHT Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Superplan Data with the permission of The Controller Controller The of permission the with Data Superplan OrdnanceSurvey Reproduced from of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright - Licence No. AL100034021 A1 NOTES: ORIGINAL PLOT SIZE CCC Highway Boundary
B 21-08-18 Minor changes further to the RSA GDG DE DE
A 03-08-18 Secondary Signals added GDG RTBL RTBL
Rev Date Details Drawn Checked Approved by by by
Bristo l Cambridge London Manchester Oxford Welwyn Garden City
Transport Planning Associates
25 Southampton Buildings London WC2A 1AL 020 3709 9405 www.tpa.uk.com
CLIENT:
PROJECT: A PARK FOR AGRITECH, HINXTON
TITLE: PROPOSED MITIGATION AT JUNCTION 3: A505 / MOORFIELD ROAD
STATUS: F O R I N F O R M A T I O N
SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: CHECKED: APPROVED: 1:500 26/06/18 GDG DE RTBL W E S JOB NO: DRAWING NO: REVISION: 1803-72 PL03 B INDICATIVE RESERVED COPYRIGHT