11/25/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook
LDS Consultation Representation - West of Lymington Bottom Road on behalf of Redrow Homes
@blackboxplanning.co.uk> Tue 15/10/2019 18:50 To: EHDC - Local Plan
1 attachments (12 MB) BBP Reps - West of LBR - Large Dev Site - Redrow - Issue Combined.pdf;
Dear Planning Policy Team
Please find a ached a Representa on prepared in response to the Large Development Site Consulta on on behalf of Redrow Homes.
I would be grateful if you can confirm receipt of this email.
Kind regards
Director Black Box Planning Ltd T: E: [email protected] W: www.blackboxplanning.co.uk
Black Box Planning Ltd, 9 Marsh Street, Bristol BS1 4AA Company No: 11444297
P Consider our environment...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ------E-Mail Disclaimer - The information in this email (and attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee and access by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately and then delete this email. Any disclosure, copying, distribution of this email (and attachments), or any action taken in reliance on it, is prohibited. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of email transmission. If verification is required please request a hard copy version.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 1/1 October 19
Large Development Sites Con- sultation – Local Plan 2017-2036 (Regulation 18)
Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Prepared by Black Box Planning on behalf of Redrow Homes
blackboxplanning.co.uk
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Contents
1. Introduction 3 2. Planning Policy Context 6 3. West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead 9 4. Housing Requirement and the Spatial Strategy 20 5. Large Development Sites Assessment 24 6. Conclusions and Recommendations 32
Appendix 1 Information Pack Appendix 2 Site location plan additional areas Appendix 3 Concept Masterplan Appendix 4 Amended Concept Masterplan Appendix 5 Transport Note, October 2019 Appendix 6 Facilities Plan Appendix 7 Lymington Barn Retail Commitment Plan Appendix 8 Lymington Barn Planned Investment Plan Appendix 9 West of England Joint Spatial Plan letter, September 2019
This report has been prepared in accordance with the quality assurance procedures operated by Black Box Planning Ltd
Created by: MRTPI
Signature:
Checked by: MRTPI
Signature:
Redrow Homes October 19 2
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
1. Introduction
1.1. This Representation has been prepared in response to East Hampshire District Council’s Large
Development Sites Regulation 18 consultation. It has been prepared by Black Box Planning on
behalf of Redrow Homes Southern Counties (Redrow).
1.2. It is focused on the Large Development Sites (LDS) promoted through consultation in September
2019 and the approach to considering a larger number of large development sites, rather than
the issues previously considered as part of the Draft Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation in
February 2019. The Representation prepared in response to the February consultation remains
relevant, providing comment on the approach to the Spatial Strategy set out in the Draft Local
Plan at that time. In addition, a number of policy and environmental constraints have emerged, in
more detail, since the close of the February consultation which will have a significant impact on
the deliverability of the spatial strategy set out previously. Such issues include the a change in
Natural England’s position in respect of eutrophication (Nitrogen Neutrality) and impacts on
Natura 2000 sites, including those located in the Solent. These matters are set out in more detail
in Section 4.
1.3. Redrow has an interest in Land to the West of Lymington Bottom Road and these Representations
provide an overview of matters in the context of that LDS. However, there is an element of overlap
between the Land West of Lymington Bottom Road and the South Medstead LDS, including the
existing Local Centre at Lymington Barn, the land identified for the provision of a new employment
hub at Five Ash Crossroads and MED-022 (the land west of adopted, and now constructed, Local
Plan Allocation FM1). Through the LDS Consultation, respective promotion teams have worked
co-operatively and recognise that there are shared considerations in both assessment and
delivery terms.
Redrow Homes October 19 3
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
1.4. For the purpose of these Representations where reference is made to the LDS known as the
South Medstead LDS it will be referred to accordingly. However, where the geographic area of
South Medstead (which includes the LDS at both West of Lymington Bottom Road and the South
Medstead LDS) it shall be referred to as South of Medstead.
1.5. The Large Development Sites Regulation 18 consultation is focused on identifying suitable large
development sites for inclusion in the East Hampshire Local Plan 2017-2036. It seeks to consider
whether the large sites can fulfil the ‘key drivers’ for strategic plan making, as set out at Section
2 of the Site Assessments Background Paper, September 2019 (the Background Paper). In
essence, the premise of this approach is set out in the Foreword to the Consultation Document
where it sets out that:
1.6. ‘We need to look at all possible options for large development sites to ensure we have the
information we need to make an informed decision, and because this scale of development can
often address some infrastructure concerns that have been raised. Ad hoc, small-scale
development often only adds pressure on infrastructure, rather than help alleviate it.’
1.7. Redrow supports the consideration of delivering strategic scale development as part of the Spatial
Strategy in the Local Plan. The Land West of Lymington Bottom Road and the South Medstead
LDS provides a genuine opportunity to deliver a scale of development which will bring forward
meaningful gains in the delivery of social and economic infrastructure for both existing and future
residents. It recognises the settlement as a sustainable and suitable location for additional
housing development as a matter of principle. However, as set out at Section 3, the benefits of
delivering a coherent development strategy which integrates with the existing community and
underpins the delivery of a range of additional services and facilities, will enhance the
sustainability credentials of the settlement for the benefit of all. The delivery of infrastructure is
Redrow Homes October 19 4
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
central to such an approach but this does not just concern utilities and other hard forms of
infrastructure (such as roads), it should incorporate all forms of environmental, economic and
social infrastructure which is viable, useable and effective. Growth at South of Medstead, given
proximity to existing infrastructure assets, is extremely well placed to deliver sustainable
development which also results investment into the existing community.
1.8. This is in contrast with other LDS locations subject to this consultation, which bear no relationship
to existing settlements, infrastructure provision and are unlikely to be deliverable in their own right.
Redrow raise a number of concerns with alternatives being considered. The inclusion of a number
of the LDS’ identified would undermine the soundness of the draft Local Plan. In addition, the
concerns raised in the February 2019 Representations regarding the pursuance of a spatial
strategy which seeks to locate largescale development in the most environmentally sensitive
locations remain relevant.
1.9. This Representation should be read in conjunction with the following documents, which are
appended for ease:
• Information Pack (Appendix 1);
• Site Location Plan (additional site areas, Appendix 2);
• Concept Masterplan as considered as part of public consultation (Appendix 3);
• Amended Concept Masterplan (Appendix 4); and
• Transport Note, October 2019 prepared by RPS (Appendix 5).
Redrow Homes October 19 5
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
2. Planning Policy Context
2.1. An overview of the relevant planning policy context pertinent to the preparation of the Draft Local Plan
was set out in the February 2019 Representations. However, in assessing the ten LDS locations
proposed, the tests of Soundness and policy approach to planning for strategic scale development set
out in the National Planning Policy Framework remain of particular relevance.
National Planning Policy Framework, February 2019 (last updated June 2019)
2.2. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains the Government’s national planning policy
relevant to the preparation of Local Plans and the test for soundness for the purposes of sections
19(2)(a) and 20(5)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004: NPPF 35.
2.3. Paragraph 35 sets out the four requirements of soundness, each of which must be satisfied:
‘a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s
objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that
unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is
consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and
based on proportionate evidence;
c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-
boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by
the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance
with the policies in this Framework.’
Redrow Homes October 19 6
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
2.4. The inclusion of a number of the Large Development Sites currently within the consultation would result
in a Local Plan which was neither justified nor effective. Whilst the LDS consultation has not been
accompanied by a Habitat Regulation Assessment or Sustainability Appraisal, early assessment
undertaken, including within the Background Paper, identifies the performance of the respective sites
against a series of criteria (Table 8). This is considered further in section 5. However, it is clear that,
even at this stage, the inclusion of those sites which perform poorly against the environmental
assessment criteria would not represent a sound approach to the Plan. Land West of Lymington Bottom
Road is, comparatively, the top ranked site having regard to the criteria identified. It is relatively free
from environmental constraint and provides an opportunity to deliver a number of net gains, which is
also an objective of Redrow in delivering a high-quality living environment for future residents.
2.5. Similarly, the Plan must be Effective. The inclusion of sites which are not deliverable would also be
unsound.
2.6. Paragraph 72 sets out the core objectives in planning for larger sites:
‘The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale
development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided
they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities. Working
with the support of their communities, and with other authorities if appropriate, strategic policy-making
authorities should identify suitable locations for such development where this can help meet identified
needs in a sustainable way. In doing so, they should:
a) Consider the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in infrastructure, the area’s
economic potential and the scope for net environmental gains;
b) Ensure that their size and location will support a sustainable community, with sufficient access to
services and employment opportunities within the development itself (without expecting an
unrealistic level of self-containment), or in larger towns which there is good access;
Redrow Homes October 19 7
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
c) Set clear expectations for the quality of the development and how this can be maintained (such as
following Garden City principles), and ensure that a variety of homes to meet the needs of different
groups in the community will be provided;
d) Make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites,
and identify opportunities for supporting rapid implementation (such as through joint venture or
locally-led development corporations); and
e) Consider whether it is appropriate to establish Green Belt around or adjoining new developments of
significant size.’
2.7. The policy objectives and criteria set out in Paragraph 72 mirror a number of the consultation
considerations pertinent to the assessment of large development sites across the District. Redrow would
welcome further direct discussion with the local authority to demonstrate how the delivery of an LDS
West of Lymington Bottom Road would be consistent with these core objectives and would support the
formulation of a Justified and Effective Local Plan.
Redrow Homes October 19 8
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
3. West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
3.1 The area identified in the published LDS consultation information measures 30.7ha (approx. 76 acres).
It comprises low grade agricultural land and some large garden areas. Since the commencement of the
Consultation, the extent of land available has increased. The available area now measures
approximately 36.8ha (91 acres). A revised Site Location Plan (SLP) is attached at Appendix 2. The
Concept Masterplan (Appendix 4) has also been updated to reflect the new boundary. The additional
areas within the site help to rationalise the perimeter. In doing so, it provides greater flexibility for both
the residential and economic development areas. A comparison of the LDS Consultation site and the
revised area, including development parameters is set out in Table 1, below. Redrow would welcome
further discussion with the LPA regarding the inclusion of the additional land.
Table 1: Development Paramaters
Uses LDS Consultation Site Revised Site
Homes About 650 About 750
Employment 2ha Up to 3ha
Gypsy and Traveller 5 5
Travelling Showpeople 5 5
Public Open Space At least 5.5ha of formal At least 5.5ha of formal provision plus informal spaces provision plus informal spaces within the development. within the development.
Expansion of Local Centre (A1- 0.27ha of net additional space 0.27ha of net additional space A5), B1 and C3) (1ha in total). (1ha in total).
Primary School 1.2ha 2ha
3.2 Whilst the area of land available has increased, the broad approach set out in the Information Pack
(Appendix 1) has not changed to that which was presented through the LDS Consultation. The LDS will
Redrow Homes October 19 9
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
deliver a package of social, economic and environmental infrastructure that will serve the proposed
development, but will also support and enhance the vitality of the existing settlement.
3.3 It will also adopt a ‘layering’ approach to uses on site, this will help to integrate the development and
create multifunctional spaces. For example, the deliver of green infrastructure which has an ecological,
recreational, drainage and landscape function.
3.4 The additional land provides a ‘rounding off’ of the landholding aiding the more efficient use of the site.
It provides flexibility to any development strategy.
3.5 In addition to the identified development parameters, Redrow recognise that there may be, as yet,
unidentified forms of development which could be incorporated within proposals or a large LDS
allocation. For example, there have been a number of comments at consultation events about
community infrastructure. Redrow would be supportive of the inclusion or delivery of elements of
community infrastructure, such as a community hall, specific forms of equipped open space or recreation
areas. These matters will emerge as the case progresses in conjunction with a wider scheme of
community engagement.
Overview and Context
3.6 Four Marks and South of Medstead has experienced residential growth in recent years. Whilst this
growth has been proportionate to the scale and role of the settlement as a Local Service Centre and it
remains a sustainable location to support additional growth, the LDS provides an opportunity to deliver
strategic scale development which includes a detailed package of infrastructure improvements.
3.7 Redrow recognise the merits of large-scale development in delivering new infrastructure at Four
Marks/South of Medstead. That said, they also consider the delivery of up to 150 dwellings at MED-022
to be appropriate and capable of funding some proportionate infrastructure delivery. It will also play an
important role in supporting the vitality of the local centre at Lymington Barn, supporting the investment
strategy to enhance services in that location.
Redrow Homes October 19 10
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
3.8 Concerns were raised in the February 2019 Representations regarding the flawed Interim Sustainability
Appraisal (ISA). Whilst an ISA has not been prepared, at this stage, in respect of the LDS Consultation
paragraph 32 of the NPPF is relevant in that it is clear that significant adverse impact should be avoided
and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued.
In the case of South of Medstead generally, but West of Lymington Bottom Road specifically, there are
few environmental constraints to development which is in contrast to a number of the other sites being
considered through the LDS process. This should be recognised in considering the preferred Spatial
Strategy through the preparation of a sustainability appraisal. Further consideration of the LDS
assessment criteria, as set out in the Council’s own Background Paper, identify that West of Lymington
Bottom Road is the most appropriate location for strategic level development.
3.9 Also relevant is the identification of the settlement as a Local Service Centre and its role and function in
serving the existing and future resident population, opportunities to deliver a wider range of services
and facilities, employment opportunities and social infrastructure which supports a greater degree of
self-containment and a more sustainable pattern of development. Comments raised previously in
respect of the Settlement Hierarchy Paper remain relevant insofar as the settlement should score more
points than identified. However, the provision of services and facilities in the settlement is not simply a
quantitative one, there is also an important qualitative element.
3.10 The settlement pattern of Four Marks is currently one of ribbon development alongside the A31. Further
elongation of the settlement pattern will do little, if anything, to underpin the delivery of effective
sustainable development, but will rather compound the reliance on the use of the car to make short trips
to access existing services and facilities within the village. The provision of additional services, as part
of such a pattern of development, will also further fragment the settlement pattern by providing further
small local centres which largely replicate existing services (such as the provision of a further small
convenience store which duplicate the same range of goods already available in existing stores). They
will also fail in delivering a nucleated pattern which builds on existing assets and promotes a more
walkable settlement.
Redrow Homes October 19 11
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
3.11 The settlement is currently served by two local centres at Oak Green and Lymington Barn (identified in
the Neighbourhood Development Plan). There is limited opportunity to intensify or expand Oak Green
without demolition and replacement. However, Lymington Barn provides an opportunity for regeneration
to provide a broader range of complementary uses. In conjunction with development at South of
Medstead, this investment will provide a more nucleated settlement pattern, provide existing residents
with a genuine opportunity to access day to day services without the need for the short car trips required
of development in more peripheral locations.
3.12 The first phase of regeneration is now well advanced and planning permission has been secured for
five new flexible units to provide town centre uses. Details of this commitment are provided at Appendix
7. A second phase of regeneration is also being considered and has been subject to pre-application
discussion. An early stage draft layout plan is attached at Appendix 8. Whilst the initial phase of
development is a planning commitment and will come forward in the short term, subsequent investment
is will be considered holistically with the LDS and a coherent economic development strategy which will
also include provision for a new employment hub in close proximity at Five Ash Crossroads.
3.13 The provision of an LDS at West of Lymington Bottom Road provides an opportunity to consolidate
social and economic infrastructure provision, fusing recent ad hoc development and providing an
opportunity to genuinely build a more sustainable community for the benefit of both existing and future
residents.
3.14 This consolidation of settlement pattern will also have linked benefits of retaining more day to day
expenditure which can, in turn, promote further investment. These issues are considered further, below.
3.15 The consideration of existing assets is central if the delivery of an LDS is to, realistically, provide
improvements to the existing settlement and genuinely deliver a more sustainable pattern of
development which contributes to the role and function of the settlement for both existing and future
residents.
Redrow Homes October 19 12
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Location
3.16 West of Lymington Bottom Road is well located in relation to the existing settlement boundary. The
facilities plan provided at Appendix 6 sets out the broad location of the site (MED-022) in relation to a
range of existing facilities. Notwithstanding the provision of new facilities, it remains within 20 minutes
walking distance of existing facilities, with the exception of Four Marks and Medstead Primary Schools.
3.17 The LDS, in conjunction with new employment and social infrastructure is extremely well placed to
promote walkable neighbourhoods.
Local Centre and Social Infrastructure
3.18 Lymington Barn is a designated Local Centre, set out in the Four Marks and Medstead Neighbourhood
Plan. It provides space for a number of convenience retail uses, including food and non-food, alongside
other niche retail uses, office space, a café and some light industrial. In addition, Mansfield Park Surgery
is located adjacent and effectively forms part of the same centre.
3.19 As set out above, there is a further commitment to deliver five new retail/flexible workspace units,
replacing some of the existing buildings with purpose-built units. The scheme has full planning
permission (ref: 56936) and is due to commence in the short term. A further phase of regeneration is
also being considered.
3.20 The Local Centre is in the same ownership as a large portion of the LDS and there is a collaborative
approach to the planning of future phases of regeneration alongside the LDS, including complementary
uses such as:
- A gym;
- An early years nursery;
- Space for healthcare related uses, such as physiotherapy, osteopathy and massage;
Redrow Homes October 19 13
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
- A pub (the Lymington Arms, which closed in 1903 was located on this site and the original
building remains available for refurbishment); and
- Further office space.
3.21 The mix of uses proposed will supplement, and are in addition to, those currently provided within the
settlement rather than replicating them. They will increase the range of goods sold in convenience terms,
generate an evening and leisure economy and promote more leisure-based uses to the benefit of the
whole settlement. This will also support a greater degree of expenditure retention and a core indicator
of greater self-containment. In doing so, it will result in a range of qualitative benefits, providing a critical
mass of complementary uses in one location. There will also be the obvious employment benefits.
3.22 The provision of additional healthcare facilities was raised by a number of visitors to the public
consultation events, these generally related to the provision of more GP Surgeries. However, there is
already a Surgery in close proximity and further investment provides an opportunity for complementary
uses such as physiotherapy, osteopathy, massage and dental surgery.
3.23 The delivery of the LDS at West of Lymington Bottom Road will not only support the vitality of the
proposed social infrastructure, but will also underpin the investment required for its delivery.
3.24 In essence, the approach to the delivery of the LDS seeks to build on existing provision rather than to
replicate through the provision of another, disparate, Local Centre which will be geared towards meeting
the most basic of needs generated by the new residential development rather than the whole settlement.
3.25 As set out above, both Four Marks and Medstead Primary Schools are more than 25 minutes walk from
the West of Lymington Bottom Road LDS. However, provision of a new Two Form Entry (2FE) Primary
school in close proximity to the existing local centre will further enhance the sustainability of the locality.
It is also well placed, geographically, between the schools at Four Marks and Medstead to serve the
resident population at South of Medstead, supporting community cohesion.
Redrow Homes October 19 14
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
3.26 Redrow will continue to liaise with the Local Education Authority to ensure that the LDS make
appropriate provision to meet education needs.
3.27 The provision of formal recreation space, which could include playing pitch provision, will supplement
‘built’ social infrastructure, to support healthy and active lifestyles (which is also considered in the
context of wider Green Infrastructure delivery, below). Provision has been made for approximately 5.5ha
of formal open space, including nearly 3ha for playing pitches. In context, the existing Recreation
Ground in Four Marks measures only 4ha.
Economic Development and Infrastructure
3.28 Whilst the LDS minimum criteria required provision of at least 1ha of employment land, at Four Marks
and South of Medstead the inclusion of economic development is a critical component of delivering
sustainable development. The settlement has seen a gradual but sustained period of erosion of
employment sites over recent decades.
3.29 Land at Five Ash Crossroads has been promoted as an employment sites prior to the formation of an
LDS, it was also previously subject of a pre-application enquiry regarding a new employment hub on
the site. The intentions for the site are clear and it forms part of an integrated economic development
strategy from the outset. It is also a viable location for employment development, controlled/owned by
a local developer who has experience of delivering commercial property locally and who takes a long-
term view on commercial investment.
3.30 There is strong demand for additional commercial space and it is anticipated that a new employment
hub will be delivered as an early phase of development. It will include a mix of small to medium sized
units which will facilitate the expansion of some existing business, but all space for new businesses
where there is currently no supply locally. The hub will be appropriate for its location and meet local
needs, rather than large scale provision such as storage and distribution which is more suited
elsewhere. It will include start up space, flexible working space and a range of small units which can be
Redrow Homes October 19 15
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
fitted out for a range of uses including office based, studio and some light industrial uses. It will also
include an area for design and build opportunities subject to some further testing and discussion with
occupiers.
3.31 The benefits derived from the delivery of at least 2ha (and up to 3ha) of employment land are obvious
and direct. At this stage, it is envisaged that the site could deliver up to about 10,000sqm (or 15,000sqm
if over 3ha) of mixed employment floorspace based on a plot ratio of 0.5. At a ratio of 0.4 this would be
approximately 8,000sqm of space.
3.32 Using a conservative employment density figure of each employee occupying 32sqm of space1 this
would generate between 250 and 313 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs. Given the location of the site and
the nature of the proposed employment hub, this is a conservative but robust prediction of job creation.
3.33 Notwithstanding the benefit of providing a new economic hub, the LDS will also deliver appropriate
telecommunications infrastructure that will enable further working from home which will also help modal
shift away from dependence on the private car. The proximity to the services at Lymington Barn will be
of benefit for homeworkers, providing some informal meeting space, lunchtime and office uses.
3.34 In essence, the LDS at West of Lymington Bottom Road will provide a range of economic benefits. It is
recognised that some of those will be relevant, in part, to a number of the LDS’ being promoted.
However, other sites will not deliver the cumulative benefits identified above, supporting the creation of
a more sustainable settlement and supporting the wider community.
3.35 Notwithstanding the above, the provision of a new primary school and an enhanced range of services
at the Local Centre will also deliver a range of direct economic benefits through job creation.
1 Figure for light industrial uses from Employment Densities Guide (2nd Edition, 2010)
Redrow Homes October 19 16
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Utilities Infrastructure and Drainage Strategy
3.36 The delivery of an LDS will require suitable drainage and utilities infrastructure. This is common to all
LDS locations. Redrow has extensive experience of delivering strategic scale development. There are
no concerns with delivery from this perspective for West of Lymington Bottom Road.
3.37 Similarly, it is proposed that any surface water drainage strategy incorporate sustainable infiltration-
based methods. Initial findings indicate that this will be achievable. In addition, a range of measures to
target a net biodiversity gain for the site will be delivered alongside the drainage strategy such as the
delivery of ‘wet ponds’ and swales. This will be achieved, in part, as a result of layering uses to provide
multifunctional networks across the site.
Environmental Infrastructure
3.38 The land is relatively unconstrained from an environmental perspective. It is:
. Wholly located within an area zoned as being at least risk from flooding (Flood Zone 1);
. Beyond defined buffers and remote from national or European designated sites (Natura 2000
sites);
. Not within any landscape designation;
. Not within the setting or any proximity to designated or undesignated heritage assets; and
. Does not contain any protected trees, albeit that there are a number of trees which will be
retained.
3.39 Notwithstanding the lack of constraint, Redrow are committed to delivering a series of net biodiversity
gains to enhance habitat provision and deliver a net increase of more than 2000 trees to be planted as
part of the scheme.
Redrow Homes October 19 17
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
3.40 Initial survey work undertaken has identified that the vast majority of the site comprises grazed semi-
improved grassland fields that are separated by hedgerows and extensive fencing. There are a number
of species rich hedgerows, tree belts and copses which are worthy or retention. The Concept
Masterplan, even at this stage, seeks to retain these features and incorporate them into a landscape
framework.
3.41 In terms of protected species, at this stage, no evidence has been identified to indicate the presence of
badgers or dormice but further investigation will be progressed in respect of the latter in due course.
Existing buildings on the site or of limited potential to accommodate bats, but a number of the mature
trees, particularly, those to the south do.
3.42 The site currently is of limited ecological value. However, Redrow are fully supportive of the delivery of
an ecological strategy which:
• Retains existing habitats;
• Supplements and enhances planting and species within retained hedgerows;
• Creates new habitats on areas which currently have low ecological value; and
• Deliver multifunctional green infrastructure.
3.43 In essence, Redrow are committed to working toward delivering a range of bio-diversity net gains as
part of the LDS.
3.44 As part of the ecological and landscape strategy there will also be a comprehensive approach to tree
planting, recognising that, alongside biodiversity and amenity benefits, tree planting also provides the
opportunity to offset some carbon production.
Redrow Homes October 19 18
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Access
3.45 As part of the preparation of the LDS Consultation Information Pack, RPS, as part of the Promotion
Team have continued to assess an appropriate access strategy for the LDS. This will include provision
of a new vehicular access points to Lymington Bottom Road and provision of a range of pedestrian and
cycleways within the LDS to promote permeability.
3.46 From the outset, there has been a misconception regarding the capacity of the existing railway bridge
at Lymington Bottom Road. This was, incorrectly, cited as a reason to discount MED-022 as part of the
ISA. A Transport Note, attached at Appendix 5, identifies capacity for a further 1500 dwellings to be
accommodated along Lymington Bottom Road, including mitigation to improve efficiency of the bridge
but no physical works to it. It also confirms that the A31/Lymington Bottom Road junction can
accommodate a further 1000 dwellings before it reaches capacity (with some mitigation). Accordingly,
there are no highway capacity reasons which would restrict the delivery of an LDS at West Lymington
Bottom Road.
3.47 Redrow are fully supportive of the delivery of an appropriate access and transport strategy which
delivers appropriate mitigation where necessary, but also supports a detailed package of sustainable
transport measures which utilise existing public transport opportunities along the A31 corridor.
3.48 In addition, as set out above, the range of services, facilities, employment opportunities and new primary
school within the LDS provides a realistic opportunity to influence modal shift, removing a number of car
borne trips from the network. Currently 82% of people living in East Hampshire commute out of the
District. This is a shocking statistic. The provision of new employment opportunities to meet some local
needs will aid in redressing such an issue.
Redrow Homes October 19 19
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
4. Housing Requirement and the Spatial Strategy
4.1. The Draft Local Plan identifies a housing requirement of 10,456 dwellings outside of the South Downs
National Park. Having regard to the need to accommodate some of the unmet needs from the National
Park, existing commitments and windfall allowances, the Draft Local Plan includes provision for a further
minimum of 2,721 new homes.
4.2. For the purpose of these Representations, Redrow do not provide comment on the housing requirement
set out in the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment. It has previously been set out
that the level of housing proposed to be delivered does not go far enough to address the chronic
affordability issues within the district.
4.3. It has been recorded in discussion with officers through the LDS consultation process that the delivery
of large development sites is looking to contribute approximately 2000 dwellings to the overall housing
delivery across the plan period to 2036. However, in conjunction with a number of emerging
environmental considerations, such as eutrophication resulting from increasing nitrogen levels and the
potential for significant effects on Natura Sites, could constrain the delivery of a number of draft housing
allocations. These issues, including Nitrogen Neutrality, are considered further below. Whilst effects
from foul drainage are an important consideration, similar impacts arising from traffic generation on
designated areas are also relevant and will affect the delivery of development in close proximity to such
locations, such as Whitehill and Bordon.
4.4. At this stage, the following are likely to be impacted:
. Whitehill and Bordon LDS (SA11) – 1284 dwellings;
. Mill Chase Academy (SA12) – 150 dwellings;
Redrow Homes October 19 20
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
. Land East of Horndean (SA33) – 850 dwellings – Ref: 5562/001 expired in February 2019
because of fundamental concerns over the drainage strategy. Concerns already exist
regarding the sensitivity of the site due to the underlying aquifer;
. Land at Cottage Farm, James Copse Close (SA36) – 85 dwellings;
. Land North of Woodcroft Farm (SA37) – 180 dwellings; and
. Land at Five Acres and Aurea Norma (SA30) – 55 dwellings.
4.5. The above account for more than 2500 dwellings (of which 1284 dwellings are being considered as part
of the LDS consultation). Accordingly, there is a very real prospect that the spatial strategy may require
further consideration to make provision for a further 1320 dwellings, in addition to the 2000 already being
considered as part of the LDS consultation (3320 dwellings in total).
Eutrophication
4.6. Eutrophication is the process of increasing nutrient richness in a water body which causes the increase
in plant growth. In the case of the Solent, this is resulting in the increase of algae growth, blocking light
and impacting marine wildlife. In planning terms, this is an issue which could have significant effects on
designated European Sites of biodiversity importance (Natura 2000 Sites). These sites are protected
under European Law.
4.7. The issue of eutrophication has stemmed from an increase in nitrates entering the water body from
waste water treatment works and from leaching of nitrates in soils principally from agricultural activity,
impacting the salt water eco-systems in the Solent. A similar process is also relevant to some freshwater
systems, which are impacted by phosphates.
4.8. The issue has been ‘live’ for a number of years, triggering the preparation of the Integrated Water
Management Study published in Draft in March 2018. However, a tightening of environmental
regulations following case law (the Dutch cases and Sweetman), the matter has been brought into direct
Redrow Homes October 19 21
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
focus of the Habitat Regulations and the likely significance of effects on designated sites.
Geographically, the issue is affecting those areas with a relationship with the designated Solent Natura
sites, albeit that is now not exclusive and is affecting other river catchments, notably the South
Hampshire PUSH area, Chichester and Dorset. There has subsequently been a moratorium of the
granting of new planning permissions (anything which results in an increase in overnight stays) since
May 2019. Such a moratorium does not escape the need for new homes to be constructed and is
compounding a crisis of housing delivery.
4.9. Relevant to proposed spatial strategy for the draft Local Plan is the potential of development to give rise
to further nutrient enrichment in the Solent and potential impacts of eutrophication on other Natura sites
giving rise to significant effects. These impacts may go beyond nitrates (either from agricultural uses or
foulwater) and extend to phosphates enrichment from an increase in traffic generation. As set out in the
February 2019 Representations, a cautious approach should be taken to locating large scale
development in close proximity to Natura sites. As set out in section 3, the issue of
Eutrophication/Nitrogen Neutrality could give rise to effects that constrain the delivery of significant
housing in both the South of the District and also in relative proximity to other designated sites. It will
also impact on the role of the District to meet some of the housing needs not being met in the PUSH
areas, bordering East Hampshire.
4.10. In the case of West of Lymington Bottom Road, whilst the edge of catchment for the Arle, which drains
to the Solent is in proximity to the western boundary of the site, all foul water will drain to Lymington
Bottom Road and on to the treatment works in Alton, which drain to the River Wey catchment and
ultimately the Thames. Similarly, the site is in agricultural use, and also includes a field which is in
intensive pig use, and has been for a number of years, the redevelopment of this land will provide a
number of nitrogen credits by taking such uses out of the network. Residential uses are substantially
less intensive from a nitrates perspective than agriculture and therefore it is foul drainage which is of
principal issue.
Redrow Homes October 19 22
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
4.11. The impact of development at West of Lymington Bottom Road on nutrient enrichment in the Solent will
not be an issue which would preclude development. Even in the currently restrictive decision making
context and in advance of the agreement of appropriate mitigation. Notwithstanding this, Redrow does
recognise the wider implications of such considerations on the emerging spatial strategy alongside
potential implications for authorities in the PUSH areas to meet their own housing needs as a result.
4.12. The significant effects of nutrient enrichment on the Natura sites around the Solent being raised by
Natural England do help to demonstrate the importance of taking a precautionary approach to impacts
on designated sites in formulating a sound spatial strategy.
Redrow Homes October 19 23
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
5. Large Development Sites Assessment
5.1. The Large Development Site consultation process has been progressed following a two-stage
assessment process. The First Stage included a binary pass/fail conclusion following assessment
against criteria relating to capacity, availability, access, sustainable transport and water infrastructure.
5.2. The second stage included a more detailed assessment against a number of environmental and social
issues. Redrow broadly support the range of assessment considerations included at the second stage.
Whilst a sustainability appraisal has not been prepared, a number of the criteria provide a useful basis
against which to consider possible alternatives.
5.3. The Background Paper sets out, at paragraph 5.5 that the site assessment is not a substitute for a
formal SA or HRA. However, the findings of the assessment cannot be ignored in undertaking such an
assessment. The assessment methodology identifies that where ‘red’ and some ‘amber’ results were
recorded a further qualitative assessment was undertaken to conclude on the acceptability of
progressing the site. Redrow recognises that in some circumstances, such as the absence of a primary
school when space for a new school is being proposed as part of the LDS, a qualitative judgement is
entirely appropriate. That said, there are clear indicators, such as the number of red scores, that some
sites are simply not suitable for large scale development, when other more appropriate alternatives are
also being considered. The cumulative impacts are also relevant. These matters are pertinent in
considering any strategy against reasonable alternatives.
5.4. The findings of the assessment are set out in Table 2, below, which is broadly consistent with Table 8
within the Background Paper. It has been adapted to incorporate a quantitative element and a ranking
system. Redrow recognises that not all assessment criteria carry equal weight, but a ranking system
does help provide perspective on the range of issues affecting some site being promoted. This does not
include considerations such as deliverability generally, the extent of mitigation which will be required to
address the significant environmental constraints associated with a spatial strategy which seeks to
locate the majority of new development in the most environmentally sensitive locations. Redrow made
Redrow Homes October 19 24
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
strong representations on this issue in February 2019 and it is considered that a Local Plan which
included large development sites in these locations would be unsound.
Table 2: Results of Stage Two Assessment
Site Name
SAC/SPA SSSI SINC Ancient Woodland Listed Buildings Conservation Area Scheduled Ancient Monument Park/arden Registered NationalPark Town/Local Centre Primary School Doctor Flood one Surface Water Risk Flood Groundwater Flood Risk Score Rank
Chawton Park 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 31 8=
Extension of 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 31 8= Land East of Horndean
Four Marks 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 37 5 South
Land South 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 3 2 1 26 10 East Liphook
Land South of 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 38 2= Winchester Road
Land North of 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 32 6= Holybouorne
Neatham Down 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 38 2=
Northbrook 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 24 11 Park
South 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 38 2= Medstead
West of 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 40 1 Lymington Bottom Road
Whitehill and 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 32 6= Bordon
5.5. The West of Lymington Bottom Road LDS is ranked first. This is unsurprising given that it is relatively
free from environmental constraint and sustainably located relative to existing facilities. However, it is
surprising that of the eleven LDS assessed, five received ‘red’ scores on five or more of the assessment
Redrow Homes October 19 25
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
criteria. To pursue those sites which have a range of significant constraints, when more suitable
alternatives exist would be surprising and give rise to serious concerns regarding the approach to
assessment set out in the SA.
5.6. It will be important to demonstrate, moving forward, that the sites have been identified on an open and
objective basis. By comparison, the Inspectors examining the West of England Joint Spatial Plan (JSP)
have recently raised concerns over the assessment process which led to the inclusion of a number of
Strategic Development Locations (SDL) in that plan. They have subsequently recommended that the
JSP be withdrawn from examination. A letter2 sent by the Inspectors to the JSP Authorities, set out at
paragraph 11 that:
5.7. ‘As stated in our previous letter we have not definitively reached the view that any of the individual SDLs
proposed in the JSP could not, in principle, form a sound part of a plan for the West of England or for
any of the individual local authority areas. However, in light of the above, we conclude that robust
evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the 12 SDLs proposed in the plan have been
selected against reasonable alternatives on a robust, consistent and objective basis. Consequently,
given that the SDLs are an integral part of the plan’s spatial strategy, we cannot conclude that the spatial
strategy is itself sound….’
5.8. In the case of the LDS in East Hampshire, if the Council decided to include the delivery of a (or number
of) LDS locations as part of the spatial strategy, their selection must be robust, consistent and objective.
In respect of the objectivity of the assessment, Redrow will give cautious consideration to a number of
views expressed locally regarding the delivery of an LDS at Four Marks and South of Medstead
specifically. It is understood that a small number of local groups are encouraging Representations to be
made on a quantitative basis, which fail to assess those sites proposed objectively. Officers have made
clear to all promotion teams that this is not a ‘vote by numbers’ exercise, which is entirely appropriate.
2 Letter to Lisa Bartlett, 11 September 2019, attached at Appendix 9
Redrow Homes October 19 26
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
5.9. The assessment set out at Table 1 is clear, the sites at Four Marks and South of Medstead generally,
and West of Lymington Bottom Road specifically, when considered objectively are suitable locations to
provide strategic growth and support a sound spatial strategy.
5.10. With regard to West of Lymington Bottom Road this conclusion is underpinned when a range of
additional economic and social benefits resulting from the symbiotic approach to the existing and
proposed (expansion of) community are considered.
Other Large Development Sites
5.11. Paragraph 72, which forms the basis of a number of the ‘key drivers’ set out in the Background Paper,
refers to the delivery of largescale development as a means of meeting housing requirements. It
recognises that new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided that
they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, can be
appropriate.
5.12. A list of criteria are set out, as follows, which identify key considerations for planning for large scale
development:
a) Consider the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in infrastructure, the
area’s economic potential and the scope for net environmental gains;
b) Ensure that their size and location will support a sustainable community, with sufficient access to
services and employment opportunities within the development itself (without expecting an
unrealistic level of self-containment), or in larger towns to which there is good access;
c) Set clear expectations for the quality of the development and how this can be maintained (such
as following the Garden City principles, and ensure that a variety of homes to meet the needs of
different groups of the community will be provided;
Redrow Homes October 19 27
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
d) Make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites,
and identify opportunities for supporting rapid implementation (such as through joint ventures or
locally led development corporations); and
e) Consider whether it is appropriate to establish Green Belt around or adjoining new developments
of significant size.
5.13. At this stage, in the context of East Hampshire and given the scale of housing being proposed, it is not
considered that c) (quality of design) and e) (formation of Green Belt) are of direct relevance. High
quality design should be the objective for all large sites. Redrow has an excellent track record of
delivering high-quality large-scale developments. The principles of a garden town/village would be
entirely appropriate for West of Lymington Bottom Road, delivering a scheme which is an asset to the
local area and a place where people would like to (and can) live, work and play. It is also not considered
that the formation of Green Belt in the district would meet the purposes of such a designation as a means
of controlling urban sprawl.
5.14. It is also not proposed to consider all sites against all criteria. Even at this stage, there are a number of
concerns raised, based on the information provided, over the ability of a number of sites to be consistent
with a number of core sustainability objectives and the deliverability as a matter of principle. However,
the poor performance of those sites against the initial assessment, recorded at Table 1, is not repeated
here.
5.15. Land East of Horndean: the site is located adjacent to site allocation HN1, which makes provision for up
to 800 dwellings in the adopted Local Plan. Concerns have been raised with the deliverability of that
allocation, above, most significant is the capacity of the Budds Farm Wastewater Treatment Works and
the potential impact of future development on the Solent SPA. However, irrespective of whether HN1
will or will not come forward at some point, the delivery of a new LDS following on from the completion
of that site will not be deliverable, to any meaningful degree, during the identified plan period.
Redrow Homes October 19 28
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
5.16. Four Marks, South: The site at Four Marks lacks connectivity to the centre of Four Marks, with only one
link north via an existing public right of way. It is also not well placed to supplement existing services
and facilities, such as those found in a Local Centre, with new provision in a coherent manner or in
accordance with the sequential approach, such provision would further dissipate spend, and be unlikely
to support any form of critical mass to aid further self-containment in the settlement. This does not refer
to the provision of community facilities, which are included within the proposal, however such provision
could be made equally on any LDS.
5.17. The proposal also fails to consider the existing catchment of schools, with the potential for two primary
schools in close proximity. Whilst the proposal includes provision for the replacement of the existing
school, this is not a viable solution where additional capacity is required in the form of a wholly new
school. This is also the view expressed by the Local Education Authority.
5.18. Land South of Winchester Road, Four Marks: the location of the LDS relative to the existing settlement
will have the effect of elongating the settlement pattern further and will create a further ‘centre’ within
the village. It will not promote basic sustainable development principles such as modal shift and
promoting more walkable neighbourhoods, the inclusion of a local centre will also compete with (rather
than complement) the existing centres, delivering duplicate facilities such as a basic convenience store,
which will not support a greater degree of self-containment. Similarly, whilst the extent of employment
development is appropriate, this will be detached from the residential component of the site in an isolated
and prominent position within the local landscape. It will fail to deliver a cohesive development
framework appropriate for the location.
5.19. The location of the LDS is not well placed to accord with criterion a) or b) of NPPF72.
5.20. It is also surprising that landscape impact has not been raised as an issue identified at Table 10 of the
Background Paper. Soke Hill is prominent in the landscape, particularly forming a key role in the setting
of the Watercress Line.
Redrow Homes October 19 29
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
5.21. Northbrook Park: the extent of new infrastructure required to support the delivery of a new settlement at
Northbrook Park, which is remote from existing settlements, will be significant. Notwithstanding the
environmental constraints associated with the site and the extent of mitigation required to address them,
the delivery of only 800 dwellings will not be sufficient to deliver the critical mass of accommodation to
offer any real prospect of self-containment to support the range of shops and leisure uses being
proposed. This is compounded by the absence of any real catchment of existing population that would
like to be diverted from other centres in the area. In other words, the settlement will be self-reliant.
5.22. The assumptions behind the delivery of 800 dwellings on the site require further testing. The information
provided indicates a development at a gross density of 32 dwellings per hectare. Generally, a gross
density at this level would require three or four storey blocks of flats.
5.23. It is not considered that the assumptions made in respect of delivery and the extent of new abnormal
infrastructure to be delivered are realistic. Redrow raise major concerns regarding the viability of such
a scheme, the impact on affordable housing delivery and sustainable patterns of movement.
5.24. A number of references are made to the creation of a village trust that will underwrite the management
and operation of the proposed shops and services to be provided, in perpetuity. However, if those shops
and services are unviable in their own right it is unlikely that the village trust will continue to underwrite
them in the long term without major ‘on costs’ which will be borne by residents through service charges.
Such an approach is unsustainable.
5.25. The level of local expenditure generated by 800 dwellings and the, realistic, retention of that expenditure
(of between 15-25%, which will be further challenged by Special Forms of Trading), will not support
provision of a new pub, three village shops (the range of goods is not clear), a village hall (providing for
a range of community needs) and a village hub with coffee shop. The subsidy required from the village
trust will be significant and on-going.
Redrow Homes October 19 30
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
5.26. The inclusion of Northbrook Park as a strategic allocation, applying an objective and consistent
approach to site selection, would result in an unsound spatial strategy. A local plan which was reliant on
the delivery of housing on the site to meet its full objectively assessed needs, would be ineffective.
5.27. As set out above, not all other LDS have been included here for assessment. The sites at Horndean,
Liphook and Neatham Down are considered to be completely unsuitable for strategic scale
development. The location of Neatham Down, detached from Alton, would represent a counter intuitive
location for growth around Alton. The site at Liphook performs poorly when assessed against the
identified criteria and the extension of Land East of Horndean is a non-starter given the context of the
adopted Local Plan allocation HN1, which is also not deliverable. As set out previously, there are also
fundamental concerns over the progression of spatial strategy which seeks to locate significant growth
in the most environmentally constrained locations, this places serious question marks over the
soundness of Whitehill and Bordon.
Redrow Homes October 19 31
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1. Redrow are supportive of the delivery of a Large Development Site on land West of Lymington Bottom
Road. It is well placed to deliver a holistic approach to social and economic infrastructure provision,
including investment and expansion of facilities at the existing Local Centre at Lymington Barn and a
new employment hub at Five Ash Crossroads, appropriate to meet local needs appropriate to the area.
6.2. Following the programme of public consultations additional land has been made available to rationalise
the boundaries of the LDS, making it more useable and increasing the area to circa 36ha. Accordingly,
a greater degree of flexibility can be applied to meeting development needs as part of any development
strategy.
6.3. The delivery of an LDS at West of Lymington Bottom Road will support and build on existing assets
within the settlement, underpinning the creation of a genuine hub which can function as a heart of the
community. Additional housing will meet identified needs, including for the provision of affordable and
other forms (such as self-build) of housing, but also support the investment in new social and economic
infrastructure, alongside and package of environmental and utilities infrastructure. It performs well
against a range of environmental and social assessment criteria, which is consistent with the lack of
significant constraint. In essence it provides a suitable location for such growth which will support the
delivery of a sound Local Plan. Conversely, there are serious concerns over the alternative sites
considered as part of the consultation.
6.4. The West of Lymington Bottom Road LDS provides a logical and appropriate location to allocate
strategic scale development as part of the Local Plan Review. Redrow would welcome the opportunity
to work with officers to set out the basis of an allocation which will deliver high quality sustainable
development that will compliment the existing settlement pattern, supplement and grow existing services
and facilities, and provide an opportunity for the village to make material advances in infrastructure
provision.
Redrow Homes October 19 32
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Appendix 1- Site Information Pack
Redrow Homes October 19 33
LAND WEST OF LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD, SOUTH MEDSTEAD
LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITE
INFORMATION PACK SEPTEMBER 2019
Contents
Table of Contents Introduction ...... 2 Site Promotion Team ...... 3 Site Location Plan ...... 4 Site Considerations ...... 5 Proposed Development Opportunities ...... 6 Concept Masterplan ...... 8 Understanding Constraints and Opportunities ...... 9 Delivery and Timescales ...... 10 Meeting Identified Needs in a Sustainable Way ...... 10 Access to services and employment opportunities ...... 11 Opportunities to improve and invest in infrastructure ...... 11 Economic opportunities ...... 12 Opportunities for environmental improvements ...... 13 Creating and maintaining a quality place ...... 13 Meeting the housing needs of everyone ...... 14 Accessing the site by walking, cycling and public transport ...... 14 Local Communities ...... 16 Concerns, opportunities and benefits...... 16 Working together going forward, in an inclusive way ...... 16
1
Introduction
This Information Pack has been prepared to supplement the information presented as part of the Large Site Consultation through September 2019. It relates to the West of Lymington Bottom Road Large Development Site (LDS), which is one of ten sites being considered as part of the preparation of the Local Plan Review.
The content does not seek to present a final development proposal, but rather to establish broad concepts and principles which can prompt consideration of how the site may come forward as part of the draft Local Plan to deliver a mix of land uses and development types. Redrow Homes, along with the wider site promotion team, will continue to work with key stakeholders and the local community to shape any future development proposals to meet districtwide and local development requirements, delivering sustainable development which can be incorporated within the existing community at Four Marks and Medstead.
Land West of Lymington Bottom covers an area of 76acres (30.7ha) of predominately low- grade agricultural land. Development is capable of being delivered without significant constraint, retaining existing landscape features such as established trees and hedgerows.
In essence the development strategy and range of land uses proposed, including economic development, social infrastructure (a new primary school, recreation land and potential for a community hub), new local facilities (including town centre uses within the Local Centre) will support the existing community and underpin the integration of the new housing within it. Cumulatively, the LDS will help deliver a greater degree of self-containment and support Four Marks/South Medstead as a service centre.
The LDS proposal is not just a housing scheme. It has been prepared with a holistic economic development strategy which will deliver investment in the existing Local Centre at Lymington Barns, provide new facilities such as retail, food and beverage offerings, a gym, nursery and new office space. It will also deliver an employment hub at Five Ash Crossroads to provide new space for existing business and also space for new business where there is currently little available.
2
Site Promotion Team
The assessment and consideration of the LDS and the preparation of information to support the consultation has been prepared by the site promotion team, which includes:
• Redrow Homes – Developer1; • Black Box Planning – Planning Consultant; • RPS – Highways and Infrastructure Consultant; • Viridian Landscape – Landscape Consultant; • Thrive Architects – Masterplanning and Architecture; • Rogers Cory Partnership – Drainage Consultant
The Promotion Team is made up a number of specialist consultants and Redrow Homes, a five-star national housebuilder. Both cumulatively and individually the team has extensive experience of planning and delivering a range of development proposals, including of a scale being considered at Lymington Bottom Road. They have been assembled at an early stage in full recognition that as matters progress, it will be alongside a range of technical assessments to consider wide ranging implications of development of this nature, such as any impact on the local highway network, the detailed drainage strategy, how the development is incorporated within and relates to the existing landscape, the extent of additional infrastructure required and integration with the existing community. It is also important that any development sets a high bar from an architectural and appearance perspective, creating a high-quality environment for people to live and work. The wide-ranging technical experience of the promotion team has been assembled to provide the required skills to fully assess the LDS.
1 Redrow Homes currently has land West of Lymington Bottom Road under Option Agreement. This land forms part of the LDS.
3
Map of West of Lymington Bottom Road Large Development Site
4
Site considerations
5
Proposed development opportunities
Concept Masterplan
6
Uses Amount Homes About 650 Employment (B use classes) 2ha Gypsy and Traveller accommodation 5 (pitches) Travelling Showpeople accommodation 5 (plots) Public Open Space At least 5.5ha of formal provision plus informal spaces within development areas. Expansion of Local Centre (A1-A5, B1 and 0.27ha of net additional space (excluding C3) existing or 1ha in total) Primary School 1.2ha
7
Concept Masterplan
8
Understanding constraints and considerations to identify proposed development opportunities
The LDS is relatively free from constraint, having regard to various environmental, landscape and drainage considerations. It is identified that the land: • is wholly located within an area zoned as being at least risk from flooding (Flood Zone 1); • is beyond defined buffers and remote from national or European designated sites (Natura 2000 sites); • is not located within any local or national landscape designation; • is not within the setting or any proximity to designated or undesignated heritage assets (such as listed building or conservation areas); • is closely related to the existing settlement boundary; • is adjacent to an existing Local Centre; • does not contain any protected trees (TPOs). Provides an opportunity to retain existing hedgerows and mature trees in any event; • does not contain any designated or non-designated heritage assets within or in close proximity to the site; and • is accessible to mains utilities.
The site is made up of a collection of small fields which have either been domesticated following segregation from the farm holding over the years or continue to be used for grazing or silage crop. The existing landscape features, including field boundaries and existing trees could, predominately, be incorporated within any development. The area is set behind existing development along Lymington Bottom Road and is not traversed by any public rights of way. It is relatively discreet from public vantage points and can be assimilated into the landscape. Access is available from numerous locations along Lymington Bottom Road. The accessibility of the site to the existing highway and surfaced footways will enable the connection of purpose designed green infrastructure (landscaped cycling and pedestrian routes) to the local area and existing facilities. The approach to preparing the land budget plan for the site has been informed by an assessment of the relevant constraints and opportunities. It has also taken a realistic view on assumptions relating to housing density. In practice, density will vary across the site. However, at this stage, a figure of between 25 dwellings per hectare (low density) and 30 dwellings per hectare (high density) has been used. This will enable provision to be made for additional public open space within residential character area and a network of green infrastructure. In addition, space has also been included for approximately 5.5ha of formal public open space for uses such as sports pitches.
9
Delivery and timescales
Redrow Homes, a national housebuilder with good pedigree of delivering strategic development, are supporting the promotion of the LDS. The area is relatively free from constraint from a delivery perspective and key focal elements, such as the Local Centre, are already well established.
The scale and scope of the proposals are achievable within the land identified, including the practicalities of delivering associated service infrastructure and providing suitable access. At this stage, based on the technical work completed, there are no constraints which would prevent delivery. This includes provisional assessments of the road network and the suitability of Lymington Bottom Road to provide adequate access.
The consolidated form and accessibility of the site from Lymington Bottom Road lends well to the delivery of the site in a phased manner with potential for two sales outlets. Based on a lead in time of 18 to 24 months for outline planning permission to be secured and a further 18 months for a phased programme of Reserved Matters Approval, it is considered that the following delivery rates are realistic:
Year Units Completed 1 50 (25+25) 2 100 (50+50) 3 100 (50+50) 4 100 (50+50) 5 100 (50+50) 6 100 (50+50) 7 50
It is proposed that the economic development elements of the scheme come forward at an early stage of delivery. There is an existing need for new employment space within the settlement following erosion of previous employment sites. An investment strategy for early regeneration of the Local Centre is already in place and further investment will be made alongside the early residential phases.
Meeting identified needs in a sustainable way
The Government’s national planning policy says, “The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities. Working with the support of their communities, and with other authorities if appropriate, strategic policy- making authorities should identify suitable locations for such development where this can help to meet identified needs in a sustainable way.”
10
Supporting a sustainable community, with sufficient access to services and employment opportunities
The LDS covers an area of at least 76acres (30.7ha) The area measurement excludes the existing Local Centre at Lymington Barn Local Centre (approx. 1ha) which is under the control of the majority landowner and would form part of any holistic approach to strategic site delivery, including further investment in the centre. It incorporates low grade agricultural land (predominately 3b from available records) and not Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land. The land offers little or no benefit from a social, economic or environmental perspective currently and is not in productive agricultural use. The area has a close relationship with the existing settlement boundary which adjoins to the east, with development extending the length of Lymington Bottom Road, and to the south beyond the Watercress Line. In doing so it provides a logical expansion of the existing settlement. Notwithstanding this, the range of existing land uses, including the strategic employment site at Station Approach, local centre and health facilities, within close proximity underpin the ability to build on existing assets, to the benefit of both existing and future uses. It will enable a scheme to be incorporated within the fabric and character of the area. In essence, the development strategy and range of land uses proposed, including economic development, social infrastructure (a new primary school, recreation land and potential for a community hub), new local facilities (including town centre uses within the Local Centre) will support the existing community and underpin the integration of the new housing within it. Cumulatively, the LDS will help deliver a greater degree of self-containment and support Four Marks/South Medstead as a service centre.
Opportunities to improve and invest in infrastructure
The LDS provides the opportunity to adopt a holistic approach to infrastructure delivery, including green infrastructure, environmental and economic gains. The approach to the LDS delivery will be to assimilate existing and proposed development, helping to support existing services and facilities, whilst also delivering extensive investment into new, contributing to the sustainability credentials of the wider settlement and its role as a service centre. In this case, the promotion of an LDS which provides the opportunity to deliver new ‘walkable’ neighbourhoods will be a major advantage in the delivery of a highly sustainable development. Redrow has a track record of delivering strategic scale development centred on creating a sense of place, incorporating an accessible network of multifunctional green (landscape centred) and blue (drainage and wet based) infrastructure. The Land Budget Plan includes provision for a range of social and environmental infrastructure elements which will help to support the proposed development area but also deliver net gains for the wider settlement. Provision has been made for a potential new Primary School (subject to discussion with the Education Authority), which will support community cohesion on the LDS, alongside supporting additional places on the roll within the wider area. Geographically, the proposed site is well located between the existing primary schools at Four Marks and Medstead respectively. Similarly, the inclusion of extensive areas of multifunctional Green Infrastructure,
11
public open space and potential for on-site formal recreation provision will also contribute to delivering net gains to serve both existing and future residents in the area, enhancing recreational provision, connectivity with existing services and facilities through the site. The holistic assessment and consideration of the area also provides the opportunity to deliver a surface water drainage strategy which is self-contained within the LDS and a range of environmental net gains which will enhance biodiversity habitats, wildlife networks and species rich soft landscaping. A number of ‘easy wins’ will be incorporated in a joined-up approach to drainage, biodiversity and landscape strategy such as:
• Balancing ponds for wildlife – the inclusion of wet ponds rather than dry basins, as part of a drainage strategy. • Flower rich lawns and turf – the provision of landscaped areas containing a species rich mix of flowers and grasses. • Buffer zones and soft edges – create softer, more gradual transitions between boundaries. • Making use of ‘left over’ spaces – considering the planting strategy for spaces left over in plot layouts by planting shrubs or trees (such as mini orchards), or as SuDs features instead of turfing. • Using native species. • Re-using excavated materials – this can create landforms which are suitable for planting, such as mounds and slopes. • Retaining trees as focal points within the development.
Economic opportunities
The location of land west of Lymington Bottom Road, the incorporation of the existing Local Centre at Lymington Barn and the provision of new employment land at Five Ash Crossroads will facilitate the regeneration and investment in existing economic and social assets alongside sustainable growth and further investment to underpin that growth. Four Marks/South Medstead has seen a long-term erosion of employment space and there is strong demand for new provision alongside additional housing growth. The proposal includes provision for 2ha of new employment space (B1) alongside additional investment in the Local Centre. It is considered that some of that space will help to serve pent up demand and additional space to meet medium term needs. The LDS will deliver a range of economic benefits by adopting a comprehensive approach to mixed use development, including but not limited to:
- Expansion of services and facilities at Lymington Barn Local Centre, in addition to existing planned and committed development, to include appropriate uses such as additional A Class uses (retail and F&B to serve local catchment with some niche provision), leisure facilities (D2, such as a purpose built gym), early years nursery (D1) and office space. - Relocation of some existing employment facilities from Lymington Barn to the identified employment site, alongside additional employment growth and provision of new space in a rural employment hub.
12
- Provision of site for new primary school and community facilities. - Deliver new housing and associated increase in household expenditure to support both existing and new uses within the Centre and wider settlement.
The approach to the economic development strategy will also enable it to be delivered at an early stage of the development.
Opportunities for environmental improvements
The holistic assessment and consideration of the area provides the opportunity to deliver a surface water drainage strategy which is self-contained within the LDS and a range of environmental net gains which will enhance biodiversity habitats, wildlife networks and species rich soft landscaping. A number of ‘easy wins’ will be incorporated in a joined-up approach to drainage, biodiversity and landscape strategy such as:
• Balancing ponds for wildlife – the inclusion of wet ponds rather than dry basins, as part of a drainage strategy. • Flower rich lawns and turf – the provision of landscaped areas containing a species rich mix of flowers and grasses. • Buffer zones and soft edges – create softer, more gradual transitions between boundaries. • Making use of ‘left over’ spaces – considering the planting strategy for spaces left over in plot layouts by planting shrubs or trees (such as mini orchards), or as SuDs features instead of turfing. • Using native species. • Re-using excavated materials – this can create landforms which are suitable for planting, such as mounds and slopes. • Retaining trees as focal points within the development.
Creating and maintaining a quality place
The LDS will be delivered to a high standard of urban design, where possible utilising 8 Design principles that have helped shape successful communities across the country, drawing reference to the positive influences on character within the local area, including the use of appropriate materials and high-quality landscaping. It will also seek to retain existing landscape features, delivering development within a mature setting where possible, supplementing it with a detailed and complimentary strategy to deliver net gains.
At its heart, the LDS will be planned and designed to be incorporated within the existing settlement, providing opportunities to minimise the use of the private car and adopting walkable neighbourhood and garden village principles. The delivery of a genuine mix of land uses will aid the delivery of a more sustainable place. Existing parcels within the LDS have previously been promoted for a range of uses, including the creation of a new employment hub at Five Ash Crossroads to facilitate further investment in the Lymington Barn Local Centre alongside new growth. They are not new proposals which
13
provide a clear indication that such uses will come forward during an early phase of delivery, supporting a well-balanced scheme and enhancing the credentials of an identified service centre, maintaining (as a minimum) its role within the District’s Settlement Hierarchy in the long term. In essence, the LDS will be planned and delivered to create a high-quality environment for people to live and play. In addition, the delivery of a coherent economic development strategy will also provide an opportunity for more people to work in the local area, supporting a more competitive and vital local economy. In terms of housing delivery, the promotion team has gained extensive experience of delivering strategic scale development utilising good quality design principles, delivering a place people can feel proud to live. In doing so, the scheme will come forward using 8 core design principles:
1. Listen to Learn – an extensive scheme of public engagement and the involvement of the local community. Creating a scheme that will engender legacy and stewardship. 2. Keeping it local – respecting the local natural and historic environment. 3. Easy to get around – deliver integrated, forward looking and accessible transport options. 4. Places to go and things to do. A sustainable scale, supporting the necessary infrastructure for the community. Deliver a mix of uses to promote vibrancy. 5. Nature for people – generous green spaces and a healthy environment. 6. Streets for life – healthy places to live with opportunities for recreation. 7. Homes for all – a mix of high quality, distinctive homes. 8. Built to impress – great homes with a clear, distinctive identity.
Meeting the housing needs of everyone
The LDS is capable of providing for a range of housing types, including: affordable housing (of a range of tenures), self-build, a mix of market housing and to meet identified needs for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation. The location of character areas and housing types will be identified as the masterplanning of the LDS progresses.
Providing a wide range of housing types and tenures will broaden inclusivity within the development, meeting the needs of a wide range of people. The tenures could include:
• For sale, market accommodation; • Affordable housing for rent; • Starter homes; • Discounted market sale housing; • Shared ownership homes; and • Self-build accommodation.
Accessing the site by walking, cycling and public transport
The location of the LDS in relation to existing employment opportunities, services and facilities, alongside the range of proposed land uses provide a realistic opportunity to promote walking
14
and cycling in place of short car trips, in accordance with the principles of walkable neighbourhoods set out in Manual for Streets (National Guidance).
The LDS is also well served by existing footways adjacent to Lymington Bottom Road, connecting with the wider Four Marks area to the south of the Watercress Line.
A number of opportunities exist to connect the site with Lymington Bottom Road, providing east/west connectivity as well as creating a permeable development from north to south through the scheme. Notwithstanding this, delivery will include multi-purpose green infrastructure links that will enable walking and cycling as a recreational activity, part of a comprehensive landscape strategy, rather than just for transit from point A to B, this will support the principles of delivering a high-quality space.
The area is also well served by frequent bus route along the A31, which enables access to the larger centres at Alton and Winchester, which both provide onward rail connections to London.
Supplementing existing footways and cycle routes, with new provision on site will play a central role of integrating the LDS into the existing settlement and will also provide good quality access to new social infrastructure, such as the provision of a new primary school on site.
15
Local communities Concerns, opportunities and benefits
A number of local residents living in close proximity to the site will inevitably have concerns over proposal to promote new development. The site promotion team understand the concerns associated with new development and would work alongside local residents to minimise impacts on them during the construction phase of development. However, the proposals are being prepared in the context of meeting identified needs for new development across the district in a planned manner. It will provide opportunity for existing local residents as well as new, including the provision of new employment opportunities, recreation options, a greater level of household expenditure to support more vital and viable local services and leisure activities. It will contribute to a greater level of self-containment within the settlement which will, in turn, provide more opportunity to access new services without the use of the private car. The provision of new formal open space could support new sports clubs and other outdoor activities. There is also the potential to deliver a community hub if beneficial or required. The promotion team will seek to integrate existing and new development creating a better served local community. Planning for a larger scale development provides the opportunity to deliver a greater critical mass of infrastructure, where smaller developments do little to contribute.
Working together going forward, in an inclusive way
Effective community engagement sits at the heart of delivering good quality development and integrating that development into the existing community. It is important that existing residents, business owners and other identified stakeholders get the opportunity to inform the evolution of the development proposals to shape the LDS. This includes engagement from the outset through to completion. An effective community engagement strategy should include:
- Direct consultation through public exhibition, providing a genuine opportunity to input and provide feedback; - Focus group meetings with those who have specific interests, for example, community groups, sports clubs, civic groups and local businesses; - Direct engagement with local councils and the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group; and - Ongoing dialogue with the Local Planning Authority.
It is not considered that a consultation or engagement strategy should be too prescriptive, as the case develops it may emerge that there is greater demand/need for specific consultation or engagement on specific elements of the scheme. In such circumstances, a Community Liaison Group may be beneficial.
16
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Appendix 2 – Amended red line boundary plan
Redrow Homes October 19 34
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Appendix 3 – Concept Masterplan (smaller site)
Redrow Homes October 19 35
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Appendix 4 – Revised Concept Masterplan
Redrow Homes October 19 36
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Appendix 5 – Transport Note, October 2019
Redrow Homes October 19 37
LAND WEST OF LYMINGTON BARN MEDSTEAD
Transport Note
JNY10029-03a Transport Scoping Note Version A 15 October 2019
www.rpsgroup.com
Document Status
Version Purpose of document Authored by Reviewed by Approved by Review date
03a Transport Note October 2019
This report was prepared by RPS Consulting Services Ltd (‘RPS’) within the terms of its engagement and in direct response to a scope of services. This report is strictly limited to the purpose and the facts and matters stated in it and does not apply directly or indirectly and must not be used for any other application, purpose, use or matter. In preparing the report, RPS may have relied upon information provided to it at the time by other parties. RPS accepts no responsibility as to the accuracy or completeness of information provided by those parties at the time of preparing the report. The report does not take into account any changes in information that may have occurred since the publication of the report. If the information relied upon is subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that the observations and conclusions expressed in the report may have changed. RPS does not warrant the contents of this report and shall not assume any responsibility or liability for loss whatsoever to any third party caused by, related to or arising out of any use or reliance on the report howsoever. No part of this report, its attachments or appendices may be reproduced by any process without the written consent of RPS. All enquiries should be directed to RPS.
Prepared by: Prepared for:
RPS Consulting Services Ltd Redrow Homes (Southern Counties)
Senior Consultant
260 Park Avenue, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol. BS32 4SY.
JNY10029-03a | Transport Note | Version A | October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page ii
Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Appendices APPENDICES APPENDIX A – TRANSPORT SCOPING NOTE (125 DWELLINGS) APPENDIX B – RAILWAY BRIDGE ON LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD LINSIG APPENDIX C – LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD / A31 LINSIG
JNY10029-03a | Transport Note | Version A | October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page iii
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Technical Note (TN) has been prepared by RPS Consulting Services Ltd on behalf of Redrow Homes. The TN summarises a highway capacity assessment of local junctions which would be affected by development traffic from two proposed developments sites, Land West of Lymington Bottom Road (circa. 600 residential units) and South Medstead (circa 600 residential units), both located in Medstead. 1.2 The two sites have proposed by developers for inclusion in the emerging Local Plan, with the potential that they form one larger site allocation. Therefore, the impact on the local network of the sites together has been assessed. 1.3 The methodology for traffic generation and distribution / assignment is similar to that contained within RPS Transport Scoping Note (JNY10029-02a) attached at Appendix A which was prepared for the proposed development of 125 dwellings at Land West of Lymington Bottom Road. 1.4 Highway capacity assessments were undertaken for the priority working through the railway overbridge on Lymington Bottom Road, and the junction of Lymington Bottom Road and A31, for the 2024 future year with 600 residential units and a larger 1,500 residential unit development.
Existing Traffic Flows and Trip Forecast 1.5 As agreed with HCC, traffic surveys were undertaken by an independent surveyor between Wednesday 10 July and Tuesday 14 July 2019 at the following locations: Railway bridge on Lymington Bottom Road (Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC)); Lymington Bottom Road and A31 Winchester Road (MCC); and Lapwing Way ATC (Thursday 16 July 2019). 1.6 The ATC undertaken at Lapwing Way has been used to ascertain the trip rate for a ‘sample site’. Lapwing Way is a residential cul-de-sac with approximately 100 residential units located to the south of A31 within Four Marks. It had been agreed with HCC that this site would offer representative trip rate for the 125 dwelling scheme. For continuity purposes, this trip rate has been applied for the larger schemes, which is considered robust as the larger scheme is likely to have some ancillary facilities which should help in reducing the need to travel by private car. 1.7 A summary of the peak hour vehicle flow and resultant trip rates for Lapwing Way is shown in Table 1.1.
JNY10029-03a | Transport Note | Version A | October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 1
Table 1.1: Trip Rate based on Lapwing Way Site
Morning Peak Evening Peak Arriving Departing Two- Arriving Departing Two-way (Southbound) (Northbound) way (Southbound) (Northbound) Vehicles 13 54 67 43 20 53 Trip Rate 0.132 0.538 0.67 0.432 0.198 0.63 (100 Units)
1.8 The trip rates in Table 1.1 above have been applied to the larger residential schemes of between 600 and 1,500 units. In reality, for a larger strategic scale development there would be an element of self-containment, therefore the trip rate would be reduced and the results for the capacity assessment present a robust case.
Trip Distribution and Assignment 1.9 It was agreed with HCC that traffic from the site (125 scheme) would be distributed utilising Census dataset ‘Location of usual residence and place of work’ (2011). The results showed that there were 143 places of work defined from a usual residence of East Hampshire, with 18 per cent of residence living and working in East Hampshire with the remaining 82 per cent living in East Hampshire and working outside of East Hampshire. 1.10 For the 18 per cent of trips inside East Hampshire, it was agreed with HCC that the proportional traffic flows at the access with Lymington Bottom Road and at the A31 would be used to assign the relating traffic flow. 1.11 For the 82 per cent of trips outside East Hampshire, the quickest route from the site access to the proposed location were analysed using Google route planner function and applied to the relating traffic flow. 1.12 It is noted that this distribution methodology is appropriate for the Land West of Lymington Bottom Road scheme, however the distribution is likely to differ for the South Medstead scheme which has frontage onto Beechlands Road and Five Ash Road, and would route some of its traffic onto Boyneswood Road and the junction with Boyneswood Road and the A31, rather than travelling through the railway bridge and Lymington Bottom Road. As such the analysis is considered robust with respect to the junctions tested. 1.13 The traffic generation does not include trips generated by the Primary School or Employment uses of which there would be a level of self-containment and would remove some short trips. It also does not include improvements to local infrastructure such as footways/footpaths, cycleways and public transport which would see a shift away from car use.
Traffic Impact 1.14 A TEMPRO growth factor for ‘Urban – Principle road’ of 1.0588 for the morning and 1.0593 for the evening has been applied to the 2019 base flows to create a 2024 future year scenario.
JNY10029-03a | Transport Note | Version A | October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 2
1.15 The railway bridge on Lymington Bottom Road and the junction of Lymington Bottom Road and A31 Winchester Road both were tested for between 600 residential units and 1,500 residential units, with the 2024 future year traffic flows. 1.16 The highway capacity results for the two assessed locations are shown in Tables 1.2 and 1.3, with full results attached at Appendix B.
Table 1.2: Railway bridge on Lymington Bottom Road
Morning Evening Deg. Sat Av. MMQ (pcu) Deg. Sat (%) Av. Delay MMQ (pcu) (%) Delay (s/pcu) (s/pcu) 2019 Base Northbound 45.2% 15.9 4.8 35.2% 21.3 2.9 Southbound 43.8% 24.3 3.5 35.7% 16.1 3.6 2024 Base Northbound 47.8% 16.3 5.1 37.2% 21.5 3.1 Southbound 46.4% 24.8 3.8 37.9% 16.4 3.8 2024 Base + Development (600) Northbound 66.8% 24.6 7.2 56.8% 22.0 5.7 Southbound 65.2% 23.8 7.2 54.3% 21.3 5.6 2024 Base + Development (1500) Northbound 91.2% 50.6 12.7 82.2% 28.9 11.5 Southbound 96.2% 56.3 20.5 82.5% 36.1 9.7
1.17 The results in Table 1.2 show that there is capacity at the railway bridge in 2024 for both the 600 residential units’ development and the larger 1,500 residential units, albeit there will be a queue of 21 vehicles southbound during the morning peak period. 1.18 It is considered that this level of queuing is not severe, and it should be remembered that the assessment does not take into account the alternative access via Boyneswood Road, Travel Plan initiatives or that both the 600 and 1,500 residential unit schemes will have ancillary facilities which should reduce car use.
JNY10029-03a | Transport Note | Version A | October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 3
Table 1.3: Lymington Bottom Road and A31 Winchester Road
Morning Evening Deg. Sat (%) Av. Delay MMQ (pcu) Deg. Sat (%) Av. Delay MMQ (pcu) (s/pcu) (s/pcu) 2019 Base Lymington 52.1% 52.2 6.3 54.9% 50.9 7.1 Bottom Road A31 West 53.3% 10.7 11.5 43.1% 10.1 8.4 A31 East 49.1% 11.9 8.4 54.4% 12.2 11.2 2024 Base Lymington 55.4% 53.3 6.7 58.1% 52 7.6 Bottom Road A31 West 56.4% 11.2 12.6 45.7% 10.4 9.1 A31 East 52% 12.7 9.5 57.7% 12.9 12.4 2024 Base + Development (600) Lymington 76% 52.7 13.6 67% 51.5 10.2 Bottom Road A31 West 65.5% 18.2 17 52.7% 13.3 11.7 A31 East 77.4% 26.8 14.5 68.3% 19.4 16.8 2024 Base + Development (1,000) Lymington 95.2% 85.9 23.7 84.1% 67.6 14 Bottom Road A31 West 68.3% 20.2 18.3 54.5% 12.7 12.1 A31 East 95.3% 55.5 21.2 87% 28.8 19.6
1.19 The results in Table 1.3 show that there is capacity at the junction of the A31 / Lymington Bottom in 2024 for both the 600 residential units’ development and the larger 1,000 residential units, albeit there will be some queuing up to 24 vehicles during the morning peak period. 1.20 It is considered that this level of queuing is not severe, and it should be remembered that the assessment does not take into account the alternative access via Boyneswood Road, Travel Plan initiatives or that both the 600 and 1,000 residential unit schemes will have ancillary facilities which should reduce car use.
Summary 1.21 The results above show that the Railway bridge has sufficient capacity to accommodate up to 1,500 dwellings and the A31 / Lymington Bottom Road junction has sufficient capacity to accommodate up to 1,000 dwellings. utilising the distribution of traffic applied from the Land West of Lymington Bottom Road. 1.22 As aforementioned, the trip rate would be reduced for the strategic site due to self-containment of shorter trips. Also, the distribution of trips from the South Medstead site would differ with a proportion exiting the site onto Boyneswood Road. Therefore, the results present a robust case.
JNY10029-03a | Transport Note | Version A | October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 4
1.23 In due course it will be necessary to test the junction of Boyneswood Road with the A31 junction, with a revised distribution and assignment, and update the assessment described in this TN, with due consideration to Travel Plan initiatives and any potential on-site ancillary services.
JNY10029-03a | Transport Note | Version A | October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 5
Appendices
www.rpsgroup.com
Appendix A – Transport Scoping Note (125 Dwellings)
www.rpsgroup.com
LAND WEST OF LYMINGTON BARN MEDSTEAD
Transport Scoping Note
JNY10029-02a Transport Scoping Note Version 01 07 October 2019
www.rpsgroup.com
Document Status
Version Purpose of document Authored by Reviewed by Approved by Review date
18 September 01 Transport Scoping Note 2019
Approval for issue
18 September [Signature] 2019
This report was prepared by RPS Consulting Services Ltd (‘RPS’) within the terms of its engagement and in direct response to a scope of services. This report is strictly limited to the purpose and the facts and matters stated in it and does not apply directly or indirectly and must not be used for any other application, purpose, use or matter. In preparing the report, RPS may have relied upon information provided to it at the time by other parties. RPS accepts no responsibility as to the accuracy or completeness of information provided by those parties at the time of preparing the report. The report does not take into account any changes in information that may have occurred since the publication of the report. If the information relied upon is subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that the observations and conclusions expressed in the report may have changed. RPS does not warrant the contents of this report and shall not assume any responsibility or liability for loss whatsoever to any third party caused by, related to or arising out of any use or reliance on the report howsoever. No part of this report, its attachments or appendices may be reproduced by any process without the written consent of RPS. All enquiries should be directed to RPS.
Prepared by: Prepared for:
RPS Consulting Services Ltd Redrow Homes (Southern Counties)
Senior Consultant
260 Park Avenue, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol. BS32 4SY.
T
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 01 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page ii
Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 POLICY ...... 2 3 ACCESSIBILITY ...... 3 4 ACCESS STRATEGY AND TRIP IMPACT ...... 7 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 12
Figures and Appendices FIGURES FIGURE 1 – LOCAL FACILITIES PLAN FIGURE 2 – SITE ISOCHRONE PLAN - LOCAL FACILITIES FIGURE 3 – SITE ISOCHRONE PLAN - LOCAL SCHOOLS FIGURE 4 – 2019 BASELINE TRAFFIC FLOWS (MORNING) FIGURE 5 – 2019 BASELINE TRAFFIC FLOWS (EVENING) FIGURE 6 – DISTRIBUTION OF TRIPS INSIDE EAST HAMPSHIRE THROUGHOUT THE LOCAL ROAD NETWORK (MORNING) FIGURE 7 – DISTRIBUTION OF TRIPS INSIDE EAST HAMPSHIRE THROUGHOUT THE LOCAL ROAD NETWORK (EVENING) FIGURE 8 – DISTRIBUTION OF TRIPS OUTSIDE EAST HAMPSHIRE THROUGHOUT THE LOCAL ROAD NETWORK (MORNING) FIGURE 9 – DISTRIBUTION OF TRIPS OUTSIDE EAST HAMPSHIRE THROUGHOUT THE LOCAL ROAD NETWORK (EVENING) FIGURE 10 – DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC (MORNING) FIGURE 11 – DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC (EVENING) FIGURE 12 – 2024 BASELINE TRAFFIC (MORNING) FIGURE 13 – 2024 BASELINE TRAFFIC (EVENING) FIGURE 14 – 2019 BASELINE PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC (MORNING) FIGURE 15 – 2019 BASELINE PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC (EVENING) FIGURE 16 – 2024 BASELINE PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC (MORNING) FIGURE 17 – 2024 BASELINE PLUS DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC (EVENING)
APPENDICES APPENDIX A – WCHAR AREA APPENDIX B – WALKING DISTANCE TO LOCAL FACILITIES APPENDIX C – TRAFFIC SURVEY DATA APPENDIX D – WORKPLACE DESTINATION (CENSUS 2011 DATA) AND DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 01 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page iii
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Scoping Note has been prepared by RPS Consulting Services Ltd on behalf of Redrow Homes. It builds on the Technical Note (RPS Ref: JNY10029-01a) previously submitted to Hampshire County Council (HCC), who are the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and sets out an appraisal of the transport matters associated with the development and methodology of the assessment of Land West of Lymington Barn, Medstead (the ‘Site’). 1.2 The location of the Site is shown in Figure 1, and it is located within the East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) planning authority area. 1.3 The Site was identified in the Interim Sustainability Appraisal of the emerging East Hampshire Local Plan in December 2018 as site LAA/MED-022. It is relatively unconstrained and sits to the west of residential schemes recently completed by Miller Homes and Beechcroft Developments. 1.4 Redrow Homes has an interest in the Site and is actively promoting it for up to 150 dwellings through the East Hampshire Local Plan Review, which was the subject of a Regulation 18 Consultation between 5 February and 19 March 2019. 1.5 A meeting was held with HCC on 29 May 2019 in which the methodology for the transport assessment for the Site was discussed. This note sets out the methodology agreed with HCC including an accessibility assessment, trip generation and distribution, and traffic impact and mitigation. 1.6 This report is structured as follows: Section 2 – reviews local policy in relation to the development; Section 3 – an assessment of the Site’s accessibility to local facilities and amenities (e.g. employment, shops, schools, healthcare, recreation) by public transport, cycling and walking, and includes a review of the surrounding transport network; Section 4 – provides details of the Site’s access strategy, forecast vehicle trip numbers and distribution, and initial capacity assessments; and Section 5 – provides a summary and conclusions. 1.7 It is concluded that the Site is well placed for residential development in terms of the potential to reduce the number and length of vehicular trips in relation to travel to local services and facilities. 1.8 It is concluded that trips generated by the development can be accommodated on the local highway network and any required mitigation is deliverable – working collaboratively with stakeholders – should it ultimately be considered necessary. 1.9 As such it is considered that there are no transport reasons why the proposed development should not be acceptable at Four Marks & South Medstead.
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 1
2 POLICY 2.1 Relevant transportation policies are included in the following documents: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019); Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (2016); and Draft Local Plan: Interim Sustainability Appraisal of the emerging East Hampshire Local Plan (2018). National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) 2.2 In transport terms the thrust of NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11); that opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued (paragraph 102); that planning policies should support a mix of uses across an area so that people can be encouraged to minimise the number and lengths of journeys for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities (104); when making planning decisions ensuring the opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location (paragraph 108); to locate and design developments to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities (paragraph 110); and that a safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users (paragraph 108). 2.3 Chapter 3 of this report shows that the local area provides a range of facilities within walking distance of the Site, that the local pedestrian and cycle network are appropriate and there are bus stops located within reasonable walking distance. It also confirms that the Site would have the potential to generate trips of shorter lengths when compared to other sites. Chapter 4 shows that safe and suitable access arrangements can be provided and confirms that the proposed redevelopment is not forecast to have a material impact on the operation of the local highway network. Summary 2.4 It is concluded that the proposed development of the site would comply with local and national guidance.
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 2
3 ACCESSIBILITY Site Location and Local Highway Network 3.1 The Site is located (Figure 1) on land to the west of Lymington Bottom Road and north of the Watercress Heritage Railway, in an area known as South Medstead which, whilst within the Parish of Medstead, functions as part of the settlement of Four Marks. The Site is currently open fields and the Austen Fields development (EHBC Planning Ref: 53305/003) is located to the east of the site. 3.2 The Austen Fields development is located to the west of the Lymington Barn commercial area. That commercial area has two accesses, which both serve its car park as well as the Austen Fields development, although the northern access is a more direct route. Opposite the southern access is Station Approach which leads to local employment areas. 3.3 To the south of the access to Lymington Barn is a railway over-bridge, and through the narrow arched structure Lymington Bottom Road operates with one-way priority (south to north) with footways provided on both sides. Some short queues have been observed at times in this location on a site-visit carried out in February 2019. 3.4 To the south of the bridge, Lymington Bottom Road continues to the junction with the A31. 3.5 The topography of the A31 between the Lymington Bottom Road junction and the centre of Four Marks in the east includes shallow gradients in places, although these are not considered to be an impediment to the majority of pedestrians and cyclists. Walking and Cycling 3.6 Lymington Bottom Road has a footway on the western side of the carriageway along the Lymington Barn frontage, and footways generally on both sides of the carriageway elsewhere. 3.7 Footways continue to the Winchester Road (A31) and to the facilities to the east. 3.8 An uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point is provided approximately 20 metres west of the Lymington Bottom Road junction with the A31 Winchester Road. 3.9 ‘The Writers Way’ walking and cycling route begins in Four Marks and connects to the villages of Lower Farringdon, Upper Farringdon, Selborne, West Worldham, Chawton and the Market Town of Alton. The route can be accessed approximately 940 metres east of the proposed site centre. 3.10 EHDC has produced a cycle map for the nearby Alton Off Road Cycle Trails. The map details the route which connects Bentworth, Chawton, Medstead and the Market Town of Alton. This route can be accessed approximately two kilometres north-east of the site. 3.11 As part of the Transport Assessment a Walking, Cycling, Horse Riding Audit Review (WCHAR) will be undertaken within the vicinity of the site. The area proposed for review is included at Appendix A.
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 3
Public Transport
Bus Services 3.12 The closest bus stop to the Site is Lymington Bottom and is located on the southern side of the A31 Winchester Road, approximately 720 metres from the centre of the Site. The uncontrolled pedestrian crossing can be used to access the bus stop. Shelter, seating and timetables are provided at the stop which is served by the west-bound 64 service. 3.13 Approximately 100 metres east of the Lymington Bottom stop is the east-bound Lymington Bottom bus stop. This stop also provides shelter, seating and timetables and is served by the 64 and 64X service. 3.14 It is considered that future residents of the site would be able to walk relatively easily to these bus stops which have a reasonably good bus frequency. 3.15 The local bus stops are shown in Figure 1, with a summary shown in Table 2.1. The morning peak period is 07:00 – 09:00 and the evening peak period is 16:30 – 18:30.
Table 2.1: Local Bus Services Operating from Lymington Bottom Stop
Weekday Weekend Frequency Time Frequency Service Route AM Off PM First Last Sat Sun Peak Peak Peak Service Service
Every Every One Winchester - 64 Alton 3 30 4 06:50 22:51 30 per mins mins hour Perins School – Four Marks 64X – Alton Once daily 09:30 - - College 3.16 The 64 service can be used to access the shopping area located on the A31 Winchester Road in Four Marks. The service also routes into the city of Winchester and the Market Town of Alton. The service stops at Alton Railway Station. 3.17 The 64X is a service which provides access to Perins School and Alton College.
Rail Services 3.18 The Watercress Line, a recreational steam railway line, runs through Medstead. The station route can be accessed approximately 940 metres east of the proposed site centre. 3.19 The closest commercial railway station is at Alton, approximately 8.9 kilometres north-east of the site. The station can be accessed using the 64 bus service. The railway station has 60 bicycle parking spaces and 185 car parking spaces. 3.20 One route is provided from Alton Railway Station, an outbound and inbound route to and from London Waterloo. Stops on this service include Bentley (Hampshire), Farnham, Aldershot, Ash
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 4
Vale, Brookwood, Woking, West Byfleet, Surbiton and Clapham Junction. The railway station offers the opportunity for onward travel for further afield destinations across the UK. A summary of service frequencies to and from Alton Railway Station are provided in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Local Railway Services
Frequency (per hour) Alton – London Journey Weekday Weekend Waterloo Duration AM Off PM First Last Sat Sun Peak Peak Peak Arrival Arrival Every Every 30 One per Departing 75 mins 4 30 4 05:42 23:15 mins hour mins Four Four per One per Arriving 65 mins 7 per 7 06:40 01:18 hour hour hour
Facilities and Amenities 3.21 There are a number of facilities and amenities that are local to the Site, as shown on Figure 1. These facilities and amenities have been grouped into the following categories: Primary Schools; Food and Drink; Leisure; Retail; Health; Community; Workplaces; and Public Transport. 3.22 Approximate walking distance between the proposed ‘centre’ of the Site (370 metres to Lymington Bottom Road) and the above destinations are set out in Appendix B. 3.23 Isochrone plans for a two kilometres walking distance, which equates to a 25 minute walk at a speed of 1.3 metres per second (or 4.8 kilometres per hour) have been prepared for the Site in relation to the local facilities and amenities. These are included at Figure 2 and Figure 3. 3.24 It should also be noted that the Site is also located in close proximity to a range of existing facilities and amenities including convenience retail at Lymington Barn, Mansfield Park Surgery and the strategic employment sites along Station Approach.
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 5
Existing Traffic Flows 3.25 Traffic surveys were undertaken by an independent surveyor between Wednesday 10 and Tuesday 14 July 2019 at the following locations, the date and location of which were agreed with HCC: Site access onto Lymington Bottom Road (Manual Classified Count (MCC)); Railway bridge on Lymington Bottom Road (Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC)); Lymington Bottom Road and A31 Winchester Road (MCC); A31 Winchester Road ATC (Tuesday 16 July 2019); and Lapwing Way ATC (Tuesday 16 July 2019). 3.26 It was agreed with HCC that the site access onto Lymington Bottom Road, the narrowing under the railway which currently gives priority to drivers travelling southbound on Lymington Bottom Road, and the junction with Lymington Bottom Road and the A31 should all subject to capacity and operational assessments. 3.27 The peak hours varied across the surveyed locations. The baseflows for the morning period are shown in Figure 4 and the for the evening period in Figure 5. 3.28 The ATC undertaken at Lapwing Way has been used to ascertain the trip rate for a ‘sample site’. Lapwing Way is a residential cul-de-sac with approximately 100 residential units located to the south of A31 within Four Marks. It had been agreed with HCC that this site would offer a representative trip rate which could be applied to the proposals. The traffic flows for this are included at Appendix C. Summary 3.29 The Site is located in an area which is close to local services and facilities required on a daily basis, which will help to minimise the need to travel. It is well located in order to reduce the length and number of vehicular trips and to encourage sustainable travel, reflecting the aspirations in local and national transport policy.
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 6
4 ACCESS STRATEGY AND TRIP IMPACT Vehicular Access 4.1 Vehicular access to the Site will be taken through the Austen Fields development to the east. This option provides access via an established priority junction onto Lymington Bottom Road, and observations on-site show the access works well in safely accommodating existing trip movements on the local network. 4.2 The internal road network within the site will be complemented by a network of cycleways and footways which will provide easy vehicle free connections to the neighbouring communities. Parking and Travel Plan Strategy 4.3 Car and cycle parking for the proposals will be provided in accordance with appropriate standards. 4.4 Travel Plan Measures will be put in place to mitigate any impact of vehicle trips on the network and to encourage the use of sustainable modes of travel. Trip Forecast 4.5 A previous RPS Technical Note set out an initial forecast and distribution of trips based on the methodology used to support the Austen Fields development and the adjacent Lymington Bottom Road Cala Homes site. This showed that a morning peak hour trip rate of 0.430 and an evening peak hour trip rate of 0.512. 4.6 In discussions with HCC it was agreed that an existing sample site should be used to ascertain a comparable trip rate. As aforementioned, an ATC was undertaken at the Lapwing Way site. A summary of the peak hour flow and resultant trip generation is included in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Trip Rate based on Lapwing Way Site
Morning Peak Evening Peak Arriving Departing Two- Arriving Departing Two-way (Southbound) (Northbound) way (Southbound) (Northbound) Vehicles 13 54 67 43 20 53 Trip Rate 0.132 0.538 0.67 0.432 0.198 0.63 (100 Units) Trip Genera tion 17 67 84 54 25 79 (125 Units)
4.7 Using the Lapwing Way site data, Table 4.1 shows that the Site is likely to generate 84 two- way trips in the morning peak and 79 two-way trips in the evening peak.
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 7
4.8 These levels of traffic equate to less than two additional cars every minute exiting the site on average, which is not sufficient large to have a material impact on existing levels of operation in this location or elsewhere on the highway network. Trip Distribution 4.9 The previous RPS Technical Note set out that traffic would distribute (assign) from the Site access based on the proportional traffic flows on Lymington Bottom Road with reference to the ATC data obtained in March 2019. 4.10 It was agreed with HCC that traffic from the Site would be distributed onto the road network utilising Census dataset ‘Location of usual residence and place of work’ (2011). The results showed that there were 143 places of work defined from a usual residence of East Hampshire, with 18% of residence living and working in East Hampshire with the remaining 82% living in East Hampshire and working outside of East Hampshire. 4.11 For the 18% of trips inside East Hampshire, it was agreed with HCC that the proportional traffic flows at the access with Lymington Bottom Road and at the A31 would be used to assign the relating traffic flow. Figure 6 and 7 shows the distribution throughout the local road network. 4.12 For the 82% of trips outside East Hampshire, the quickest route from the site access to the proposed location were analysed using Google route planner function and applied to the relating traffic flow. Figure 8 and 9 shows the distribution throughout the local road network. 4.13 Appendix D shows the direction of travel for each workplace destination and the resulting overall traffic split on the local highway network. The traffic dissipates as far as Lymington Bottom Road (north) and the A31 (East, West or South). 4.14 Figure 10 and 11 show the respective morning and evening development traffic flows. Based on the above distribution. It has been calculated that there will be an additional 54 two-way vehicles through the Give Way underneath the railway bridge and onto the A31 during the morning and 51 during the evening. This equates to an additional one vehicle per minute, which is not considered is not sufficiently large to have a material impact on existing levels of operation in this location or elsewhere on the highway network. Trip Impact 4.15 It was agreed with HCC that 2024 would be appropriate future year for an operational assessment. A TEMPRO growth factor for ‘Urban – Principle road’ of 1.0588 for the morning and 1.0593 for the evening has been applied to the 2019 base flows. 4.16 The resulting 2024 baseline traffic flows for the morning and evening peak hour are shown at Figure 12 and Figure 13 respectively. 4.17 The 2019 plus development traffic flows for the morning and evening peak hour are shown at Figure 14 and Figure 15 respectively. 4.18 The 2024 plus development traffic flows for the morning and evening peak hour are shown at Figure 16 and Figure 17 respectively. 4.19 It was agreed with HCC that the following junctions would be tested using Junctions 9 Software as part of the assessment for the site:
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 8
Site access onto Lymington Bottom Road; Railway bridge on Lymington Bottom Road; and Lymington Bottom Road and A31 Winchester Road. 4.20 The results of the modelling at the above junctions for the current (2019) situation and future year (2024) with and without development is set out in the tables below.
Table 4.2: Site access onto Lymington Bottom Road
Morning Evening
Queue (Veh.) Delay (S) RFC Queue (Veh.) Delay (S) RFC 2019 Base Site Access to Lymington 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.1 9.00 0.08 Bottom Road Lymington Bottom Road 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.25 0.01 to Site Access 2024 Base Site Access to Lymington 0.2 10.88 0.17 0.1 9.13 0.08 Bottom Road Lymington Bottom Road 0.0 5.33 0.02 0.0 5.24 0.01 to Site Access 2019 Base + Development Site Access to Lymington 0.4 12.61 0.30 0.2 9.72 0.13 Bottom Road Lymington Bottom Road 0.0 5.37 0.03 0.0 5.38 0.03 to Site Access 2024 Base + Development Site Access to Lymington 0.5 13.01 0.32 0.2 9.85 0.14 Bottom Road Lymington Bottom Road 0.0 5.36 0.03 0.1 5.38 0.04 to Site Access
4.21 The results in Table 4.2 show that there is capacity in both directions in the 2024 base plus development scenario with less than one vehicle queueing at the site access.
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 9
Table 4.3: Railway bridge on Lymington Bottom Road
Morning Evening
Queue (Veh.) Delay (S) RFC Queue (Veh.) Delay (S) RFC 2019 Base Northbound movement (Give- 1.7 27.11 0.63 1.2 21.00 0.55 way to southbound) 2024 Base Northbound movement (Give- 2.0 31.02 0.68 3.4 42.14 0.79 way to southbound) 2019 Base + Development Northbound movement (Give- 3.0 40.93 0.76 3.5 43.54 0.80 way to southbound) 2024 Base + Development Northbound movement (Give- 3.7 49.13 0.81 4.6 54.69 0.84 way to southbound)
4.22 The results in Table 4.3 show that there is capacity in both directions in the 2024 base plus development scenario at the railway bridge. There is an increase of two vehicles queueing in the morning and just over three vehicles queuing in the evening.
Table 4.4: Lymington Bottom Road and A31 Winchester Road
Morning Evening
Queue (Veh.) Delay (S) RFC Queue (Veh.) Delay (S) RFC 2019 Base Lymington Bottom Road 2.0 38.96 0.68 2.0 31.39 0.68 to A31 A31 to Lymington 0.7 15.10 0.42 0.4 10.85 0.31 Bottom Road 2024 Base Lymington Bottom Road 2.9 52.60 0.76 2.8 42.36 0.75 to A31
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 10
Morning Evening
Queue (Veh.) Delay (S) RFC Queue (Veh.) Delay (S) RFC A31 to Lymington 0.8 15.74 0.44 0.5 11.47 0.33 Bottom Road 2019 Base + Development Lymington Bottom Road 4.2 65.80 0.83 2.7 40.26 0.75 to A31 A31 to Lymington 0.7 14.98 0.42 0.6 11.90 0.37 Bottom Road 2024 Base + Development Lymington Bottom Road 7.3 108.89 0.93 4.1 58.99 0.83 to A31 A31 to Lymington 0.8 16.35 0.46 0.6 12.64 0.39 Bottom Road
4.23 The results in Table 4.4 show that in the 2024 base plus development scenario that from Lymington Bottom Road to the A31 the RFC reaches 0.93 in the morning peak, therefore there is still reserve capacity but is close to capacity. This is evidenced by the fact that there is only an increase of five queueing vehicles, which is not considered a significant impact. Mitigation Strategy 4.24 It is proposed that no mitigation at the site access and local junctions is required as part of the development proposals. However, a Travel Plan will be provided for the development to encourage and promote sustainable travel to and from the Site.
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 11
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 This Scoping Note has been prepared by RPS Consulting Services Ltd on behalf of Redrow Homes. It builds on the Technical Note (RPS Ref: JNY10029-01a) previously submitted to Hampshire County Council (HCC), who are the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and sets out an appraisal of the transport matters associated with the development and methodology of the assessment of land West of Lymington Barn, Medstead (‘The Site’). The site is situated within the East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) authority area. 5.2 Redrow Homes has an interest in the Site and is actively promoting it for up to 150 dwellings through the East Hampshire Local Plan Review, which was the subject of a Regulation 18 Consultation between 5 February and 19 March 2019. 5.3 The Site is demonstrated to be located in a sustainable location, close to local services and amenities that should minimise the number and lengths of vehicular journeys. Vehicular access to the site will be taken through an established access onto Lymington Bottom Road. The Site will be complemented by a network of cycleways and footways. 5.4 An initial traffic forecast shows that the proposed development will not generate significant levels of additional traffic on the local highway network; and the impact will not be material. 5.5 At the planning application stage, a full Transport Assessment will be carried out which will confirm the trip impact of the scheme, with mitigation if considered necessary and with appropriate Travel Plan initiatives. It is not considered that the existing railway bridge to the south of the site on Lymington Bottom Road will provide a barrier to the delivery of the development. 5.6 It is concluded that there are no transport issues which will prevent development of the type and scale proposed.
JNY10029-02 | Transport Scoping Note | Version 01 | 07 October 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 12
Figures
www.rpsgroup.com
Figure 1 – Local Facilities Plan
www.rpsgroup.com ©2019RPS Group Notes 1. This 1. drawing has been prepared accordancein with the scope of R PS ’sappointment with its client and issubject to the terms and ± conditionsof that appointment. RPS accepts noliability for any use of this documentother than by its client and onlyfor the purposes for which it PrimarySchools wasprepared and provided. 1 FourMarks CofE Primary School received If 2. electronically itisthe recipients responsibility to print to 2 MedsteadCofE Primary School correctscale. Onlywritten dimensions should be used. Food 3 TescoExpress 4 ClementinesFruit Veg& Legend 5 MarksSpencers& Four Marks BP 6 TheCo-operative Four Marks S iteLocation 7 Arrows 8 NakedGrape 2 Highstreet 9 LoafBakery 10 R eadsButchers IndustrialPark Leisure 11 NoshCafé PrimarySchools 12 WBean ild Café W oodleaPark 13 ShipThe Tall DukesMill Food 14 TheSaffron 18 49 50 54 69 15 TravelodgeAltonFour Marks MansfieldPark 51 52 56 61 16 ChinaGarden 70 71 72 73 Leisure 17 FourMarks GolfClub 33 42 43 44 45 55 FourMarks 18 FourMarks Martial Arts Centre 30 40 57 62 63 R etail R etail 64 65 19 OwensCycles 20 AltonSports (G Health 21 TDSSaddlers 22 UKFireworks Ltd Community 23 MathesonOptometrists 24 SMichael's t. Hospice W orkplaces 25 V illageFlowers 26 FirstImpression Beauty (! PublicTransport 27 Mountjoy LymingtonBarn 28 AbsoluteHealthcare 29 CatoComputers 4 30 J amesSchryver Furniture 10 11 21 Health 31 BoundariesSurgery 29 32 46 47 60 31 32 MansfieldPark Surgery 6 33 S hineDental Clinic 48 53 58 59 34 FourMarks Pharmacy Community 66 67 68 35 FourMark Village Hall 28 3 5 7 8 9 36 GoodShepherd CofE Church 27 22 38 37 J ubilleChurch Four Marks and Medstead 12 13 14 16 19 38 TheGospel Hall 39 W orkplaces 37 20 23 24 25 26 39 PainSmithSolicitors 40 TriplefffBrewing Company 75 41 V incentHire 34 41 42 CropAdvisors 15 43 GardnerDenver 44 HampshireArable Sy stems 35 45 S ilchesterControl Sy stems 36 46 CuttingEdge Productions 47 SServices I T 48 DuncanYatching 49 SFlats alt Clothing 50 ArrowsmithEngineering Consultants& 74 51 S outhernTrailers 52 UniversalMarking Sy stems 17 53 Lymington Barn 54 Wooldea Park 55 Mansfield Park 56 Dukes Mill 57 Four Marks 58 DeneTech 59 FrederickAdams 60 WBuilding KL Supplies 61 Rawles Bill Classic Cars 62 FocusStoves 1 63 MethamAviation 64 S y mbiosisSearch 65 Labcell 66 FinanceIQ 67 BlueStar Leasing 68 R eactiveClaims 69 Mavala 70 MelGroup 71 CCCLogistics 72 DotDistirutors4 73 HBSElectronics PublicTransport 74 LymingtonBottom Bus Stop 75 TravelodgeBus Stop ©Crown copy rights right, All reserved. 2019License number 0100031673,10001998,100048492. Contains Ordnance Survey data ©Crown copy rightand database right 2019.
Client R edrowHomes 0 250 500 m S tatus DrawnBy PM/CheckedBy R ev Description By CB Date DR AFT BG AS Western20 Avenue, Milton Park, Project LymingtonFarm, Medstead Abingdon,Oxfordshire, OX 4SH 14 FigureNumber R ev 888+44(0)1235821 T: ProjectNumber S cale@ A3 DateCreated [email protected] E: 1 - Title FacilityLocation Plan J NY 10029 1:20,000 S EP2019 rpsgroup.com :_RN O \N 10029\Tech\Drawings\10029-0002-09.mxd POR T\JNY O:\_TRANS
Figure 2 – Site Isochrone Plan - Local Facilities
www.rpsgroup.com ©2019RPS Group Notes 1. This 1. drawing has been prepared accordancein with the scope of W oodleaPark R PS ’sappointment with its client and issubject tothe terms and ± conditionsofthat appointment. RPS accepts liabilityno forany use ofthis 18 49 50 54 69 documentother than by its client and foronlythe purposes forwhich it PrimarySchools Duk esMill wasprepared and provided. 1 FourMarks CofE Primary School received If 2. electronically itisthe recipients responsibility toprint to 2 MedsteadCofE Primary School 70 71 72 73 51 52 56 61 correctscale. Onlywritten dimensions should be used. Food 3 TescoExpress 4 ClementinesFruit Veg& Legend 5 MarksSpencers& Four Marks BP 6 TheCo-operative Four Marks S iteBoundary 7 Arrows 8 Nak edGrape 2 Highstreet 9 LoafBak ery FourMarks 10 R eadsButchers IndustrialPark Leisure 30 40 57 62 63 11 NoshCafé Minutes5 12 WBean ild Café 13 ShipThe Tall Minutes10 14 TheSaffron MansfieldPark 15 TravelodgeFourAlton Marks Minutes15 16 ChinaGarden 33 42 43 44 45 55 17 FourMarks ClubGolf Minutes20 18 FourMarks Martial Arts Centre 64 65 R etail Minutes25 19 OwensCycles 20 SportsAlton PrimarySchools 21 TDSSaddlers 22 UKFireworks Ltd Food 23 MathesonOptometrists 24 SMichael's t. Hospice 25 V illageFlowers Leisure 26 FirstImpression Beauty 27 Mountjoy LymingtonBarn R etail 28 AbsoluteHealthcare 29 CatoComputers 4 10 11 21 30 J amesSchryver Furniture (G Health Health 29 32 46 47 31 BoundariesSurgery Community 60 31 32 MansfieldPark Surgery 48 53 58 59 6 33 S hineDental Clinic W orkplaces 34 FourMarks Pharmacy 66 67 68 Community (! PublicTransport 35 FourMark Village Hall 28 3 5 7 8 9 36 GoodShepherd CofE Church 27 22 38 37 J ubilleChurch Four Marks and Medstead 12 13 14 16 19 38 TheGospel Hall 39 W orkplaces 37 20 23 24 25 26 39 PainSmithSolicitors 40 TriplefffBrewing Company 75 41 V incentHire 34 41 42 CropAdvisors 15 43 GardnerDenver 44 HampshireArable Systems 35 45 S ilchesterControlSystems 36 46 CuttingEdge Productions 47 SServices I T 48 DuncanYatching 49 SFlats alt Clothing 50 ArrowsmithEngineering Consultants& 51 S outhernTrailers 52 UniversalMarking Systems 17 53 Lymington Barn 54 Wooldea Park 55 Mansfield Park 56 Dukes Mill 57 Four Marks 58 DeneTech 59 FrederickAdams 60 WBuilding KL Supplies 61 Rawles Bill Classic Cars 62 FocusStoves 1 63 MethamAviation 64 S ymbiosisSearch 74 65 Labcell 66 FinanceIQ 67 BlueStar Leasing 68 R eactiveClaims 69 Mavala 70 MelGroup 71 CCCLogistics 72 DistirutorsDot4 73 HBSElectronics PublicTransport 74 LymingtonBottom Bus Stop 75 TravelodgeBus Stop ©Crown copyright, rights All reserved. 2019License number 0100031673,10001998,100048492. Contains Ordnance Survey data ©Crown copyright and database right 2019.
Client R edrowHomes 0 250 500 m S tatus DrawnBy PM/Check edBy R ev Description By CB Date DR AFT BG AS Western20 Avenue, Milton Park, Project LymingtonFarm, Medstead Abingdon,Oxfordshire, OX 4SH 14 FigureNumber R ev 888+44(0)1235821 T: ProjectNumber S cale@ A3 DateCreated [email protected] E: 1 - Title FacilityLocation Planand Isochrone from Central Facilities J NY 10029 1:20,000 S EP2019 rpsgroup.com
Figure 3 – Site Isochrone Plan - Local Schools
www.rpsgroup.com ©2019RPS Group Notes 1. This 1. drawing has been prepared accordancein with the scope of W oodleaPark R PS ’sappointment with its client and issubject to the terms and ± conditionsof that appointment. RPS accepts noliability for any use of this 18 49 50 54 69 documentother than by its client and onlyfor the purposes for which it PrimarySchools wasprepared and provided. 1 FourMarks CofE Primary School received If 2. electronically itisthe recipients responsibility to print to 2 MedsteadCofE Primary School 70 71 72 73 correctscale. Onlywritten dimensions should be used. Food 3 TescoExpress 4 ClementinesFruit Veg& Legend 5 MarksSpencers& Four Marks BP 6 TheCo-operative Four Marks S iteBoundary 7 Arrows 8 NakedGrape Highstreet 9 LoafBakery DukesMill 10 R eadsButchers IndustrialPark Leisure 51 52 56 61 11 NoshCafé Minutes5 12 WBean ild Café 13 ShipThe Tall Minutes10 14 TheSaffron FourMarks 15 TravelodgeAltonFour Marks Minutes15 16 ChinaGarden 2 30 40 57 62 63 17 FourMarks GolfClub Minutes20 18 FourMarks Martial Arts Centre R etail Minutes25 19 OwensCycles 20 AltonSports PrimarySchools 21 TDSSaddlers 22 UKFireworks Ltd Food 23 MathesonOptometrists 24 SMichael's t. Hospice 25 V illageFlowers MansfieldPark Leisure 26 FirstImpression Beauty 27 Mountjoy 33 42 43 44 45 55 R etail 28 AbsoluteHealthcare 29 CatoComputers 64 65 Health 30 J amesSchryver Furniture (G Health 3 5 7 8 9 31 BoundariesSurgery Community 32 MansfieldPark Surgery 12 13 14 16 19 31 33 S hineDental Clinic 60 6 W orkplaces 34 FourMarks Pharmacy LymingtonBarn 20 23 24 25 26 Community 4 10 11 21 (! PublicTransport 35 FourMark Village Hall 2728 34 41 36 GoodShepherd CofE Church 22 38 37 J ubilleChurch Four Marks and Medstead 29 32 46 47 39 38 TheGospel Hall 75 37 W orkplaces 48 53 58 59 39 PainSmithSolicitors 40 TriplefffBrewing Company 66 67 68 15 41 V incentHire 35 42 CropAdvisors 36 74 43 GardnerDenver 44 HampshireArable Sy stems 45 S ilchesterControl Sy stems 46 CuttingEdge Productions 47 SServices I T 17 48 DuncanYatching 49 SFlats alt Clothing 50 ArrowsmithEngineering Consultants& 51 S outhernTrailers 52 UniversalMarking Sy stems 53 Lymington Barn 54 Wooldea Park 1 55 Mansfield Park 56 Dukes Mill 57 Four Marks 58 DeneTech 59 FrederickAdams 60 WBuilding KL Supplies 61 Rawles Bill Classic Cars 62 FocusStoves 63 MethamAviation 64 S y mbiosisSearch 65 Labcell 66 FinanceIQ 67 BlueStar Leasing 68 R eactiveClaims 69 Mavala 70 MelGroup 71 CCCLogistics 72 DotDistirutors4 73 HBSElectronics PublicTransport 74 LymingtonBottom Bus Stop 75 TravelodgeBus Stop ©Crown copy rights right, All reserved. 2019License number 0100031673,10001998,100048492. Contains Ordnance Survey data ©Crown copy rightand database right 2019.
Client R edrowHomes 0 500 1,000 m S tatus DrawnBy PM/CheckedBy R ev Description By CB Date DR AFT BG AS Western20 Avenue, Milton Park, Project LymingtonFarm, Medstead Abingdon,Oxfordshire, OX 4SH 14 FigureNumber R ev 888+44(0)1235821 T: ProjectNumber S cale@ A3 DateCreated [email protected] E: 5 - Title FacilityLocation Planand Isochrones From Local Schools J NY 10029 1:28,000 S EP2019 rpsgroup.com :_RN O \N 10029\Tech\Drawings\10029-0012-05.mxd POR T\JNY O:\_TRANS
Figure 4 – 2019 Baseline Traffic Flows (Morning)
www.rpsgroup.com 0% 8% 0 11 07:45 - 08:45 9% 1 11 11 146 08:00 - 09:00 2% 1 45 08:15 - 09:15
31 184 LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD 1 6 3% 3%
STATION APPROACH
8% 17 207
RAILWAY BRIDGE
333 30 9%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
8% 5% 5 6 4% 5 115 63 116 6% 32 546 13% 92 736 6% 32 546 0 0 A31 A31 604 158 26% 154 9 6% 475 41 9%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 4
2019 Base Flows AM
JNY10029
Figure 5 – 2019 Baseline Traffic Flows (Evening)
www.rpsgroup.com 0% 2% 0 3 0% 0 7 6 134 17:00 - 18:00 0% 0 24
32 146 LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD 0 0 0% 0%
STATION APPROACH
5% 14 264
RAILWAY BRIDGE
188 11 6%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
3% 1% 2 2 0% 0 60 63 153 19 482 12% 71 612 4% 19 482 0 0 A31 A31 752 265 35% 135 0 0% 589 20 3%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 5
2019 Base Flows PM
JNY10029
Figure 6 – Distribution of Trips Inside East Hampshire Throughout the Local Road Network (Morning)
www.rpsgroup.com In Out 44% 44% 44% 56%
56% 56% LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
STATION APPROACH
RAILWAY BRIDGE
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
43% 35% 65% A31 A31
57%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 6
Distribution of trips inside East Hampshire AM
JNY10029
Figure 7 – Distribution of Trips Inside East Hampshire Throughout the Local Road Network (Evening)
www.rpsgroup.com In Out 48% 48% 48% 52%
52% 52% LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
STATION APPROACH
RAILWAY BRIDGE
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
31% 29% 71% A31 A31
69%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 7
Distribution of trips inside East Hampshire PM
JNY10029
Figure 8 – Distribution of Trips Outside East Hampshire Throughout the Local Road Network (Morning)
www.rpsgroup.com In Out 16% 16% 66%
66% LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
STATION APPROACH
RAILWAY BRIDGE
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
32% 32% 56% A31 13% A31
56% A31 13%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 8
Distribution of trips outside East Hampshire AM
JNY10029
Figure 9 – Distribution of Trips Outside East Hampshire Throughout the Local Road Network (Evening)
www.rpsgroup.com In Out 16% 16% 66%
66% LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
STATION APPROACH
RAILWAY BRIDGE
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
32% 32% 56% A31 13% A31
56% 13%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 9
Distribution of trips outside East Hampshire AM
JNY10029
Figure 10 – Development Traffic (Morning)
www.rpsgroup.com In Out 14 3.45 43
10.58 LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
STATION APPROACH
43.13
RAILWAY BRIDGE
10.58
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
3.52 14 30 A31 5 A31
7.15 1
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 10
Development Trips AM
JNY10029
Figure 11 – Development Traffic (Evening)
www.rpsgroup.com In Out 5 11 16
35 LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
STATION APPROACH
16
RAILWAY BRIDGE
35
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
11 5 11 A31 5 A31
24 4
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 11
Development Trips PM
JNY10029
Figure 12 – 2024 Baseline Traffic (Morning)
www.rpsgroup.com 0% 8% 0 12 TEMPRO 9% 1 12 12 155 2019 - 2024 1.0588 2% 1 48
33 195 LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD 1 6 3% 3%
STATION APPROACH
8% 18 220
RAILWAY BRIDGE
353 32 9%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
8% 5% 5 6 4% 5 122 67 123 6% 34 578 13% 98 780 6% 34 578 #DIV/0! 0 0 A31 A31 640 167 26% 163 10 6% 503 43 9% 0 0
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 12
2024 Base Flows AM
JNY10029
Figure 13 – 2024 Baseline Traffic (Evening)
www.rpsgroup.com 0% 2% 0 3 TEMPRO 0% 0 7 6 142 2019 - 2024 1.0593 0% 0 25
34 155 LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD 0 0 0% 0%
STATION APPROACH
5% 14 280
RAILWAY BRIDGE
199 11 6%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
3% 1% 2 2 0% 0 64 67 162 4% 20 511 12% 75 648 4% 20 511 #DIV/0! 0 0 A31 A31 797 281 35% 143 0 0% 624 21 3% 0 0
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 13
2024 Base Flows PM
JNY10029
Figure 14 – 2019 Baseline plus Development Traffic (Morning)
www.rpsgroup.com 0% 8% 0 11 4% 1 25 14 146 1% 1 88
42 184 LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD 1 6 2% 3%
STATION APPROACH
7% 17 251
RAILWAY BRIDGE
344 30 9%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
7% 4% 5 6 4% 5 119 77 146 32 546 13% 92 736 6% 32 546 0 5 A31 A31 604 158 26% 161 9 6% 475 41 9% 1 0
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 14
2019 + Development Flows AM
JNY10029
Figure 15 – 2019 Baseline plus Development Traffic (Evening)
www.rpsgroup.com 0% 2% 0 3 0% 0 12 17 134 0% 0 40
67 146 LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD 0 0 0% 0%
STATION APPROACH
5% 14 280
RAILWAY BRIDGE
222 11 5%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
3% 1% 2 2 0% 0 71 68 164 4% 19 482 12% 71 612 4% 19 482 0% 0 5 A31 A31 752 265 35% 159 0 0% 589 20 3% 4 0
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 15
2019 + Development Flows PM
JNY10029
Figure 16 – 2024 Baseline plus Development Traffic (Morning)
www.rpsgroup.com 0% 8% 0 12 4% 1 26 15 155 1% 1 91
43 195 LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD 1 6 2% 3%
STATION APPROACH
7% 18 263
RAILWAY BRIDGE
364 32 9%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
7% 4% 5 6 4% 5 125 81 152 34 578 13% 98 780 6% 34 578 0 5 A31 A31 640 167 26% 170 10 6% 503 43 9% 1 0
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 16
2024 + Development Flows AM
JNY10029
Figure 17 – 2024 Baseline plus Development Traffic (Evening)
www.rpsgroup.com 0% 2% 0 3 0% 0 13 18 142 0% 0 41
69 155 LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD 0 0 0% 0%
STATION APPROACH
5% 14 296
RAILWAY BRIDGE
233 11 5%
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD
3% 1% 2 2 0% 0 74 72 173 20 511 12% 75 648 4% 20 511 0 5 A31 A31 797 281 35% 167 0 0% 624 21 3% 4 0
LYMINGTON BOTTOM ROAD (south)
Figure 17
2024 + Development Flows PM
JNY10029
Appendices
www.rpsgroup.com
Appendix A – WCHAR Area
www.rpsgroup.com
Appendix B – Walking Distance to Local Facilities
www.rpsgroup.com Number on Figure Facility / Amenity The Site Primary Schools 1 Four Marks CofE Primary School 2045 2 Medstead CofE Primary School 2870 Food and Drink 3 Tesco Express 1370 4 Clementines Fruit & Veg 400 5 Marks & Spencers Four Marks BP 1220 6 The Co-operative Four Marks 1470 7 Arrows 1370 8 Naked Grape 1370 9 Loaf Bakery 1320 10 Reads Butchers 350 Leisure 11 Nosh Café 350 12 Wild Bean Café 1220 13 The Tall Ship 1320 14 The Saffron 1370 15 Travelodge Alton Four Marks 1470 16 China Garden 1370 17 Four Marks Golf Club 3570 18 Four Mark Martial Arts Centre 1020 Retail 19 Owens Cycles 1320 20 Alton Sports 1470 21 TDS Saddlers 400 22 UK Fireworks Ltd 1070 23 Matheson Optometrists 1370 24 St. Michael's Hospice 1570 25 Village Flowers 1370 26 First Impression Beauty 1270 27 Mountjoy 1220 28 Absolute Healthcare 1220 29 Cato Computers 400 30 James Schryver Furniture 1370 Health 31 Boundaries Surgery 1570 32 Mansfield Park Surgery 300 33 Shine Dental Clinic 630 34 Four Marks Pharmacy 1320 Community 35 Four Marks Village Hall 1055 36 Good Shepherd CofE Church 1125 37 Jubille Church Four Marks and Meds 670 38 The Gospel Hall 1020 Workplaces 39 PainSmith Solicitors 660 40 Triple fff Brewing Company 1320 41 Vincent Hire 1470 42 Crop Advisors 650 43 Gardner Denver 720 44 Hampshire Arable Systems 700 45 Silchester Control Systems 700 46 Cutting Edge Productions 400 47 T I S Services 400 48 Duncan Yatching 400 49 Salt Flats Clothing 870 50 Arrowsmith Engineering & Consultan 870 51 Southern Trailers 1020 52 Universal Marking Systems 1020 53 Lymington Barn 350 54 Wooldea Park 870 55 Mansfield Park 650 56 Dukes Mill 1020 57 Four Marks 1300 58 DeneTech 400 59 Frederick Adams 400 60 WKL Building Supplies 670 61 Bill Rawles Classic Cras 1020 Workplaces (continued) 62 Focus Stoves 1370 63 Metham Aviation 1120 64 Symbiosis Search 620 65 Labcell 670 66 IQ Finance 400 67 Bluestar Leasing 670 68 Reactive Claims 670 69 Mavala 1020 70 Mel Group 1020 71 C C C Logistics 1020 72 Dot 4 Distributors 1020 73 HBS Electronics 1020 Public Transport 74 Lymington Bottom Bus Stop 720 75 Travelodge Bus Stop 1470
Appendix C – Traffic Survey Data
www.rpsgroup.com PEAK DAILY FLOW AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR TRIP RATE AM TRIP RATE PM 08:00 - 09:00 17:00 - 18:00
27 1 3 344 13 43 0.132 0.432
342 54 20 0.538 0.198 29 3 2
LAPWING WAY LAPWING WAY LAPWING WAY LAPWING WAY LAPWING WAY SITE (100 Dwellings) SITE (100 Dwellings) SITE (100 Dwellings) SITE (100 Dwellings) SITE (100 Dwellings)
Approx. no. of dwellings 100 AM PM Arrival Departure Two-way Arrival Departure Two-way 0.132 0.538 0.67 0.432 0.198 0.63 125 17 67 84 54 25 79 600 79 323 402 259 119 378
AM PM Arrival Departure Two-way Arrival Departure Two-way 18% 3 12 15 10 5 14 82% 13 55 68 44 20 64
AM PM Arrival Departure Two-way Arrival Departure Two-way 18% 14 59 73 47 22 69 82% 65 264 329 212 97 309
Appendix D – Workplace Destination (Census 2011 Data) and Direction of Travel
www.rpsgroup.com RF03EW - Location of usual residence and place of work ONS Crown Copyright Reserved [from Nomis on 31 July 2019] population All usual residents aged 16 and over in employment the week before the census with a work related second address units Persons date 2011
usual residence place of work : 2011 East census merged local Hampshire Hartlepool 0 Middlesbrough 0 Redcar and Cleveland 0 Stockton-on-Tees 0 Darlington 0 County Durham 0 Northumberland 1 Gateshead 0 Newcastle upon Tyne 0 North Tyneside 0 South Tyneside 0 Sunderland 0 Halton 0 Warrington 0 Blackburn with Darwen 0 Blackpool 1 Cheshire East 0 Cheshire West and Che 1 Allerdale 0 Barrow-in-Furness 0 Carlisle 0 Copeland 0 Eden 0 South Lakeland 0 Burnley 0 Chorley 0 Fylde 0 Hyndburn 0 Lancaster 0 Pendle 0 Preston 0 Ribble Valley 0 Rossendale 0 South Ribble 0 West Lancashire 0 Wyre 0 Bolton 0 Bury 0 Manchester 0 Oldham 0 Rochdale 0 Salford 0 Stockport 0 Tameside 0 Trafford 0 Wigan 0 Knowsley 0 Liverpool 0 St. Helens 0 Sefton 0 Wirral 0 Kingston upon Hull, City 0 East Riding of Yorkshire 0 North East Lincolnshire 0 North Lincolnshire 1 York 1 Craven 0 Hambleton 0 Harrogate 0 Richmondshire 1 Ryedale 0 Scarborough 0 Selby 0 Barnsley 0 Doncaster 0 Rotherham 0 Sheffield 0 Bradford 0 Calderdale 0 Kirklees 0 Leeds 2 Wakefield 0 Derby 0 Leicester 1 Rutland 1 Nottingham 3 Amber Valley 0 Bolsover 0 Chesterfield 1 Derbyshire Dales 0 Erewash 0 High Peak 1 North East Derbyshire 0 South Derbyshire 0 Blaby 0 Charnwood 0 Harborough 1 Hinckley and Bosworth 1 Melton 0 North West Leicestersh 0 Oadby and Wigston 0 Boston 0 East Lindsey 1 Lincoln 0 North Kesteven 1 South Holland 0 South Kesteven 0 West Lindsey 0 Corby 0 Daventry 0 East Northamptonshire 1 Kettering 0 Northampton 2 South Northamptonshir 2 Wellingborough 0 Ashfield 0 Bassetlaw 0 Broxtowe 0 Gedling 0 Mansfield 0 Newark and Sherwood 0 Rushcliffe 0 Herefordshire, County o 2 Telford and Wrekin 0 Stoke-on-Trent 0 Shropshire 2 Cannock Chase 0 East Staffordshire 0 Lichfield 1 Newcastle-under-Lyme 0 South Staffordshire 0 Stafford 0 Staffordshire Moorlands 1 Tamworth 0 North Warwickshire 0 Nuneaton and Bedworth 1 Rugby 1 Stratford-on-Avon 0 Warwick 2 Bromsgrove 0 Malvern Hills 0 Redditch 0 Worcester 0 Wychavon 0 Wyre Forest 0 Birmingham 3 Coventry 0 Dudley 0 Sandwell 0 Solihull 0 Walsall 0 Wolverhampton 0 Peterborough 1 Luton 2 Southend-on-Sea 0 Thurrock 0 Bedford 1 Central Bedfordshire 0 Cambridge 2 East Cambridgeshire 0 Fenland 0 Huntingdonshire 1 South Cambridgeshire 2 Basildon 1 Braintree 0 Brentwood 0 Castle Point 0 Chelmsford 0 Colchester 3 Epping Forest 0 Harlow 0 Maldon 0 Rochford 0 Tendring 0 Uttlesford 2 Broxbourne 0 Dacorum 1 East Hertfordshire 1 Hertsmere 0 North Hertfordshire 1 St Albans 0 Stevenage 2 Three Rivers 2 Watford 1 Welwyn Hatfield 2 Breckland 0 Broadland 0 Great Yarmouth 0 King's Lynn and West N 0 North Norfolk 0 Norwich 0 South Norfolk 0 Babergh 1 Forest Heath 1 Ipswich 1 Mid Suffolk 0 St Edmundsbury 0 Suffolk Coastal 1 Waveney 1 Barking and Dagenham 0 Barnet 1 Bexley 0 Brent 2 Bromley 1 Camden 6 Croydon 1 Ealing 1 Enfield 0 Greenwich 2 Hackney 4 Hammersmith and Fulh 9 Haringey 0 Harrow 0 Havering 0 Hillingdon 5 Hounslow 5 Islington 7 Kensington and Chelse 6 Kingston upon Thames 1 Lambeth 8 Lewisham 0 Merton 1 Newham 1 Redbridge 0 Richmond upon Thame 0 Southwark 7 Sutton 0 Tower Hamlets 7 Waltham Forest 0 Wandsworth 4 Westminster,City of Lon 77 Medway 4 Bracknell Forest 7 West Berkshire 2 Reading 2 Slough 5 Windsor and Maidenhe 2 Wokingham 3 Milton Keynes 2 Brighton and Hove 1 Portsmouth 32 Southampton 3 Isle of Wight 1 Aylesbury Vale 2 Chiltern 0 South Bucks 3 Wycombe 2 Eastbourne 0 Hastings 0 Lewes 0 Rother 0 Wealden 0 Basingstoke and Deane 9 East Hampshire 117 Eastleigh 3 Fareham 4 Gosport 1 Hart 30 Havant 9 New Forest 3 Rushmoor 4 Test Valley 3 Winchester 12 Ashford 0 Canterbury 0 Dartford 0 Dover 0 Gravesham 3 Maidstone 0 Sevenoaks 1 Shepway 1 Swale 0 Thanet 0 Tonbridge and Malling 0 Tunbridge Wells 0 Cherwell 2 Oxford 2 South Oxfordshire 1 Vale of White Horse 1 West Oxfordshire 2 Elmbridge 3 Epsom and Ewell 0 Guildford 14 Mole Valley 0 Reigate and Banstead 2 Runnymede 1 Spelthorne 3 Surrey Heath 4 Tandridge 1 Waverley 23 Woking 3 Adur 0 Arun 2 Chichester 11 Crawley 6 Horsham 0 Mid Sussex 2 Worthing 0 Bath and North East So 0 Bristol, City of 1 Cornwall,Isles of Scilly 2 Wiltshire 12 North Somerset 0 South Gloucestershire 9 Plymouth 6 Torbay 0 Bournemouth 1 Poole 1 Swindon 4 East Devon 1 Exeter 2 Mid Devon 1 North Devon 0 South Hams 2 Teignbridge 0 Torridge 1 West Devon 0 Christchurch 1 East Dorset 0 North Dorset 0 Purbeck 0 West Dorset 2 Weymouth and Portland 0 Cheltenham 0 Cotswold 0 Forest of Dean 0 Gloucester 1 Stroud 0 Tewkesbury 0 Mendip 0 Sedgemoor 0 South Somerset 3 Taunton Deane 2 West Somerset 0 Isle of Anglesey 3 Gwynedd 1 Conwy 0 Denbighshire 1 Flintshire 0 Wrexham 0 Ceredigion 1 Pembrokeshire 1 Carmarthenshire 0 Swansea 1 Neath Port Talbot 0 Bridgend 0 The Vale of Glamorgan 1 Cardiff 1 Rhondda Cynon Taf 0 Caerphilly 0 Blaenau Gwent 1 Torfaen 0 Monmouthshire 0 Newport 0 Powys 0 Merthyr Tydfil 0
In order to protect against disclosure of personal information, records have been swapped between different geographic areas. Some counts will be affected, particularly small counts at the lowest geographies. Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 Place of Work Number Percentage North South East West South East Hampshire 117 18.3% Split Via Proportional traffic flow Westminster,City of London 77 12.0% South 12% 12% Portsmouth 32 5.0% 5% 5% Hart 30 4.7% 2% 2% 2% Waverley 23 3.6% 2% 2% 2% Guildford 14 2.2% 1% 1% 1% Winchester 12 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Wiltshire 12 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Chichester 11 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% Hammersmith and Fulham 9 1.4% 1% 1% 1% Basingstoke and Deane 9 1.4% 1.4% Havant 9 1.4% 1% 1% South Gloucestershire 9 1.4% 1% 1% 1% 1% Lambeth 8 1.3% 1% 1% 1% Islington 7 1.1% 1% 1% 1% Southwark 7 1.1% 1% 1% 1% Tower Hamlets 7 1.1% 1% 1% 1% Bracknell Forest 7 1.1% 1% 1% 1% Camden 6 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Kensington and Chelsea 6 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Crawley 6 0.9% 1% 1% Plymouth 6 0.9% 1% 1% Hillingdon 5 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% Hounslow 5 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% Slough 5 0.8% 1% 1% Hackney 4 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Wandsworth 4 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Medway 4 0.6% 1% 1% Fareham 4 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Rushmoor 4 0.6% 1% 1% Surrey Heath 4 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Swindon 4 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Nottingham 3 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Birmingham 3 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Colchester 3 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Wokingham 3 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Southampton 3 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% South Bucks 3 0.5% 0% 0% Eastleigh 3 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% New Forest 3 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Test Valley 3 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Gravesham 3 0.5% 0% 0% Elmbridge 3 0.5% 0% 0% Spelthorne 3 0.5% 0% 0% Woking 3 0.5% 0% 0% South Somerset 3 0.5% 0% 0% Isle of Anglesey 3 0.5% 0% 0% Leeds 2 0.3% 0% 0% Northampton 2 0.3% 0% 0% South Northamptonshire 2 0.3% 0% 0% Herefordshire, County of 2 0.3% 0% 0% Shropshire 2 0.3% 0% 0% Warwick 2 0.3% 0% 0% Luton 2 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Cambridge 2 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% South Cambridgeshire 2 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Uttlesford 2 0.3% 0% 0% Stevenage 2 0.3% 0% 0% Three Rivers 2 0.3% 0% 0% Welwyn Hatfield 2 0.3% 0% 0% Brent 2 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Greenwich 2 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% West Berkshire 2 0.3% 0.3% Reading 2 0.3% 0% 0% 0% Windsor and Maidenhead 2 0.3% 0% 0% Milton Keynes 2 0.3% 0% 0% Aylesbury Vale 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Wycombe 2 0.3% 0% 0% Cherwell 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Oxford 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% West Oxfordshire 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Reigate and Banstead 2 0.3% 0% 0% Arun 2 0.3% 0% 0% Mid Sussex 2 0.3% 0% 0% Cornwall,Isles of Scilly 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Exeter 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% South Hams 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% West Dorset 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Taunton Deane 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Northumberland 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Blackpool 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Cheshire West and Chester 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% North Lincolnshire 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% York 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Richmondshire 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Leicester 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Rutland 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Chesterfield 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% High Peak 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Harborough 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Hinckley and Bosworth 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% East Lindsey 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% North Kesteven 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% East Northamptonshire 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Lichfield 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Staffordshire Moorlands 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Nuneaton and Bedworth 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Rugby 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Peterborough 1 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Bedford 1 0.2% 0% 0% Huntingdonshire 1 0.2% 0% 0% Basildon 1 0.2% 0% 0% Dacorum 1 0.2% 0% 0% East Hertfordshire 1 0.2% 0% 0% North Hertfordshire 1 0.2% 0% 0% Watford 1 0.2% 0% 0% Babergh 1 0.2% 0% 0% Forest Heath 1 0.2% 0% 0% Ipswich 1 0.2% 0% 0% Suffolk Coastal 1 0.2% 0% 0% Waveney 1 0.2% 0% 0% Barnet 1 0.2% 0% 0% Bromley 1 0.2% 0% 0% Croydon 1 0.2% 0% 0% Ealing 1 0.2% 0% 0% Kingston upon Thames 1 0.2% 0% 0% Merton 1 0.2% 0% 0% Newham 1 0.2% 0% 0% Brighton and Hove 1 0.2% 0% 0% Isle of Wight 1 0.2% 0% 0% Gosport 1 0.2% 0% 0% Sevenoaks 1 0.2% 0% 0% Shepway 1 0.2% 0.2% South Oxfordshire 1 0.2% 0.2% Vale of White Horse 1 0.2% 0% 0% Runnymede 1 0.2% 0% 0% Tandridge 1 0.2% 0% 0% Bristol, City of 1 0.2% 0% 0% Bournemouth 1 0.2% 0% 0% Poole 1 0.2% 0% 0% East Devon 1 0.2% 0% 0% Mid Devon 1 0.2% 0% 0% Torridge 1 0.2% 0% 0% Christchurch 1 0.2% 0% 0% Gloucester 1 0.2% 0% 0% Gwynedd 1 0.2% 0% 0% Denbighshire 1 0.2% 0% 0% Ceredigion 1 0.2% 0% 0% Pembrokeshire 1 0.2% 0% 0% Swansea 1 0.2% 0% 0% The Vale of Glamorgan 1 0.2% 0% 0% Cardiff 1 0.2% 0% 0% Blaenau Gwent 1 0.2% 0% 0% Total 640 81.7% 15.7% 66.0% 37.0% 20.8% 8.9% AM PM Proportion Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 of total North South East West South North South East West South Split Via Proportional traffic flow 18% 44.2% 56% 65% 35% 44.2% 56% 71% 29% Split Via Census Data 82% 15.7% 66.0% 56.1% 31.5% 13.5% 15.7% 66.0% 56.1% 31.5% 13.5% Departing AM AM Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 North South East West South North South East West South 44.2% 56% 57% 43% 44.2% 56% 69% 31% 15.7% 66.0% 56.1% 31.5% 13.5% 15.7% 66.0% 56.1% 31.5% 13.5% Arriving
Proportion of 100% of traffic travelling to and from the south
AM PM Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 EH 5742 2321 Departing Other 9 36 20 11 5 3 13 7 4 2 Total 14 43 25 14 5 5 16 9 5 2 125 Units AM PM Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 EH 1211 4642 Arriving Other 2 9 5 3 1 7 29 16 9 4 Total 3 11 6 4 1 11 35 20 11 4
AM PM Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 EH 26 33 12 4 10 12 94 Departing Other 41 174 98 55 23 15 64 36 20 9 Total 68 207 109 59 23 25 76 45 24 9 600 Units AM PM Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 Direction at Site Access Direction at A31 EH 6853 21 26 18 8 Arriving Other 10 43 24 13 6 33 140 78 44 19 Total 17 51 29 17 6 54 166 97 52 19
Proportion of 100% of traffic travelling to and from the south
In order to protect against disclosure of personal information, records have been swapped between different geographic areas. Some counts will be affected, particularly small counts at the lowest geographies.
Appendix B – Railway Bridge on Lymington Bottom Road LINSIG
www.rpsgroup.com Full Input Data And Results Full Input Data And Results
User and Project Details Project: JNY10029 - Lymington Farm, Medstead Title: Proposed Signalised Railway Junction Location: Additional detail: File name: Proposed Signalised Railway Junction.lsg3x Author: Company: RPS Group Address:
Network Layout Diagram
A Arm 3 - Lymington Bottom Road Railway Junction
1
2/1
Arm 2 -
3/1
1
Arm 1 - Lymington Bottom Road
1
1/1
Arm 4 -
4/1
1
B
Full Input Data And Results
Phase Diagram Full Input Data And Results
A
B
Full Input Data And Results
Phase Input Data Phase Name Phase Type Assoc. Phase Street Min Cont Min
A Traffic 7 7 B Traffic 7 7
Phase Intergreens Matrix Starting Phase
A B Terminating A - 10 Phase B 10 -
Phases in Stage Stage No. Phases in Stage
1 A 2 B
Stage Diagram 1 Min >= 7 2 Min >= 7 A A
B B
Phase Delays Term. Stage Start Stage Phase Type Value Cont value
There are no Phase Delays defined
Prohibited Stage Change To Stage 1 2 From 1 10 Stage 2 10
Full Input Data And Results Give-Way Lane Input Data Junction: Railway Junction
There are no Opposed Lanes in this Junction
Full Input Data And Results Lane Input Data Junction: Railway Junction
Def User Physical Sat Lane Turning Lane Start End Saturation Nearside Lane Phases Length Flow Width Gradient Turns Radius Type Disp. Disp. Flow Lane (PCU) Type (m) (m) (PCU/Hr) 1/1 Arm 2 (Lymington U B 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.00 0.00 Y Inf Ahead Bottom Road )
2/1 U 2 3 60.0 Inf ------
3/1 Arm 4 (Lymington U A 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.65 0.00 Y Inf Ahead Bottom Road)
4/1 U 2 3 60.0 Inf ------
Traffic Flow Groups Flow Group Start Time End Time Duration Formula
1: '2019 Base AM' 08:00 09:00 01:00
2: '2019 Base PM' 17:00 18:00 01:00
3: '2024 Base AM' 08:00 09:00 01:00
4: '2024 Base PM' 17:00 18:00 01:00 5: '2024 Base+Dev(600U)' 08:00 09:00 01:00
6: '2024 Base+Dev(600U)' 17:00 18:00 01:00
7: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U)' 08:00 09:00 01:00
8: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U)' 17:00 18:00 01:00
Scenario 1: '2019 Base AM' (FG1: '2019 Base AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B Tot.
A 0 231 231 Origin B 375 0 375
Tot. 375 231 606
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 1: Lane 2019 Base AM Junction: Railway Junction
1/1 375
2/1 375
3/1 231
4/1 231 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Railway Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 3.00 0.00 Y Arm 2 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1915 1915 (Lymington Bottom Road )
2/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
3/1 3.65 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1980 1980 (Lymington Bottom Road)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 2: '2019 Base PM' (FG2: '2019 Base PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B Tot.
A 0 283 283 Origin B 202 0 202
Tot. 202 283 485
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 2: Lane 2019 Base PM
Junction: Railway Junction
1/1 202
2/1 202
3/1 283
4/1 283
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Railway Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 3.00 0.00 Y Arm 2 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1915 1915 (Lymington Bottom Road )
2/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
3/1 3.65 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1980 1980 (Lymington Bottom Road)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Full Input Data And Results
Scenario 3: '2024 Base AM' (FG3: '2024 Base AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B Tot.
A 0 245 245 Origin B 397 0 397
Tot. 397 245 642
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 3: Lane 2024 Base AM
Junction: Railway Junction
1/1 397
2/1 397
3/1 245
4/1 245
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Railway Junction Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 3.00 0.00 Y Arm 2 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1915 1915 (Lymington Bottom Road )
2/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
3/1 3.65 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1980 1980 (Lymington Bottom Road)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 4: '2024 Base PM' (FG4: '2024 Base PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B Tot.
A 0 300 300 Origin B 214 0 214
Tot. 214 300 514
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 4: Lane 2024 Base PM
Junction: Railway Junction
1/1 214
2/1 214
3/1 300
4/1 300 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Railway Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 3.00 0.00 Y Arm 2 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1915 1915 (Lymington Bottom Road )
2/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
3/1 3.65 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1980 1980 (Lymington Bottom Road)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 5: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) AM ' (FG5: '2024 Base+Dev(600U)', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B Tot.
A 0 452 452 Origin B 448 0 448
Tot. 448 452 900
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 5: 2024 Lane Base+Dev(600U) AM Junction: Railway Junction
1/1 448
2/1 448
3/1 452
4/1 452
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Railway Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m) 1/1 3.00 0.00 Y Arm 2 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1915 1915 (Lymington Bottom Road )
2/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
3/1 3.65 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1980 1980 (Lymington Bottom Road) 4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Full Input Data And Results
Scenario 6: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) PM' (FG6: '2024 Base+Dev(600U)', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B Tot.
A 0 376 376 Origin B 381 0 381
Tot. 381 376 757
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 6: 2024 Lane Base+Dev(600U) PM
Junction: Railway Junction
1/1 381
2/1 381
3/1 376
4/1 376
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Railway Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 3.00 0.00 Y Arm 2 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1915 1915 (Lymington Bottom Road )
2/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
3/1 3.65 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1980 1980 (Lymington Bottom Road)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 7: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) AM ' (FG7: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U)', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B Tot.
A 0 762 762 Origin B 524 0 524
Tot. 524 762 1286
Full Input Data And Results
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 7: 2024 Lane Base+Dev(1500U) AM
Junction: Railway Junction
1/1 524
2/1 524
3/1 762
4/1 762
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Railway Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 3.00 0.00 Y Arm 2 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1915 1915 (Lymington Bottom Road )
2/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
3/1 3.65 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1980 1980 (Lymington Bottom Road)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 8: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) PM' (FG8: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U)', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B Tot.
A 0 490 490 Origin B 630 0 630
Tot. 630 490 1120
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 8: 2024 Lane Base+Dev(1500U) PM
Junction: Railway Junction
1/1 630
2/1 630
3/1 490
4/1 490 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Railway Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 3.00 0.00 Y Arm 2 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1915 1915 (Lymington Bottom Road )
2/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
3/1 3.65 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1980 1980 (Lymington Bottom Road)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 1: '2019 Base AM' (FG1: '2019 Base AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 A
B 10 15s 10 25s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2 Duration 15 25
Change Point 0 25
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 25 1 10 : 15 2 10 : 25 A A
Phases B B
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram Full Input Data And Results
A Arm 3 - Lymington Bottom Road Railway Junction PRC: 99.2 % Total Traffic Delay: 3.2 pcuHr
1
Arm 2 -
A
1
Arm 1 - Lymington Bottom Road
1
Arm 4 -
B
1
B
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Proposed - - N/A ------45.2% Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - N/A ------45.2%
Lymington 1/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 25 - 375 1915 830 45.2% Ahead
2/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 375 Inf Inf 0.0%
Lymington 3/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A A 1 15 - 231 1980 528 43.8% Ahead
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 231 Inf Inf 0.0%
Rand + Storage Area Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Uniform Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (pcu)
Network: Proposed - - 0 0 0 2.4 0.8 0.0 3.2 - - - - Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - 0 0 0 2.4 0.8 0.0 3.2 - - - -
1/1 375 375 - - - 1.2 0.4 - 1.7 15.9 4.4 0.4 4.8
2/1 375 375 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3/1 231 231 - - - 1.2 0.4 - 1.6 24.3 3.1 0.4 3.5
4/1 231 231 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 99.2 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 3.22 Cycle Time (s): 60 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 99.2 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 3.22
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 2: '2019 Base PM' (FG2: '2019 Base PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 A
B 10 23s 10 17s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 23 17
Change Point 0 33
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 33 1 10 : 23 2 10 : 17 A A
Phases B B
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram Full Input Data And Results
A Arm 3 - Lymington Bottom Road Railway Junction PRC: 151.9 % Total Traffic Delay: 2.5 pcuHr
1
Arm 2 -
A
1
Arm 1 - Lymington Bottom Road
1
Arm 4 -
B
1
B
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Proposed - - N/A ------35.7% Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - N/A ------35.7%
Lymington 1/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 17 - 202 1915 574 35.2% Ahead
2/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 202 Inf Inf 0.0%
Lymington 3/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A A 1 23 - 283 1980 792 35.7% Ahead
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 283 Inf Inf 0.0%
Rand + Storage Area Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Uniform Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (pcu)
Network: Proposed - - 0 0 0 1.9 0.5 0.0 2.5 - - - - Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - 0 0 0 1.9 0.5 0.0 2.5 - - - -
1/1 202 202 - - - 0.9 0.3 - 1.2 21.3 2.6 0.3 2.9
2/1 202 202 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3/1 283 283 - - - 1.0 0.3 - 1.3 16.1 3.3 0.3 3.6
4/1 283 283 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 151.9 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 2.46 Cycle Time (s): 60 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 151.9 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 2.46
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 3: '2024 Base AM' (FG3: '2024 Base AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 A
B 10 15s 10 25s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 15 25
Change Point 0 25
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 25 1 10 : 15 2 10 : 25 A A
Phases B B
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram Full Input Data And Results
A Arm 3 - Lymington Bottom Road Railway Junction PRC: 88.1 % Total Traffic Delay: 3.5 pcuHr
1
Arm 2 -
A
1
Arm 1 - Lymington Bottom Road
1
Arm 4 -
B
1
B
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Proposed - - N/A ------47.8% Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - N/A ------47.8%
Lymington 1/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 25 - 397 1915 830 47.8% Ahead
2/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 397 Inf Inf 0.0%
Lymington 3/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A A 1 15 - 245 1980 528 46.4% Ahead
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 245 Inf Inf 0.0%
Rand + Storage Area Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Uniform Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (pcu)
Network: Proposed - - 0 0 0 2.6 0.9 0.0 3.5 - - - - Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - 0 0 0 2.6 0.9 0.0 3.5 - - - -
1/1 397 397 - - - 1.3 0.5 - 1.8 16.3 4.6 0.5 5.1
2/1 397 397 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3/1 245 245 - - - 1.3 0.4 - 1.7 24.8 3.4 0.4 3.8
4/1 245 245 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 88.1 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 3.48 Cycle Time (s): 60 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 88.1 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 3.48
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 4: '2024 Base PM' (FG4: '2024 Base PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 A
B 10 23s 10 17s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 23 17
Change Point 0 33
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 33 1 10 : 23 2 10 : 17 A A
Phases B B
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram Full Input Data And Results
A Arm 3 - Lymington Bottom Road Railway Junction PRC: 137.6 % Total Traffic Delay: 2.6 pcuHr
1
Arm 2 -
A
1
Arm 1 - Lymington Bottom Road
1
Arm 4 -
B
1
B
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Proposed - - N/A ------37.9% Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - N/A ------37.9%
Lymington 1/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 17 - 214 1915 574 37.2% Ahead
2/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 214 Inf Inf 0.0%
Lymington 3/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A A 1 23 - 300 1980 792 37.9% Ahead
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 300 Inf Inf 0.0%
Rand + Storage Area Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Uniform Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (pcu)
Network: Proposed - - 0 0 0 2.0 0.6 0.0 2.6 - - - - Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - 0 0 0 2.0 0.6 0.0 2.6 - - - -
1/1 214 214 - - - 1.0 0.3 - 1.3 21.5 2.8 0.3 3.1
2/1 214 214 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3/1 300 300 - - - 1.1 0.3 - 1.4 16.4 3.5 0.3 3.8
4/1 300 300 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 137.6 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 2.65 Cycle Time (s): 60 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 137.6 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 2.65
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 5: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) AM ' (FG5: '2024 Base+Dev(600U)', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 A
B 10 20s 10 20s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 20 20
Change Point 0 30
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 30 1 10 : 20 2 10 : 20 A A
Phases B B
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram Full Input Data And Results
A Arm 3 - Lymington Bottom Road Railway Junction PRC: 34.6 % Total Traffic Delay: 6.1 pcuHr
1
Arm 2 -
A
1
Arm 1 - Lymington Bottom Road
1
Arm 4 -
B
1
B
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Proposed - - N/A ------66.8% Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - N/A ------66.8%
Lymington 1/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 20 - 448 1915 670 66.8% Ahead
2/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 448 Inf Inf 0.0%
Lymington 3/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A A 1 20 - 452 1980 693 65.2% Ahead
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 452 Inf Inf 0.0%
Rand + Storage Area Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Uniform Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (pcu)
Network: Proposed - - 0 0 0 4.1 1.9 0.0 6.1 - - - - Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - 0 0 0 4.1 1.9 0.0 6.1 - - - -
1/1 448 448 - - - 2.1 1.0 - 3.1 24.6 6.2 1.0 7.2
2/1 448 448 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3/1 452 452 - - - 2.1 0.9 - 3.0 23.8 6.3 0.9 7.2
4/1 452 452 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 34.6 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 6.05 Cycle Time (s): 60 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 34.6 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 6.05
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 6: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) PM' (FG6: '2024 Base+Dev(600U)', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 A
B 10 20s 10 20s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 20 20
Change Point 0 30
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 30 1 10 : 20 2 10 : 20 A A
Phases B B
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram Full Input Data And Results
A Arm 3 - Lymington Bottom Road Railway Junction PRC: 58.3 % Total Traffic Delay: 4.6 pcuHr
1
Arm 2 -
A
1
Arm 1 - Lymington Bottom Road
1
Arm 4 -
B
1
B
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Proposed - - N/A ------56.8% Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - N/A ------56.8%
Lymington 1/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 20 - 381 1915 670 56.8% Ahead
2/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 381 Inf Inf 0.0%
Lymington 3/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A A 1 20 - 376 1980 693 54.3% Ahead
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 376 Inf Inf 0.0%
Rand + Storage Area Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Uniform Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (pcu)
Network: Proposed - - 0 0 0 3.3 1.2 0.0 4.6 - - - - Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - 0 0 0 3.3 1.2 0.0 4.6 - - - -
1/1 381 381 - - - 1.7 0.7 - 2.3 22.0 5.1 0.7 5.7
2/1 381 381 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3/1 376 376 - - - 1.6 0.6 - 2.2 21.3 5.0 0.6 5.6
4/1 376 376 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 58.3 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 4.56 Cycle Time (s): 60 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 58.3 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 4.56
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 7: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) AM ' (FG7: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U)', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 A
B 10 23s 10 17s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 23 17
Change Point 0 33
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 33 1 10 : 23 2 10 : 17 A A
Phases B B
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram Full Input Data And Results
A Arm 3 - Lymington Bottom Road Railway Junction PRC: -6.9 % Total Traffic Delay: 19.3 pcuHr
1
Arm 2 -
A
1
Arm 1 - Lymington Bottom Road
1
Arm 4 -
B
1
B
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Proposed - - N/A ------96.2% Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - N/A ------96.2%
Lymington 1/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 17 - 524 1915 574 91.2% Ahead
2/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 524 Inf Inf 0.0%
Lymington 3/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A A 1 23 - 762 1980 792 96.2% Ahead
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 762 Inf Inf 0.0%
Rand + Storage Area Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Uniform Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (pcu)
Network: Proposed - - 0 0 0 6.7 12.6 0.0 19.3 - - - - Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - 0 0 0 6.7 12.6 0.0 19.3 - - - -
1/1 524 524 - - - 2.9 4.4 - 7.4 50.6 8.3 4.4 12.7
2/1 524 524 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3/1 762 762 - - - 3.7 8.2 - 11.9 56.3 12.3 8.2 20.5
4/1 762 762 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): -6.9 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 19.29 Cycle Time (s): 60 PRC Over All Lanes (%): -6.9 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 19.29
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 8: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) PM' (FG8: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U)', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 A
B 10 17s 10 23s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 17 23
Change Point 0 27
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 27 1 10 : 17 2 10 : 23 A A
Phases B B
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram Full Input Data And Results
A Arm 3 - Lymington Bottom Road Railway Junction PRC: 9.1 % Total Traffic Delay: 10.0 pcuHr
1
Arm 2 -
A
1
Arm 1 - Lymington Bottom Road
1
Arm 4 -
B
1
B
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Proposed - - N/A ------82.5% Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - N/A ------82.5%
Lymington 1/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 23 - 630 1915 766 82.2% Ahead
2/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 630 Inf Inf 0.0%
Lymington 3/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A A 1 17 - 490 1980 594 82.5% Ahead
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 490 Inf Inf 0.0%
Rand + Storage Area Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Uniform Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcuHr) (pcu)
Network: Proposed - - 0 0 0 5.5 4.5 0.0 10.0 - - - - Signalised Railway Junction
Railway Junction - - 0 0 0 5.5 4.5 0.0 10.0 - - - -
1/1 630 630 - - - 2.8 2.2 - 5.1 28.9 9.3 2.2 11.5
2/1 630 630 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3/1 490 490 - - - 2.7 2.3 - 4.9 36.1 7.5 2.3 9.7
4/1 490 490 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 9.1 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 9.98 Cycle Time (s): 60 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 9.1 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 9.98
Appendix C – Lymington Bottom Road / A31 LINSIG
www.rpsgroup.com Full Input Data And Results Full Input Data And Results
User and Project Details Project: JNY10029 - Lymington Farm, Medstead Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Proposed Signalised Title: Junction
Location:
Additional detail: Proposed Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Signalised File name: Junction.lsg3x Author: Company: RPS Group Address:
Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Phase Diagram
B
A C
Phase Input Data Phase Name Phase Type Assoc. Phase Street Min Cont Min
A Traffic 7 7
B Traffic 7 7 C Traffic 7 7
Phase Intergreens Matrix Starting Phase
A B C
Terminating A - 6 - Phase B 5 - 6
C - 5 -
Phases in Stage Stage No. Phases in Stage 1 A C
2 B
Stage Diagram 1 Min >= 7 2 Min >= 7 B B
A A C C
Full Input Data And Results
Phase Delays Term. Stage Start Stage Phase Type Value Cont value
There are no Phase Delays defined
Prohibited Stage Change To Stage
1 2 From 1 6 Stage 2 6
Full Input Data And Results Give-Way Lane Input Data Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Max Flow Min Flow Non-Blocking Max Turns when when Opposing Opp. Lane Opp. Right Turn Right Turn Lane Movement Storage RTF in Intergreen Giving Way Giving Way Lane Coeff. Mvmnts. Storage (PCU) Move up (s) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) 3/2 5/1 (Right) 1439 0 1/1 1.09 All 2.00 - 0.50 2 2.00 (A31 Winchester Road East)
Full Input Data And Results Lane Input Data Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Def User Physical Sat Lane Turning Lane Start End Saturation Nearside Lane Phases Length Flow Width Gradient Turns Radius Type Disp. Disp. Flow Lane (PCU) Type (m) (m) (PCU/Hr) Arm 5 1/1 10.00 (A31 Left U A 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.00 0.00 Y Winchester Arm 6 Inf Road West) Ahead
Arm 4 10.00 2/1 Right (Lymington U B 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.25 0.00 Y Arm 6 Bottom Road) 30.00 Left
3/1 (A31 Arm 4 U C 2 3 60.0 Geom - 3.50 0.00 Y Inf Winchester Ahead Road East)
3/2 (A31 Arm 5 O C 2 3 5.0 Geom - 3.50 0.00 Y 25.00 Winchester Right Road East)
4/1 U 2 3 60.0 Inf ------
5/1 U 2 3 60.0 Inf ------6/1 U 2 3 60.0 Inf ------
Traffic Flow Groups Flow Group Start Time End Time Duration Formula
1: '2019 Base AM' 08:00 09:00 01:00
2: '2019 Base PM' 17:00 18:00 01:00
3: '2024 Base AM' 08:00 09:00 01:00
4: '2024 Base PM' 17:00 18:00 01:00
5: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) AM' 08:00 09:00 01:00
6: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) PM' 17:00 18:00 01:00
7: '2024 Base+Dev(1000U) AM' 08:00 09:00 01:00 8: '2024 Base+Dev(1000U) PM' 17:00 18:00 01:00
9: '2024 Base+Dev(1100U) AM' 08:00 09:00 01:00
10: '2024 Base+Dev(1100U) PM' 17:00 18:00 01:00
11: '2024 Base+Dev(1200U) AM' 08:00 09:00 01:00
12: '2024 Base+Dev(1200U) PM' 17:00 18:00 01:00
13: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) AM' 08:00 09:00 01:00 14: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) PM' 17:00 18:00 01:00 Full Input Data And Results
Scenario 1: '2019 Base AM' (FG1: '2019 Base AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 122 591 713
Origin B 70 0 124 194
C 532 167 0 699
Tot. 602 289 715 1606
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 1: Lane 2019 Base AM
Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 713
2/1 194
3/1 699(In) (with short) 532(Out)
3/2 167 (short)
4/1 602
5/1 289
6/1 715 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 17.1 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1867 1867 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 82.9 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 36.1 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1786 1786 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 63.9 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 2: '2019 Base PM' (FG2: '2019 Base PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 60 509 569
Origin B 66 0 156 222
C 617 135 0 752
Tot. 683 195 665 1543
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 2: Lane 2019 Base PM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 569
2/1 222
3/1 752(In) (with short) 617(Out)
3/2 135 (short)
4/1 683
5/1 195
6/1 665 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 10.5 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1885 1885 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 89.5 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 29.7 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1797 1797 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 70.3 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 3: '2024 Base AM' (FG3: '2024 Base AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 129 626 755
Origin B 74 0 132 206
C 564 176 0 740
Tot. 638 305 758 1701
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 3: Lane 2024 Base AM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 755
2/1 206
3/1 740(In) (with short) 564(Out)
3/2 176 (short)
4/1 638
5/1 305
6/1 758 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 17.1 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1867 1867 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 82.9 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 35.9 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1786 1786 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 64.1 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 4: '2024 Base PM' (FG4: '2024 Base PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 64 539 603
Origin B 70 0 165 235
C 654 143 0 797
Tot. 724 207 704 1635
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 4: Lane 2024 Base PM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 603
2/1 235
3/1 797(In) (with short) 654(Out)
3/2 143 (short)
4/1 724
5/1 207
6/1 704 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 10.6 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1885 1885 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 89.4 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 29.8 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1797 1797 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 70.2 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 5: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) AM' (FG5: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 146 626 772
Origin B 133 0 264 397
C 564 211 0 775
Tot. 697 357 890 1944
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 5: Lane 2024 Base+Dev(600U) AM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 772
2/1 397
3/1 775(In) (with short) 564(Out)
3/2 211 (short)
4/1 697
5/1 357
6/1 890 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 18.9 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1862 1862 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 81.1 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 33.5 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1790 1790 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 66.5 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 6: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) PM' (FG6: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 116 539 655
Origin B 93 0 218 311
C 654 259 0 913
Tot. 747 375 757 1879
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 6: Lane 2024 Base+Dev(600U) PM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 655
2/1 311
3/1 913(In) (with short) 654(Out)
3/2 259 (short)
4/1 747
5/1 375
6/1 757 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 17.7 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1865 1865 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 82.3 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 29.9 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1796 1796 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 70.1 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 7: '2024 Base+Dev(1000U) AM' (FG7: '2024 Base+Dev(1000U) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 157 626 783
Origin B 173 0 353 526
C 564 234 0 798
Tot. 737 391 979 2107
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 7: Lane 2024 Base+Dev(1000U) AM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 783
2/1 526
3/1 798(In) (with short) 564(Out)
3/2 234 (short)
4/1 737
5/1 391
6/1 979 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 20.1 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1859 1859 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 79.9 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 32.9 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1792 1792 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 67.1 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 8: '2024 Base+Dev(1000U) PM' (FG8: '2024 Base+Dev(1000U) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 151 539 690
Origin B 111 0 254 365
C 654 336 0 990
Tot. 765 487 793 2045
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 8: Lane 2024 Base+Dev(1000U) PM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 690
2/1 365
3/1 990(In) (with short) 654(Out)
3/2 336 (short)
4/1 765
5/1 487
6/1 793 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 21.9 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 78.1 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 30.4 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1796 1796 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 69.6 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 9: '2024 Base+Dev(1100U) AM' (FG9: '2024 Base+Dev(1100U) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 160 626 786
Origin B 182 0 375 557
C 564 239 0 803
Tot. 746 399 1001 2146
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 9: Lane 2024 Base+Dev(1100U) AM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 786
2/1 557
3/1 803(In) (with short) 564(Out)
3/2 239 (short)
4/1 746
5/1 399
6/1 1001 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 20.4 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1858 1858 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 79.6 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 32.7 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1792 1792 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 67.3 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 10: '2024 Base+Dev(1100U) PM' (FG10: '2024 Base+Dev(1100U) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 159 539 698
Origin B 113 0 262 375
C 654 354 0 1008
Tot. 767 513 801 2081
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 10: Lane 2024 Base+Dev(1100U) PM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 698
2/1 375
3/1 1008(In) (with short) 654(Out)
3/2 354 (short)
4/1 767
5/1 513
6/1 801 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 22.8 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1852 1852 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 77.2 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 30.1 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1796 1796 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 69.9 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 11: '2024 Base+Dev(1200U) AM' (FG11: '2024 Base+Dev(1200U) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 163 626 789
Origin B 192 0 397 589
C 564 245 0 809
Tot. 756 408 1023 2187
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 11: Lane 2024 Base+Dev(1200U) AM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 789
2/1 589
3/1 809(In) (with short) 564(Out)
3/2 245 (short)
4/1 756
5/1 408
6/1 1023 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 20.7 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1857 1857 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 79.3 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 32.6 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1792 1792 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 67.4 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 12: '2024 Base+Dev(1200U) PM' (FG12: '2024 Base+Dev(1200U) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 168 539 707
Origin B 117 0 271 388
C 654 374 0 1028
Tot. 771 542 810 2123
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 12: Lane 2024 Base+Dev(1200U) PM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 707
2/1 388
3/1 1028(In) (with short) 654(Out)
3/2 374 (short)
4/1 771
5/1 542
6/1 810 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 23.8 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1849 1849 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 76.2 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 30.2 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1796 1796 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 69.8 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 13: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) AM' (FG13: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 171 626 797
Origin B 222 0 463 685
C 564 262 0 826
Tot. 786 433 1089 2308
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 13: Lane 2024 Base+Dev(1500U) AM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 797
2/1 685
3/1 826(In) (with short) 564(Out)
3/2 262 (short)
4/1 786
5/1 433
6/1 1089 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 21.5 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1855 1855 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 78.5 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 32.4 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1792 1792 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 67.6 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 14: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) PM' (FG14: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Traffic Flows, Desired Desired Flow : Destination
A B C Tot.
A 0 194 539 733
Origin B 129 0 298 427
C 654 432 0 1086
Tot. 783 626 837 2246
Traffic Lane Flows Scenario 14: Lane 2024 Base+Dev(1500U) PM Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
1/1 733
2/1 427
3/1 1086(In) (with short) 654(Out)
3/2 432 (short)
4/1 783
5/1 626
6/1 837 Full Input Data And Results
Lane Saturation Flows Junction: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road Junction
Lane Turning Nearside Allowed Turning Sat Flow Flared Sat Flow Lane Width Gradient Radius Lane Turns Prop. (PCU/Hr) (PCU/Hr) (m) (m)
1/1 Arm 5 Left 10.00 26.5 % 3.00 0.00 Y 1842 1842 (A31 Winchester Road West) Arm 6 Ahead Inf 73.5 %
2/1 Arm 4 Right 10.00 30.2 % 3.25 0.00 Y 1796 1796 (Lymington Bottom Road) Arm 6 Left 30.00 69.8 %
3/1 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 4 Ahead Inf 100.0 % 1965 1965 (A31 Winchester Road East)
3/2 3.50 0.00 Y Arm 5 Right 25.00 100.0 % 1854 1854 (A31 Winchester Road East)
4/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
5/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
6/1 Infinite Saturation Flow Inf Inf
Scenario 1: '2019 Base AM' (FG1: '2019 Base AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 84s 6 24s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 84 24 Change Point 0 90
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 90 1 6 : 84 2 6 : 24 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------53.3% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------53.3% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 85 - 713 1867 1338 53.3% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 24 - 194 1786 372 52.1% Right Left
A31 Winchester 49.1 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 84 - 699 1965:1854 1084+340 49.1% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 602 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 289 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 715 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 167 0 0 5.2 1.6 0.4 7.2 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 167 0 0 5.2 1.6 0.4 7.2 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 713 713 - - - 1.5 0.6 - 2.1 10.7 10.9 0.6 11.5
2/1 194 194 - - - 2.3 0.5 - 2.8 52.2 5.7 0.5 6.3
3/1+3/2 699 699 167 0 0 1.4 0.5 0.4 2.3 11.9 7.9 0.5 8.4
4/1 602 602 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 289 289 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 715 715 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 68.9 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 7.24 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 68.9 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 7.24
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 2: '2019 Base PM' (FG2: '2019 Base PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 82s 6 26s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 82 26
Change Point 0 88
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 88 1 6 : 82 2 6 : 26 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------54.9% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------54.9% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 83 - 569 1885 1320 43.1% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 26 - 222 1797 404 54.9% Right Left
A31 Winchester 54.4 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 82 - 752 1965:1854 1134+248 54.4% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 683 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 195 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 665 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 135 0 0 5.5 1.6 0.2 7.3 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 135 0 0 5.5 1.6 0.2 7.3 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 569 569 - - - 1.2 0.4 - 1.6 10.1 8.1 0.4 8.4
2/1 222 222 - - - 2.5 0.6 - 3.1 50.9 6.5 0.6 7.1
3/1+3/2 752 752 135 0 0 1.7 0.6 0.2 2.6 12.2 10.6 0.6 11.2
4/1 683 683 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 195 195 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 665 665 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 63.9 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 7.30 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 63.9 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 7.30
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 3: '2024 Base AM' (FG3: '2024 Base AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 84s 6 24s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 84 24
Change Point 0 90
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 90 1 6 : 84 2 6 : 24 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------56.4% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------56.4% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 85 - 755 1867 1338 56.4% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 24 - 206 1786 372 55.4% Right Left
A31 Winchester 52.0 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 84 - 740 1965:1854 1085+339 52.0% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 638 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 305 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 758 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 176 0 0 5.7 1.8 0.5 8.0 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 176 0 0 5.7 1.8 0.5 8.0 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 755 755 - - - 1.7 0.6 - 2.3 11.2 12.0 0.6 12.6
2/1 206 206 - - - 2.4 0.6 - 3.0 53.3 6.1 0.6 6.7
3/1+3/2 740 740 176 0 0 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.6 12.7 8.9 0.5 9.5
4/1 638 638 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 305 305 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 758 758 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 59.5 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 8.00 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 59.5 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 8.00
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 4: '2024 Base PM' (FG4: '2024 Base PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 82s 6 26s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 82 26
Change Point 0 88
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 88 1 6 : 82 2 6 : 26 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------58.1% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------58.1% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 83 - 603 1885 1320 45.7% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 26 - 235 1797 404 58.1% Right Left
A31 Winchester 57.7 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 82 - 797 1965:1854 1134+248 57.7% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 724 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 207 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 704 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Rand + Leaving Turners In Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform Oversat (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 143 0 0 6.0 1.8 0.2 8.0 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 143 0 0 6.0 1.8 0.2 8.0 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 603 603 - - - 1.3 0.4 - 1.8 10.4 8.7 0.4 9.1
2/1 235 235 - - - 2.7 0.7 - 3.4 52.0 6.9 0.7 7.6
3/1+3/2 797 797 143 0 0 1.9 0.7 0.2 2.8 12.9 11.7 0.7 12.4
4/1 724 724 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 207 207 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 704 704 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 54.8 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 7.99 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 54.8 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 7.99
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 5: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) AM' (FG5: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 74s 6 34s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 74 34
Change Point 0 80
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 80 1 6 : 74 2 6 : 34 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------77.4% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------77.4% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 75 - 772 1862 1179 65.5% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 34 - 397 1790 522 76.0% Right Left
A31 Winchester 77.4 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 74 - 775 1965:1854 728+272 77.4% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 697 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 357 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 890 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Leaving Turners In Oversat Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 211 0 0 10.4 4.2 0.9 15.5 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 211 0 0 10.4 4.2 0.9 15.5 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 772 772 - - - 3.0 0.9 - 3.9 18.2 16.1 0.9 17.0
2/1 397 397 - - - 4.3 1.5 - 5.8 52.7 12.0 1.5 13.6
3/1+3/2 775 775 211 0 0 3.1 1.7 0.9 5.8 26.8 12.8 1.7 14.5
4/1 697 697 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 357 357 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 890 890 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 16.2 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 15.48 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 16.2 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 15.48
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 6: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) PM' (FG6: '2024 Base+Dev(600U) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 78s 6 30s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 78 30
Change Point 0 84
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 84 1 6 : 78 2 6 : 30 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------68.3% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------68.3% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 79 - 655 1865 1243 52.7% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 30 - 311 1796 464 67.0% Right Left
A31 Winchester 68.3 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 78 - 913 1965:1854 957+379 68.3% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 747 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 375 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 757 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Leaving Turners In Oversat Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 259 0 0 8.5 2.6 0.7 11.8 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 259 0 0 8.5 2.6 0.7 11.8 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 655 655 - - - 1.9 0.6 - 2.4 13.3 11.1 0.6 11.7
2/1 311 311 - - - 3.4 1.0 - 4.5 51.5 9.2 1.0 10.2
3/1+3/2 913 913 259 0 0 3.2 1.1 0.7 4.9 19.4 15.8 1.1 16.8
4/1 747 747 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 375 375 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 757 757 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 31.7 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 11.79 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 31.7 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 11.79
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 7: '2024 Base+Dev(1000U) AM' (FG7: '2024 Base+Dev(1000U) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 72s 6 36s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 72 36
Change Point 0 78
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 78 1 6 : 72 2 6 : 36 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------95.3% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------95.3% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 73 - 783 1859 1146 68.3% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 36 - 526 1792 553 95.2% Right Left
A31 Winchester 95.3 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 72 - 798 1965:1854 592+246 95.3% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 737 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 391 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 979 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Leaving Turners In Oversat Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 195 0 39 13.1 15.0 1.1 29.2 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 195 0 39 13.1 15.0 1.1 29.2 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 783 783 - - - 3.3 1.1 - 4.4 20.2 17.2 1.1 18.3
2/1 526 526 - - - 5.9 6.6 - 12.6 85.9 17.1 6.6 23.7
3/1+3/2 798 798 195 0 39 3.9 7.3 1.1 12.3 55.5 13.9 7.3 21.2
4/1 737 737 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 391 391 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 979 979 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): -5.8 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 29.23 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): -5.8 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 29.23
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 8: '2024 Base+Dev(1000U) PM' (FG8: '2024 Base+Dev(1000U) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 80s 6 28s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 80 28
Change Point 0 86
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 86 1 6 : 80 2 6 : 28 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------87.0% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------87.0% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 81 - 690 1854 1267 54.5% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 28 - 365 1796 434 84.1% Right Left
A31 Winchester 87.0 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 80 - 990 1965:1854 752+386 87.0% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 765 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 487 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 793 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Leaving Turners In Oversat Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 336 0 0 9.9 6.3 1.0 17.2 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 336 0 0 9.9 6.3 1.0 17.2 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 690 690 - - - 1.8 0.6 - 2.4 12.7 11.5 0.6 12.1
2/1 365 365 - - - 4.4 2.5 - 6.9 67.6 11.6 2.5 14.0
3/1+3/2 990 990 336 0 0 3.7 3.2 1.0 7.9 28.8 16.4 3.2 19.6
4/1 765 765 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 487 487 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 793 793 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 3.5 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 17.21 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 3.5 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 17.21
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 9: '2024 Base+Dev(1100U) AM' (FG9: '2024 Base+Dev(1100U) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 72s 6 36s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 72 36
Change Point 0 78
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 78 1 6 : 72 2 6 : 36 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------100.8% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------100.8% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 73 - 786 1858 1146 68.6% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 36 - 557 1792 553 100.8% Right Left
A31 Winchester 97.8 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 72 - 803 1965:1854 577+244 97.8% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 746 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 399 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 1001 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Leaving Turners In Oversat Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 194 0 45 14.0 24.4 1.1 39.6 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 194 0 45 14.0 24.4 1.1 39.6 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 786 786 - - - 3.3 1.1 - 4.4 20.3 17.2 1.1 18.3
2/1 557 553 - - - 6.7 13.0 - 19.7 127.4 18.7 13.0 31.7
3/1+3/2 803 803 194 0 45 4.0 10.4 1.1 15.4 69.1 14.2 10.4 24.5
4/1 745 745 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 399 399 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 998 998 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): -12.0 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 39.55 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): -12.0 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 39.55
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 10: '2024 Base+Dev(1100U) PM' (FG10: '2024 Base+Dev(1100U) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 81s 6 27s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 81 27
Change Point 0 87
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 87 1 6 : 81 2 6 : 27 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------90.9% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------90.9% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 82 - 698 1852 1281 54.5% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 27 - 375 1796 419 89.5% Right Left
A31 Winchester 90.9 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 81 - 1008 1965:1854 719+389 90.9% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 767 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 513 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 801 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Leaving Turners In Oversat Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 341 0 13 10.2 8.8 1.1 20.1 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 341 0 13 10.2 8.8 1.1 20.1 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 698 698 - - - 1.8 0.6 - 2.4 12.2 11.4 0.6 12.0
2/1 375 375 - - - 4.6 3.7 - 8.3 79.6 12.1 3.7 15.7
3/1+3/2 1008 1008 341 0 13 3.8 4.6 1.1 9.4 33.7 16.3 4.6 20.9
4/1 767 767 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 513 513 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 801 801 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): -1.0 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 20.10 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): -1.0 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 20.10
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 11: '2024 Base+Dev(1200U) AM' (FG11: '2024 Base+Dev(1200U) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 71s 6 37s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 71 37
Change Point 0 77
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 77 1 6 : 71 2 6 : 37 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------104.8% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------104.8% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 72 - 789 1857 1130 69.8% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 37 - 589 1792 567 103.8% Right Left
A31 Winchester 104.8 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 71 - 809 1965:1854 538+234 104.8% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 756 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 408 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 1023 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Leaving Turners In Oversat Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 183 0 50 16.5 46.2 1.1 63.8 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 183 0 50 16.5 46.2 1.1 63.8 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 789 789 - - - 3.5 1.2 - 4.7 21.3 17.8 1.2 18.9
2/1 589 567 - - - 8.2 18.7 - 26.9 164.4 20.6 18.7 39.2
3/1+3/2 809 798 183 0 50 4.8 26.4 1.1 32.2 143.5 14.7 26.4 41.1
4/1 749 749 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 397 397 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 1008 1008 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): -16.5 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 63.81 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): -16.5 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 63.81
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 12: '2024 Base+Dev(1200U) PM' (FG12: '2024 Base+Dev(1200U) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 82s 6 26s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 82 26
Change Point 0 88
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 88 1 6 : 82 2 6 : 26 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------96.0% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------96.0% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 83 - 707 1849 1294 54.6% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 26 - 388 1796 404 96.0% Right Left
A31 Winchester 95.6 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 82 - 1028 1965:1854 684+391 95.6% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 771 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 542 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 810 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Leaving Turners In Oversat Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 342 0 32 10.6 15.3 1.2 27.1 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 342 0 32 10.6 15.3 1.2 27.1 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 707 707 - - - 1.7 0.6 - 2.3 11.8 11.4 0.6 12.0
2/1 388 388 - - - 5.0 6.6 - 11.6 107.3 12.7 6.6 19.3
3/1+3/2 1028 1028 342 0 32 3.9 8.1 1.2 13.2 46.1 18.8 8.1 27.0
4/1 771 771 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 542 542 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 810 810 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): -6.7 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 27.07 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): -6.7 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 27.07
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 13: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) AM' (FG13: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 70s 6 38s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 70 38
Change Point 0 76
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 76 1 6 : 70 2 6 : 38 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------119.1% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------119.1% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 71 - 797 1855 1113 71.6% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 38 - 685 1792 582 117.6% Right Left
A31 Winchester 119.1 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 70 - 826 1965:1854 474+220 119.1% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 786 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 433 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 1089 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Leaving Turners In Oversat Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 170 0 50 26.0 124.8 1.1 151.9 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 170 0 50 26.0 124.8 1.1 151.9 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 797 797 - - - 3.7 1.3 - 5.0 22.5 18.6 1.3 19.8
2/1 685 582 - - - 15.0 54.4 - 69.5 365.1 29.1 54.4 83.5
3/1+3/2 826 784 170 0 50 7.2 69.1 1.1 77.4 337.5 23.4 69.1 92.5
4/1 753 753 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 391 391 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 1020 1020 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): -32.3 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 151.89 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): -32.3 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 151.89
Full Input Data And Results Scenario 14: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) PM' (FG14: '2024 Base+Dev(1500U) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Stage Sequence Diagram 1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 B
A C 6 83s 6 25s
Stage Timings Stage 1 2
Duration 83 25
Change Point 0 89
Signal Timings Diagram
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 89 1 6 : 83 2 6 : 25 A A B B Phases C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time in cycle (sec)
Full Input Data And Results Network Layout Diagram
Full Input Data And Results
Network Results Lane Lane Controller Position In Arrow Num Total Green Arrow Demand Sat Flow Capacity Deg Sat Item Full Phase Description Type Stream Filtered Route Phase Greens (s) Green (s) Flow (pcu) (pcu/Hr) (pcu) (%)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - N/A ------114.1% Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - N/A ------114.1% Road Junction
A31 Winchester 1/1 Road West Left U N/A N/A A 1 84 - 733 1842 1305 56.2% Ahead
Lymington 2/1 Bottom Road U N/A N/A B 1 25 - 427 1796 389 109.7% Right Left
A31 Winchester 114.1 : 3/1+3/2 Road East U+O N/A N/A C 1 83 - 1086 1965:1854 573+379 114.1% Ahead Right
4/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 783 Inf Inf 0.0%
5/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 626 Inf Inf 0.0%
6/1 U N/A N/A - - - - 837 Inf Inf 0.0% Full Input Data And Results Storage Rand + Rand + Mean Turners When Turners In Uniform Area Total Av. Delay Max. Back of Leaving Turners In Oversat Oversat Max Item Arriving (pcu) Unopposed Intergreen Delay Uniform Delay Per PCU Uniform (pcu) Gaps (pcu) Delay Queue Queue (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr) Delay (pcuHr) (s/pcu) Queue (pcu) (pcuHr) (pcu) (pcu) (pcuHr)
Network: Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester Road - - 329 0 49 18.2 95.0 1.2 114.4 - - - - Proposed Signalised Junction
Lymington Bottom Road - A31 Winchester - - 329 0 49 18.2 95.0 1.2 114.4 - - - - Road Junction
1/1 733 733 - - - 1.7 0.6 - 2.4 11.6 11.8 0.6 12.4
2/1 427 389 - - - 8.2 23.5 - 31.7 267.2 16.4 23.5 39.9
3/1+3/2 1086 1033 329 0 49 8.3 70.9 1.2 80.4 266.5 31.0 70.9 101.9
4/1 772 772 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5/1 573 573 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6/1 811 811 - - - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): -26.8 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 114.44 Cycle Time (s): 120 PRC Over All Lanes (%): -26.8 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 114.44
Contact
RPS Consulting Services Ltd 260 Park Avenue Aztec West Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4SY T: +44(0) 1454 853 000 [email protected]
www.rpsgroup.com Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Appendix 6 – Facilities Plan
Redrow Homes October 19 38
© 2019 RPS Group Notes 1. This drawing has been prepared in accordance with the scope of RPS’s appointment with its client and is subject to the terms and conditions of that appointment. RPS accepts no liability for any use of this ± document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it Primary Schools was prepared and provided. 1 Four Marks CofE Primary School 2. If received electronically it is the recipients responsibility to print to 2 Medstead CofE Primary School correct scale. Only written dimensions should be used. Food 3 Tesco Express 4 Clementines Fruit & Veg Legend 5 Marks & Spencers Four Marks BP 6 The Co-operative Four Marks Mansfield Park Site Location 7 Arrows Woodlea Park 33 42 43 44 45 55 8 Naked Grape 2 High street 9 Loaf Bakery 18 49 50 54 69 10 Reads Butchers 64 65 Industrial Park Leisure 70 71 72 73 11 Nosh Café LAA/FM-013 Site 12 Wild Bean Café 13 The Tall Ship Dukes Mill Gladman Site 14 The Saffron 15 Travelodge Alton Four Marks 51 52 56 61 5 Minutes 16 China Garden Four Marks 17 Four Marks Golf Club 10 Minutes 18 Four Marks Martial Arts Centre 30 40 57 62 63 Retail 19 Owens Cycles 15 Minutes 20 Alton Sports 21 TDS Saddlers 20 Minutes 22 UK Fireworks Ltd 23 Matheson Optometrists 25 Minutes 24 St. Michael's Hospice 25 Village Flowers Lymington Barn Primary Schools 26 First Impression Beauty 27 Mountjoy 4 10 11 21 Food 28 Absolute Healthcare 29 Cato Computers 29 32 46 47 Leisure 30 James Schryver Furniture Health 48 53 58 59 31 Boundaries Surgery Retail 60 31 32 Mansfield Park Surgery 66 67 68 6 33 Shine Dental Clinic (G Health 34 Four Marks Pharmacy Community Community 35 Four Mark Village Hall 28 3 5 7 8 9 27 36 Good Shepherd CofE Church 22 38 37 Jubille Church Four Marks and Medstead 12 13 14 16 19 Workplaces 38 The Gospel Hall 39 Workplaces 37 20 23 24 25 26 (! Public Transport 39 PainSmith Solicitors 75 40 Triple fff Brewing Company 34 41 41 Vincent Hire 42 Crop Advisors 15 43 Gardner Denver 44 Hampshire Arable Systems 35 45 Silchester Control Systems 36 46 Cutting Edge Productions 47 T I S Services 48 Duncan Yatching 49 Salt Flats Clothing 50 Arrowsmith Engineering & Consultants 74 51 Southern Trailers 52 Universal Marking Systems 17 53 Lymington Barn 54 Wooldea Park 55 Mansfield Park 56 Dukes Mill 57 Four Marks 58 DeneTech 59 Frederick Adams 60 WKL Building Supplies 61 Bill Rawles Classic Cars 62 Focus Stoves 1 63 Metham Aviation 64 Symbiosis Search 65 Labcell 66 IQ Finance 67 Blue Star Leasing 68 Reactive Claims 69 Mavala 70 Mel Group 71 CCC Logistics 72 Dot 4 Distirutors 73 HBS Electronics Public Transport 74 Lymington Bottom Bus Stop 75 Travelodge Bus Stop © Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2019 License number 0100031673,10001998,100048492. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2019.
Client Redrow Homes 0500250 m Status Drawn By PM/Checked By Rev DescriptionBy CB Date DRAFT BG AS 20 Western Avenue, Milton Park, Project Lymington Farm, Medstead Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 4SH Figure Number Rev T: +44(0)1235 821 888 Project Number Scale @ A3 Date Created E: [email protected] 2 - Title Facility Location Plan and Isochrone from Site Location JNY10029 1:20,000 MAR 2019 rpsgroup.com O:\_TRANSPORT\JNY10029\Tech\Drawings\10029-0009-02.mxd Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Appendix 7 – Lymington Barn Retail Commitment Plan
Redrow Homes October 19 39
Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Appendix 8 – Lymington Barn Planned Investment Plan
Redrow Homes October 19 40
Key www.quattrodesign.co.uk
Site Boundary (assumed location) NOTES This drawing is the copyright of Quattro Design Architects Ltd and should not be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission . Only figured dimensions to be used for construction . Shared Surface (25 no. Parking Spaces) Check all dimensions on site. Any discrepancies are to be reported to the Architect as soon as possible .
REVISIONS REV: DATE - DRAWN - CHECKED: NOTES
-: 22.06.18 - LM - RS: Proposed Phase 1 Scheme Drawing created.
Rev A; 26.09.18 - RS - RS: Scheme amended in line with client email request Existing Treeline dated 10.09.18.
Proposed Planting
Proposed Trees
Gym approximate total area @375sqm Potential retail/ commercial units Approximate total area @320sqm (excluding stair core)
DRAWING TITLE
Feasibility Site Layout Ground Floor
PROJECT
Lymington Barn, Medstead
CLIENT
Mr. N. Read
SCALE 1:500@A3 DATE June 2018
DRAWING NO. REV 350/4997-SK- A Lymington Barn 01 Matthews Warehouse, High Orchard Street Gloucester Quays, GL2 5QY T: (01452) 424234 PRELIMINARY Large Development Sites Representation Land West of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead
Appendix 9 – West of England Joint Spatial Plan Let- ter, September 2019
Redrow Homes October 19 41
Examination of the West of England Joint Spatial Plan
Inspectors: Malcolm Rivett BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI and Steven Lee BA (Hons) MA MRTPI
Programme Officer: Helen Wilson
Lisa Bartlett Senior Responsible Owner JSP 11 September 2019
Dear Ms Bartlett
West of England Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) Examination
1. Further to our letter of 1 August 2019 we write to set out in more detail our fundamental concerns about the soundness of the West of England Joint Spatial Plan (JSP). However, we are not seeking to comment on all the issues discussed at the hearings held so far and instead focus on the key points which have led us to conclude that there are very substantial soundness problems with the plan.
2. At the outset we wish to note that we recognise the enormous amount of effort and resources the Councils have dedicated to preparing the plan and their commendable commitment to joint working. On our part we have always sought to examine the plan in a positive and pragmatic way. However, ultimately we must examine its soundness against the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, most particularly to ensure that the JSP is both justified and effective. The Councils will, of course, be aware that many of the points we raise in this letter are ones which have also been made, albeit in numerous slightly different ways, by examination participants (including local residents, parish councils, community groups and the development industry) at Regulation 19 consultation stage, in response to the consultation on additional evidence prepared during the examination, in hearing statements and at the hearings themselves.
The Spatial Strategy and Selection of Strategic Development Locations
3. The Councils confirmed at the hearings that the proposed 12 strategic development locations (SDLs) are an integral part of the plan’s spatial strategy and that there is no overarching spatial strategy which sits above the SDLs and has guided their selection. On this basis it is therefore clearly a pre-requisite of the justification and soundness of the JSP’s spatial strategy that the SDLs have been selected against reasonable alternatives on a robust, consistent and objective basis.
4. Moreover, although policy 1 details a housing supply figure for each district, these are simply a ‘bottom-up’ summation of (i) existing local plan commitments, (ii) assumptions on ‘urban living’ and non-strategic growth and (iii) anticipated delivery at each of the relevant SDLs. Furthermore, it was confirmed at the hearings that, in terms of the 17,000 or so dwellings
1
identified as needed to be provided for at SDLs, no requirement figures (either precise or indicative) have been considered or identified for any individual settlements, for each local authority area or for any other sub- area of the West of England as a whole. Thus, we understand that the SDLs were selected on the basic presumption that any candidate SDL anywhere within the plan area could meet the plan area’s housing needs just as well as any other candidate.
5. However, given that the plan area comprises two housing market areas (Wider Bristol and Bath) and that the Councils and examination participants have referred to various local housing needs (eg Bristol City’s ‘unmet’ needs and those of Weston-Super-Mare and north South Gloucestershire), we are not persuaded that this approach is justified. For example, in the light of such local housing needs, we do not find it credible that housing at Charfield or Buckover SDLs, in the north of South Gloucestershire, could meet the same needs as would be provided for some 25 miles or so away by Churchill or Banwell SDLs in the south of North Somerset; or indeed that any of these four SDLs would meet the same needs likely to be provided for by Brislington or Whitchurch SDLs on the edge of the Bristol built-up area.
6. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the above, the specific reasons given for selecting the chosen SDLs and rejecting other reasonable alternatives (most comprehensively set out in Appendix 5 of the Consolidated Sustainability Appraisal (WED009), prepared in response to our initial letters) show that housing needs below the plan area-wide level were in fact instrumental in selecting at least some of the SDLs. For example, it is indicated that Charfield and Buckover SDLs were selected, in part, because they would help to meet the housing needs of the north of South Gloucestershire. Consequently, by definition, the vast majority of candidate SDLs, which are not in this part of the plan area, could not hope to be selected in the light of this factor. Whilst meeting the housing needs of the north of South Gloucestershire could, in principle, be a justifiable aim of the plan, as far as we can tell it has never been clearly cited as such, other than in connection with the reasons given for selecting or rejecting individual candidate SDLs within South Gloucestershire. Nor has this aim itself been appraised through SA or tested against possible alternatives. In a similar vein many of the other reasons given for the selection or rejection of SDLs have not been clearly stated to be aims or objectives of the plan, nor robustly appraised against alternative approaches.
7. We appreciate that some of the reasons given for the selection/rejection of candidate SDLs match or align with the eight principles set out in paragraph 4.2 of Topic Paper 2 (SD7A) – eg directing housing growth away from the north east of Bristol towards the south east or embracing housing delivery models such as garden villages. At the hearings the Councils variously and confusingly stated that these principles (a) had informed the selection of SDLs, (b) merely describe the selected SDLs, and (c) both of these. Furthermore, we note that there is no reference to these principles in The Formulation of the Emerging Spatial Strategy document (SD7C) of November 2016, which we understand was the first published document in which selected SDLs were identified. Indeed, as we understand it, these principles were not first published until a year or so later in the first version of Topic Paper 2 (SD7B) at the time of the Regulation 19 consultation on the
2
plan. Consequently, we cannot be certain what the selection process actually entailed.
8. Moreover, even if it could be demonstrated that these principles did form the basis on which the selection/rejection of SDLs was undertaken (a) there is no priority or sequential approach to them (other than for ‘urban living’) so it is unclear how SDLs have been selected against them when most candidates are likely to meet at least one of the principles; (b) there is no comprehensive and consistent assessment of candidate SDLs against the principles; and (c) as far as we can tell, no appraisal or testing against possible alternatives has been undertaken of the principles themselves. Additionally, we remain to be convinced that, in terms of assumed mitigation measures (eg transport), candidate SDLs have been appraised on a consistent basis and that realistic reasonable alternatives for the size/configuration of SDLs have been considered.
9. The problems caused by the absence of a spatial strategy which is not based on specific SDLs are particularly highlighted in relation to the Green Belt, the protection of which is a strong element of national policy. The plan contends that exceptional circumstances exist to remove land from the Green Belt for five of the proposed SDLs (totalling around 8,550 dwellings, taking account of anticipated delivery after the current plan period). However, on the stated basis that any candidate SDL could meet the plan area’s housing needs just as well as any other, there would, on the face of it, be little justification to select SDLs in land currently designated as Green Belt when there are reasonable alternatives outside the Green Belt. Nonetheless, we recognise that early Sustainability Appraisal work identified that a strategy of entirely avoiding the Green Belt would be likely to result in unsustainable patterns of development. However, in the absence of any follow-up evidence to demonstrate broadly how much housing development would be appropriate both outside and within the Green Belt to ensure the plan provides a sustainable pattern of development, we cannot see how exceptional circumstances to remove land from the Green Belt for five SDLs and around 8,550 dwellings can be demonstrated. If we were to accept that there are, in principle, exceptional circumstances to remove land from the Green Belt there is no clear evidence as to why there should not be considerably more or considerably less housing on land currently in the Green Belt as advocated by many examination participants.
10. We appreciate that Topic Paper 2 explains that SDLs in the Green Belt were selected only after all candidate SDLs outside of this designation, deemed to be sustainable, suitable and deliverable, had been identified. This approach could potentially be justified if it was not for the fact that the plan identifies as a contingency location (to be brought forward at a later date if needed) land at east Clevedon which is outside of the Green Belt. We have reached no view on the merits of an SDL at east Clevedon. However, whilst we appreciate that the Councils now wish to modify the plan so as not to make reference to contingency locations, it does not appear to be consistent with the approach detailed in Topic Paper 2 to select SDLs in the Green Belt in preference to east Clevedon.
11. As stated in our previous letter we have not definitively reached the view that any of the individual SDLs proposed in the JSP could not, in principle,
3
form a sound part of a plan for the West of England or for any of the individual local authority areas. However, in the light of the above, we conclude that robust evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the 12 SDLs proposed in the plan have been selected against reasonable alternatives on a robust, consistent and objective basis. Consequently, given that the SDLs are an integral part of the plan’s spatial strategy, we cannot conclude that the spatial strategy is itself sound. Additionally, the absence of a robust SDL selection process or a strategy which is not based on specific SDLs means that there is not a clear basis on which to select alternative/additional SDLs (either in a review of the JSP or in local plans) should this be necessary if one were to “fall away” (eg because of deliverability problems) or if the quantum of development needs were to change over time.
12. We first set out our concerns about the spatial strategy and the SDL selection process in June 2018, a few weeks into the examination. In the spirit of pragmatism and recognising the desirability of getting a sound plan in place, we gave you the opportunity to prepare a considerable amount of further evidence in an attempt to address these concerns. Unfortunately, this has not been successful and for the reasons detailed above our concerns remain and, indeed, have deepened. In the light of this we consider that any further work to simply re-justify the selection of SDLs included in the plan or any change in the way the existing strategy is merely articulated in the JSP, could not now be considered to be anything other than retrospective justification of the plan. Consequently, it would be very unlikely to persuade us that the SDLs, and thus the spatial strategy overall, were selected on a robust, consistent and objective basis.
13. Instead, we believe that it is likely to be most appropriate for the Councils to return to the plan preparation process to formulate a robust, consistent and objective framework against which candidate SDLs can be selected for inclusion in the plan. Whilst it is not the only possible way the problems we have identified could be addressed, this could involve developing, as a first stage, a clear, high-level spatial strategy for the plan area which, not based on specific SDLs, identifies how housing, employment and other development should be broadly distributed. The selection of specific strategic development locations included in the plan would then logically follow on from this. However, it must be recognised that the 12 currently-proposed SDLs might or might not be the ones most appropriate to include in the plan in the light of any such strategy. Moreover, we do not think there is currently the evidence on which we could formulate such a strategy and, in any case it would almost certainly involve key policy decisions which we believe are most appropriately made by the Councils/Combined Authority themselves. This is essentially a plan preparation function and, given that it is fundamental to the plan as a whole, is not one which can be easily carried out during the examination.
Strategic Development Location Policy Requirements
14. Notwithstanding, and separate from, our concerns about the selection of the SDLs included in the plan, we also expressed concern in our first letter at the start of the examination about the plan’s Chapter 4, paragraph 66 statement that the long list of SDL policy requirements (policies 7.1 – 7.12) are a
4
“starting point” and would “evolve”. This is not a basis on which formal development plan policy should be written and adopted because it creates undesirable ambiguity and uncertainty. The Councils’ response at that stage was merely to suggest modification of paragraph 66 to remove the “starting point” and “evolve” references.
15. Since then the SDL policy requirements have, in fact, evolved with a significant number of modifications proposed to them by the Councils during the examination up to this point. And, given the amount of further work necessary to progress many of the SDLs to local plan site allocations, we would be surprised if there were to not be a need for the requirements to evolve further. The situation with regard to the Nailsea SDL, brought to our attention at the hearings, highlights this point: policy 7.7 makes clear that the Nailsea SDL relates to “land to the south west of Nailsea”. However, the Councils indicated that, in the light of responses to the Issues and Options Consultation for the North Somerset Local Plan, they are currently reconsidering the location of the Nailsea SDL. Whilst we reach no conclusions on the relative merits of these two locations, this demonstrates the potential for over-prescriptive policy 7.1 - 7.12 requirements to constrain the ability of local plans to formulate robust site allocation policies for the SDLs.
16. We also recognise that to be acceptable in planning terms the SDLs will need to be supported by infrastructure and comply with various other policy requirements. However, in the light of the above and based on the comments of representors on the requirements detailed in policies 7.1 – 7.12 (as proposed to be modified by the Councils), we consider it likely that we would ultimately conclude that many of these requirements are too specific, and provide insufficient flexibility, to be effective as formal development plan policy in the JSP. This is particularly so in advance of allocation of the sites and when there is, thus, no certainty about their precise location.
17. We do not dispute the Councils’ argument that for the SDLs to be deemed sound evidence is needed to demonstrate that it is realistic that deliverable infrastructure requirements could be brought forward to make the developments acceptable in planning terms. However, the need for such evidence does not then automatically justify as formal planning policies for SDLs (which are not site allocations) specific infrastructure and other detailed requirements.
18. We would not be able to reach final conclusions on these policy requirements in advance of discussing them in detail at hearings. Nonetheless, as a result of the discussions already held on the principle of the SDL policy requirements, we believe it likely that we would ultimately conclude that many of the policy 7.1 – 7.12 requirements would inappropriately constrain the Councils in preparing robust site allocation policies for deliverable housing developments in the subsequent local plans. On this basis they would not be justified or effective.
19. We envisage there are two main possible ways for this problem to be addressed. If the Councils are keen to set out, comprehensively and in detail, specific infrastructure and other requirements for the SDLs which are ultimately included in the JSP, then this is likely to be most justifiably and
5
effectively done in connection with formal allocation of the SDLs. However, if the Councils remain committed to the allocation of the SDLs in the individual authorities’ local plans, then for the JSP to be sound it is likely to be necessary to significantly reduce in number and/or make much more flexible the current requirements set out in policies 7.1 – 7.12. It could also be appropriate to use supporting text (as distinct from formal policy) to indicate the specific issues which are likely to need to be considered in formulating the local plan site allocation policy requirements for the SDLs. The adoption of one approach for some of the SDLs and of the other approach for the remainder, as raised as a possibility at the hearings, would also potentially be feasible.
Non-Strategic Housing Growth
20. Policy 2 provides for non-strategic housing growth to be brought forward through the follow-on local plans. Whilst the policy itself does not indicate the amount of this type of development, Figure 5 (and supporting evidence) is clear that a total of 3,400 dwellings is assumed. However, the written evidence and the responses from the Councils at the hearings do not convincingly explain the derivation of, or justify, the assumed 3,400 dwelling non-strategic housing growth provision.
21. We appreciate that in response to our initial letters the Councils have now considered through the Consolidated Sustainability Appraisal a higher, 5,000 dwelling, non-strategic growth option. Nonetheless, at the hearings the Councils confirmed that the Consolidated Sustainability Appraisal does not set out the reasons for rejection of this reasonable alternative in favour of the JSP strategy. Indeed, in seeking to justify the selection of the JSP strategy against reasonable alternatives, the Consolidated Sustainability Appraisal simply refers the reader back to Topic Paper 2, a document prepared before a number of reasonable alternatives (including the 5,000 dwelling non-strategic growth alternative) had been appraised. Obviously this does not assist in justifying the selected 3,400 figure for non-strategic housing growth.
22. Notwithstanding the above, through the discussions at the hearings it became apparent that there is, in reality, no cap set in the JSP to the amount of non-strategic housing growth which could be allocated in local plans or granted planning permission. Indeed, if other sources of housing supply (commitments, ‘urban living’ and SDLs) were not to deliver as anticipated, increasing the amount of non-strategic housing provision above 3,400 dwellings would seemingly be the easiest way of the Councils ensuring that the overall supply of at least 105,500 homes could be achieved.
23. On the evidence we have read and heard we consider that high levels of dispersed development across the West of England, unguided by any strategy, would not be sustainable. In the light of this (and the potentially un-capped amount of non-strategic housing growth which could come forward) we find it particularly concerning that the JSP does not provide any steer on where non-strategic housing growth should be located or of the housing needs it should be seeking to address, other than the Chapter 3 paragraph 11 reference to enabling “local communities to thrive”. Moreover, the fact that it is assumed that non-strategic housing growth could take
6
place on land to be removed from the Green Belt through local plans (and we understand that there are such proposals in emerging local plans) is of particular concern. We do not have the evidence to determine whether or not exceptional circumstances exist to remove land from the Green Belt for any particular non-strategic housing growth development site. Nonetheless, the JSP in effect allowing the removal of land from the Green Belt through local plans for non-strategic housing growth (particularly when there is no limit to the amount of such release) does not sit comfortably with the Councils’ contention that SDLs have only been proposed in the Green Belt after all other sustainable alternatives for housing have been exhausted.
24. In the light of the above we consider that to be sound the plan should set out a clear policy steer on the amount and broad location of housing needs to be provided for by non-strategic housing growth. However, we anticipate that such policy would require the preparation of a considerable amount of justifying evidence and, potentially, assessment against reasonable alternatives. In the absence of this we are not in a position to advise on the content of this policy.
Employment Land Requirements
25. Paragraph 5 of Chapter 1 of the JSP makes clear that the scope of the plan includes identifying the amount of employment land needed across the West of England and the most appropriate spatial strategy for this growth. This is intended to be addressed through JSP policy 4, which supports the delivery of 82,500 additional jobs across the plan period, primarily at 13 existing key strategic employment locations. Additional employment land is also identified at most of the SDLs. Clearly, given that we have not yet held a hearing session on policy 4, we cannot reach any final conclusions on it, including importantly with regard to the justification of the 82,500 additional jobs growth figure. Nonetheless, the 82,500 figure aside, based on all we have heard and read to date (including the Councils’ Policy 4 (Matter 5) hearing statement) we remain to be convinced that the policy is effective given that it does not detail the amount of employment land to be provided for across the plan area as a whole, at the identified key strategic employment locations or within each district. Indeed, this particular omission seems to conflict with paragraph 5 of Chapter 1 of the plan.
26. In response to concerns set out in our initial letters the Councils have now, through the Consolidated Sustainability Appraisal (CSA), considered higher jobs targets and related alternative distributions of employment land to that set out in policy 4. However, notably there is no appraisal of alternative distributions of employment land to meet the Council’s preferred additional jobs target of 82,500 including, potentially, alternatives to the provision of employment land at SDLs. In the light of this we believe it to be a strong possibility that we would conclude that there is not the evidence to demonstrate that proposed distribution is an appropriate one.
27. Moreover, if we were to conclude that the jobs growth figure should be higher than 82,500, the CSA’s consideration of alternatives strategies for delivering this would then become a key consideration. Whilst we recognise that planning for housing and employment is intrinsically linked, the approach taken in the CSA of appraising together, as single scenarios, higher
7
housing and jobs figures than proposed in the plan, means that it is difficult to assess the extent to which the identified positive and negative sustainability effects arise from the housing or employment elements of each scenario. Furthermore, the seeming assumption in this appraisal that provision for more than 82,500 additional jobs would have to be accompanied by higher housing provision than the JSP requirement figure is contrary to the Councils’ argument presented in respect of the objectively- assessed need for housing. That was that the plan’s housing requirement figure of 102,800 would provide the necessary labour force to accommodate significantly more than 82,500 additional jobs.
28. Furthermore, and fundamentally, we are not convinced that providing for a higher jobs growth figure through employment land allocations at additional SDLs over and above those included in the plan (as is assumed in the Consolidated Sustainability Appraisal) is the only or most obvious reasonable alternative. This is particularly so bearing in mind the evidence which demonstrates that there is already more than sufficient employment land to meet the 82,500 jobs figure. In this context there is no convincing evidence to demonstrate why additional jobs could not be accommodated within, or as expansion of, the 13 existing key strategic employment locations. On the face of it such an approach would be seemingly more sustainable than providing for new employment land on greenfield sites at additional SDLs.
29. In summary, whilst we cannot currently reach final conclusions on it, we foresee a strong possibility of us concluding that there are fundamental soundness problems with policy 4 which would require significant change to the plan. This would be likely to require the preparation of a significant amount of justifying evidence and a more thorough appraisal of realistic, reasonable alternatives.
30. At the July hearings we also discussed in some detail two other specific employment-related issues:
Employment Land Provision within the Green Belt
31. Notwithstanding the plan’s statement at Chapter 4, paragraph 24 that existing employment land is sufficient to deliver both strategic employment needs and the anticipated jobs growth over the plan period, the plan proposes significant new employment land provision at most of the SDLs. This includes on land currently in the Green Belt at Yate (approximately 30ha), Coalpit Heath (up to 5ha) North Keynsham (around 50,000 sq m of employment floorspace) and Whitchurch (quantum to be determined through the local plan). The Councils’ exceptional circumstances justification for the removal of land from the Green Belt for the SDLs relates solely to housing provision and we have seen no written evidence which justifies why there are exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of a significant amount of Green Belt land at these locations to provide for new employment land. Moreover, at the hearings the Councils were unable to provide any meaningful explanation or justification in this particular respect. Whilst we could not reach a final conclusion on this point until we had held hearings in respect of policy 4 and the relevant SDLs, without a clear and convincing exceptional circumstances case being presented, we would be unable to conclude that the employment land elements of these SDLs are sound.
8
Bristol Port and Bristol Airport
32. Policy 4 identifies Bristol Port and Bristol Airport as key strategic infrastructure employment locations and at the hearings we heard, largely undisputed, evidence of their fundamental importance to the economy of the plan area as a whole and the wider region. However, whilst policy 4 states that the Port and Airport (along with the other key strategic employment locations) will ensure the continued economic growth of the West of England, there is no clear indication of how this should be achieved or what it means in terms of the allocation of land.
33. The Councils explained to us that it would be for the local plans to consider the case for the allocation of land (and, if necessary, the removal of land from the Green Belt) to provide for growth at the strategic employment locations. However, it is a stated aim of the JSP to identify the amount of employment land needed and the most appropriate spatial strategy for this growth. Moreover, the Port and Airport are of fundamental and strategic importance to the whole of the West of England and, consequently, any growth at them would also be likely to have implications for the wider employment strategy for the area. In this context we anticipate it very likely that we would ultimately conclude that it is not a justified and effective approach for the plan to delegate, to a subsequent local plan, decisions on the nature, scale and location of growth at the Port and Airport and the existence or otherwise of exceptional circumstances to remove land from the Green Belt in connection with this. Consequently, we envisage it very likely that we would conclude that, for the plan to be sound in respect of the Port and Airport strategic employment locations, decisions on these matters should be addressed in the JSP. It is also the case that a considerable amount of work would be likely to be necessary to prepare the evidence to make justified decisions about the approach to take.
Objectively-Assessed Need for Housing
34. As indicated at the Matter 3a hearing session we would not be in a position to reach a conclusion on whether the contended objectively-assessed need (OAN) for housing for the plan area of 102,800 (as detailed in the Council’s proposed modification to policy 1) is justified until we have held hearings in connection with affordable housing and the employment land requirement. Nonetheless, if we were to conclude that this figure is robust this would not address or ameliorate any of the other problems with the plan we have identified. Alternatively, if we were to conclude that the robust OAN for the West of England is a significantly higher figure (potentially up to the 140,000 dwellings contended by a number of participants to the examination) then clearly a very substantial amount of work to the plan would need to be undertaken to reflect this.
Other Matters
35. The elements of the plan which we have yet to hold hearings on are policy 4 (The Employment Land Requirement) and policies 7.1 – 7.12 (the proposed SDLs) – which we have already touched-on in this letter – and policy 3 (The Affordable Housing Target), policy 5 (Place Shaping Principles) and policy 6 (Strategic Infrastructure Requirements).
9
36. Based on the representations and written evidence, policy 3 and policy 6 are as controversial as any of the other elements of the plan and we note that significant modification of both policies has already been proposed by the Councils. We are unable to comment further at this stage. However, given this context and based on our experience so far with the policies we have fully examined through hearings, we would be surprised if a substantial amount of further evidence work to justify either the policies as currently proposed by the Council or further modifications to them to make them sound were not to prove to be necessary.
37. Moreover, hearing evidence on these other aspects of the plan would not resolve the fundamental soundness problems we have identified as a result of the hearing sessions so far held.
The Way Forward
38. As previously mentioned the focus of this letter is primarily on the key points which have led us to conclude that there are very substantial soundness problems with the plan. Nonetheless, for the reasons detailed above, we consider that an enormous amount of work in relation to these issues alone is needed to produce a plan for the West of England which is likely to be capable of being found sound.
39. Furthermore and crucially, given our findings detailed above on the additional evidence work already prepared during the examination, the production of yet further work which simply seeks to re-justify the JSP as it currently stands, most particularly with regard to the selection of SDLs and the spatial strategy, is unlikely to be successful in achieving a plan we could find sound. Importantly, such an approach would also be likely to lack credibility amongst many examination participants, some of whom have already commented that they consider that the Sustainability Appraisal work undertaken since the plan was submitted for examination has simply sought to retrospectively justify the JSP strategy. Instead, we believe that the Councils need to return to the plan preparation process and, with open minds, reconsider many fundamental elements of the JSP. These include (but are not necessarily limited to): • the overall spatial strategy; • the process and principles by which SDLs are assessed and selected; • the plan’s detailed policy requirements in respect of SDLs and/or potential allocation of some/all SDLs; • the approach to, and policy steer on, the purpose, amount and distribution of non-strategic growth; and • the plan’s proposals for overall employment land provision if, as we believe is likely, we were to conclude that policy 4 is not sound, including proposals for, or the policy steer on, growth at Bristol Port and Bristol Airport if, as we believe is likely, we were to conclude that the plan is not currently sound in these particular respects.
10
40. Additionally, if we were to conclude that the contended OAN of 102,800 is significantly underestimated, there would be a need to provide for a significantly higher objective-assessed need for housing in the plan.
41. Moreover, each of these elements cannot be considered in isolation, as the preferred and justified approach in relation to one is likely to impact on at least some of the others. Furthermore, there would need to be robust justification that there are exceptional circumstances to justify any proposed alterations of the Green Belt boundary for housing or any other purposes. It is also very likely that key policy decisions would need to be taken in respect of most or all of these elements of the plan.
42. Ultimately, we envisage that the work likely to be necessary goes way beyond what could be reasonably addressed by main modifications to the submitted JSP and, in fact, would be tantamount to the preparation of a new plan. The Planning Practice Guidance (both in its current and previous versions) makes clear that where the changes recommended by Inspectors would be so extensive as to require the virtual re-writing of the plan, it is likely to be suggested that the local planning authorities withdraw the plan. We anticipate that the changes necessary would amount to the virtual re- writing of the JSP.
43. The key policy decisions which will need to be made are also ones which are most appropriately considered by the Councils themselves, in consultation with the local community and development interests, as part of plan preparation, rather than in the context of an ongoing examination in which changes to an already submitted local plan can only be made by main modifications recommended by us as Inspectors. Indeed, the changes we envisage are necessary to the JSP are so fundamental that, in effect, the examination would have to be run again. It is likely that the necessary main modifications would result in a radically altered plan which would need to be, in its entirety, the subject of full public consultation. This would then need to be followed by the publication of completely new Matters, Issues and Questions for the examination and written statements would need to be invited and hearings held on all aspects of the altered plan.
44. Furthermore, before this process could even begin, it is likely that further hearings and exploratory meetings would need to be held in order for us to reach definitive views on the soundness of key issues such as the OAN for housing and the jobs growth target and to discuss the exact nature and scope of the substantial amount of further work needed to be undertaken. Given that it has taken 16 months to get the examination to the current point, we envisage it would take at least the same amount of time, and probably considerably longer, to ultimately complete it. Continuing with the examination is unlikely to be an effective and efficient means of achieving a sound plan.
45. At the hearings we heard from a number of examination participants who were already confused by the processes of, and multiple rounds of consultation undertaken in, getting the plan to this stage. This was particularly so given the parallel processes of developing and consulting on the emerging local plans for each authority and the Joint Local Transport Plan 4. Continuing with the examination along the, undesirable, lines
11
detailed above would also be likely to be more complicated in consultation and public participation terms than returning to the plan preparation stage, thus potentially hindering the community’s ability to comment on and influence the plan.
46. Consequently, whilst we recognise that the Councils’ preference might be to continue with the examination if at all possible and, although we will not reach a final decision on the way forward until we have had the opportunity to consider the Councils’ response to this letter, we remain of the view that withdrawal of the plan from examination is likely to be the most appropriate option.
47. In reaching these conclusions we have had due regard to the ambition and admirable commitment to joint working of the Councils. Indeed, we wish to reiterate the important point made in our previous letter that our concerns about the JSP should not, in any way, be interpreted as meaning that we consider the preparation of joint plans or strategic planning across local authority boundaries to be fundamentally problematic. Moreover, the key soundness problems with the plan which we have identified do not intrinsically or fundamentally relate to the fact that the plan is a joint one or a high-level strategic document.
48. As with all local plan examinations we have approached our examination of the JSP with both pragmatism and a recognition of the desirability of getting a sound plan in place as soon as possible. In this regard we advised you of our significant concerns about key elements of the plan at an early stage in the examination and then gave you the opportunity to prepare and consult on a large amount of additional evidence. It is unfortunate that this work, and the discussion at the hearings, have not addressed our concerns. We are also of the view that the far-reaching and fundamental nature of the plan’s soundness problems are such that they could not be appropriately addressed by a commitment to an early review and update of the plan.
49. In our approach to the examination we have given great weight to the guidance to Inspectors on the examination of local plans in Greg Clark’s letter to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate of 21 July 2015 (as recently restated in James Brokenshire’s letter of 18 June 2019). But ultimately we believe that these letters cannot be interpreted as an indication or expectation that a sound plan can be achieved in every local plan examination. Indeed, the recently updated Procedure Guide for Local Plan Examinations makes clear (third bullet point of paragraph 8) that one of the three possible outcomes for an examination is that there are soundness problems with a plan which it is not possible to address by main modifications and that, in advance of a formal recommendation of non- adoption, the Councils would be asked to consider withdrawing the plan.
50. At the hearings we also discussed the relationship between the JSP and the forthcoming Spatial Development Strategy (SDS), which the Mayor for the West of England Combined Authority area has both the power and responsibility to produce. We understand that the precise nature of, and timescale for producing, the SDS is yet to be agreed and that work on the JSP commenced long before this power/responsibility was enacted. Nonetheless, it was explained at the hearings that an SDS for the Combined
12
Authority area of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol and South Gloucestershire is likely to prepared at same time as the statutory five-year review of the JSP, with the reviewed JSP for these three Council areas plus North Somerset remaining in place together with the SDS. On this basis there would be an SDS covering three Council areas, sitting above a JSP for four Council areas (which would need to be in general conformity with the SDS), below which would sit four local plans for each of the Councils which would each need to be consistent with the JSP and (other than in the case of the North Somerset Local Plan) also in general conformity with the SDS.
51. Whilst ultimately this is a matter for the Combined Authority and Councils, it seems to us that the process of preparing and examining this suite of plans and strategies could well be very complex, potentially confusing to the public and unwieldy and would be likely to delay, rather than accelerate, the planning and delivery of new development across the Combined Authority area and North Somerset. With this in mind, now might be an appropriate time for the Councils and Combined Authority to consider whether the currently envisaged approach in respect of the SDS, JSP and local plans continues to be the most appropriate.
52. We recognise that the Councils/Combined Authority may need some time to consider their response to this letter and, therefore, we are setting no deadline for it. However, it would be helpful if you were able to give us a broad indication of the likely timescale for us to receive a full response as soon as possible. We have asked the Programme Officer to post a copy of this letter on the examination website but, as with our previous letter, we are not inviting, nor envisage accepting, comments on it from any other examination participants.
53. Finally, whilst we understand that the Councils and Combined Authority are, understandably, extremely disappointed by our findings, we would like to thank them for their positive approach to, and helpful co-operation and assistance throughout, the examination.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Rivett and Steven Lee
INSPECTORS
13