Appeal by Tesco Stores Ltd Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, the Harrow Way, Basingstoke, RG22 4BF PINS Ref No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appeal by Tesco Stores Ltd Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke, RG22 4BF PINS Ref No. (APP/H1705/A/12/2182975) Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall Highways & Transport Matters January 2013 Atkins Highways & Transportation Woodcote Grove Ashley Road Epsom Surrey KT18 5BW Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 Qualifications & Experience 1-1 Scope of My Involvement & This Proof of Evidence 1-1 Reasons for Refusal 1-3 Structure of Evidence 1-4 2. REASON FOR REFUSAL 3: PART 1 – INSUFFICENT DETAIL REGARDING THE IN-PRINCIPLE PROPOSED HIGHWAYS PLANS 2-1 Policy Context 2-1 Insufficient Detail 2-2 Part 1: Summary 2-4 3. REASON FOR REFUSAL 3: PART 2 – INSUFFICENT DETAIL REGARDING TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 3-1 Best Practice Guidance 3-1 Transport Assessment – Insufficient Detail 3-2 Traffic Data – Insufficient Detail 3-4 Part 2: Summary 3-5 4. REASON FOR REFUSAL 3: PART 3 – DESIGN OF OFF-SITE HIGHWAYS WORKS 4-1 LINSIG Traffic Modelling – General Points 4-1 Highway Safety – General Points 4-1 Design of Off-Site Highways Works – Detailed Considerations 4-3 The Harrow Way / Tesco Site Access 4-3 The A30 Winchester Road / Brighton Hill Retail Park Access / Site Access 4-4 The Proposed Highway Works at The Harrow Way / Lister Road Junction 4-5 The Proposed Highway Works at Brighton Hill Roundabout 4-6 The Proposed Highway Works at the Winchester Road Roundabout 4-9 The Proposed Highway Works On The Harrow Way 4-10 Reason for Refusal 3 Summary 4-11 5. REASON FOR REFUSAL 4: BRIGHTON HILL ROUNDABOUT 5-1 Policy Context 5-1 The Proposed Highway Works at Brighton Hill Roundabout 5-3 Effect on Vulnerable Road Users 5-3 Walk Distances 5-5 Walk Times 5-6 Road Safety Assessment 5-8 ii Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Scott Marshall POI v1.doc Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall Interuption of Traffic 5-10 Reason for Refusal 4 Summary 5-11 6. OTHER RELATED MATTERS 6-1 Agreed Statement on Transport Matters 6-1 Gross Floor Area 6-2 Trip Distribution 6-4 Future Maintenance Liability 6-4 7. CONCLUSIONS 7-1 iii Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Scott Marshall POI v1.doc Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall 1. INTRODUCTION QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE 1.1 My name is Scott Marshall and I am employed as a Managing Consultant within Atkins Highways & Transportation, part of the Atkins Group. I hold a Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Civil Engineering from The University of Liverpool. I am a Chartered Civil Engineer, a Member of The Institution of Civil Engineers and a Member of The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation. 1.2 I have over 12 years of consultancy experience in transport planning, traffic engineering and highway engineering. I currently hold the position of Managing Consultant within the Development & Public Realm Business, which provides consultancy services with respect to all aspects of land development and regeneration. Within this business I lead the Development Planning sector nationally. 1.3 I have extensive experience of preparing Transport Statements, Transport Assessments and Travel Plans and associated development led highway engineering schemes, for a variety of developments throughout the UK. SCOPE OF MY INVOLVEMENT & THIS PROOF OF EVIDENCE 1.4 In November 2012, I was appointed by Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council to represent the Council on transport and highways matters related to the appeal at the proposed development at Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd Site, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke. 1-1 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall 1.5 A planning application (number BDB/75056) was submitted for “Erection of a Class A1 (retail) foodstore with associated car park, landscaping and in-principle proposed off-site highway works.” The application was refused by Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council (hereafter referred to as “the Council”) at Development Control Planning Committee, dated 25th July 2012, and subsequent Refusal Notice, dated 16th August 2012 (Core Document 8.2). This application forms the subject of this appeal. 1.6 I have undertaken a comprehensive site visit for the purposes of the appeal, and thus have a good knowledge of the site and the surrounding transport network. 1.7 I have met with highways officers of the Council and Hampshire County Council (HCC) for the purposes of the appeal. 1.8 I have reviewed the webcast of the Planning Committee meeting to satisfy myself that I could support Members reasons for refusal. My summary notes have been included in Appendix A. 1.9 This Proof of Evidence refers to the appellant’s Transport Assessment (26th August 2011) (Core Document 6.4) prepared for the site, as well as drawings of the in-principle proposed off-site highways works (Core Document 7.5 & Appendix B), prepared by the appellant. It also refers to key HCC letters dated November 2011 and dated 15th May 2012 (Appendix 2 and 3 of Katherine Miles Proof of Evidence) and the Final Draft Agreed Statement on Transport Matters, as to be agreed between the appellant and HCC dated 4th January 2013 (Core Document 9.12). 1-2 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall 1.10 In evaluating the Council’s case I considered three specific aspects of the highways case, namely: - (i) The LinSig traffic modelling that underpins the proposed highway changes as covered by Appendix C; (ii) The road safety aspects of the proposals as covered in by Road Safety Assessment presented in Appendix D; and (iii) The design of the Brighton Hill Roundabout as covered by the technical review presented in Appendix E. REASONS FOR REFUSAL 1.11 Planning permission was refused for five reasons; the first and second reasons were on retail planning grounds and will be covered in the Proof of Evidence presented by Jonathon Baldock. The third and fourth reasons relate to highways matters and are covered by the scope of this Proof of Evidence. The fifth reason relates to the proposed mechanism for securing off-site highways works and will be covered in the Proof of Evidence presented by Katherine Miles, appeal Case Officer. 1.12 I include the relevant reasons for refusal below that will be subsequently covered by my evidence: Reason 3, which states “The in-principle design of the off-site highways works, including site accesses, does not include sufficient detail to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed highway works would adequately mitigate against the significant impact of the proposed development for all highways users. It has also not been demonstrated that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved and that the proposed highway works can be effectively undertaken 1-3 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall within the transport network in such a way as to mitigate the significant impacts of the development. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011; and paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012). Reason 4, which states “It is considered that the proposed development, through the proposed associated highways works at Brighton Hill roundabout, would not adequately cater for the needs of vulnerable road users including pedestrians and cyclists resulting in severance across established movement routes. As such the severance of such routes would add hazards for vulnerable users with the proposed works to the Brighton Hill roundabout resulting in danger, inconvenience, obstruction and interruption of the movement of traffic. The proposed works to the Brighton Hill Roundabout do not provide safe and convenient movement for all potential users nor do they integrate the development into the existing surrounding movement network, contrary to Saved Policies E1 and A2 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).” STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE 1.13 In this Proof of Evidence I present evidence to support reasons for refusal 3 and 4, then provide further material relevant to the Council’s case, before concluding remarks in light of policy. 1.14 In reading reasons for refusal 3 and 4 it should be recognised that there is some overlap between them and accordingly my proof is structured as follows: - (i) Reason for refusal 3: Part 1 – Insufficient Detail regarding the In-Principle Proposed Highway Plans; 1-4 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall (ii) Reason for refusal 3: Part 2 – Insufficient Detail regarding Transport Assessment; (iii) Reason for refusal 3: Part 3 – Design of off-site highways works; (iv) Reason for refusal 4: Brighton Hill Roundabout; (v) Other Relevant Matters; and (vi) Conclusion. 1.15 The section on Reason for refusal 3: Part 1 and Part 2 specifically address Members’ concerns over not having sufficient information and detail upon which to base an informed decision. In Part 3 I will cover reason 3 in much greater depth to demonstrate that Members were justified in their position. 1.16 The section, Reason for refusal 4, will cover those matters not previously covered by Reason for refusal 3. 1.17 I include a final section called Other Relevant Matters that I believe are pertinent to the Appeal and should be drawn to the Inspector’s attention. 1-5 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall 2.