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. REASON FOR REFUSAL 3: PART 1 – INSUFFICENT
DETAIL REGARDING THE IN-PRINCIPLE PROPOSED
HIGHWAYS PLANS
POLICY CONTEXT
2.1 I set out Policy Context here in Part 1 and this applies to all remaining sections
of my proof.
2.2 Reason for refusal 3 states that 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).
2.3 Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011
(Core Document 3.1) states:
“Proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they...do not
result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. All
development proposals should therefore...not generate traffic of a type or
amount inappropriate for roads, properties or settlements in the locality, and
provide safe and convenient access for all potential users, integrating into
existing movement networks and open spaces...”
2.4 Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 (Core
Document 1.1) states:
“All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be
supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and
decisions should take account of whether:
2-1 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up
depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for
major transport infrastructure;
safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and
improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost
effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development
should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual
cumulative impacts of development are severe.”
INSUFFICIENT DETAIL
2.5 The in-principle proposed highways drawings supporting the appeal were
described in the Committee Report as in italics below. These are included in
Appendix B: -
(i) “full signalisation of the existing Brighton Hill roundabout, the provision of
4 lanes through the centre of the existing roundabout island to create a
through-about and widening of the existing circulatory carriageway and
approaches as shown in principle on Drawing No 208084 124 Rev B;
(ii) partial signalisation of the A30 Winchester Road roundabout including the
widening of approaches and increasing the width of the circulatory
carriageway as shown in principle on Drawing No 208084 125;
(iii) signalisation of The Harrow Way/Lister Road junction as show in principle
on Drawing No 208084 118 Rev A;
(iv) improvements along The Harrow Way including the provision of a
segregated shared use footway/cycleway and associated crossings and
2-2 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
the provision of central hatching as shown in principle on Drawings
208084 108 Rev B 1 to 3;
(v) improvement to the A30 Winchester Road/Retail Park signals to increase
the length of the left turn as shown in principle on Drawing No 208084
113 Rev C;
(vi) construction of a new access in the form of a signalised junction to the
proposed development from The Harrow Way as shown in principle on
Drawing 208084 111 Rev C.”
2.6 The fundamental concern is that the drawings were ‘stand alone’ and
unaccompanied by an up-to-date Transport Assessment report. This is covered
specifically in the following section.
2.7 I have scrutinised the plans and make the following observations that are
relevant: -
(i) On some of the drawings there is limited information to assist in
understanding their orientation. There is no north point on Drawing No
208084: 108B (1/2/3); 111C; 118A; 124B. This is a feature of 6 out of 8
of the proposed drawings. The lack of a north point on a drawing does
not assist the viewer to interpret the proposals;
(ii) Many of the title boxes of the drawings are blank or incomplete. Most of
the drawings do not have any drawing status, and do not appear to have
been checked;
(iii) It is not easy to see the differences between existing and proposed
layouts for ease of comparison;
2-3 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
(iv) I have been unable to find a simple overview plan that shows all junctions
in relation to each other;
(v) Road names are not marked; and
(vi) The drawings include limited annotation.
2.8 I will cover specific detail matters drawing by drawing in Reason for refusal 3:
Part 3 later.
PART 1: SUMMARY
2.9 The drawings were unsupported by a Transport Assessment report.
2.10 They were not prepared to a standard that would assist the confidence of
decision maker. This is evidenced on the drawings themselves – by a lack of:
basic detail including annotation; an overview plan; ease of reference between
existing and proposed; and a number of drawings being incomplete.
2-4 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
3. REASON FOR REFUSAL 3: PART 2 – INSUFFICENT
DETAIL REGARDING TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT
BEST PRACTICE GUIDANCE
3.1 A development of this scale and land-use requires a Transport Assessment and
this is the case for food retail, with a floor area greater than 800m2. The
overarching guidance that covers this assessment is covered by the Department
for Communities and Local Government and Department for Transport
“Guidance on Transport Assessment” published in March 2007 (relevant extracts
have been included in Appendix F). Hereafter, this is referred to as “Guidance
on Transport Assessment”. A Transport Assessment report is often referred to
as a TA.
3.2 Section 1.2 in Guidance on Transport Assessment states that: “A TA is a
comprehensive and systematic process that sets out transport issues relating to
a proposed development. It identifies what measures will be taken to deal with
the anticipated transport impacts of the scheme and to improve accessibility and
safety of all modes of travel, particularly for alternatives to the private car such
as walking, cycling and public transport.”
3.3 Figures 4.1 and 4.2 and Section 4.4 of this guidance demonstrate the iterative
process of the preparation of a Transport Assessment report. It should be noted
that it is common practice for a Transport Assessment Addendum, or Revised
Transport Assessment, to be provided following changes in the assessment
process. I refer to this as final Transport Assessment as in Figure 4.1.
3-1 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT – INSUFFICIENT DETAIL
3.4 An original Transport Assessment report dated 26th August 2011 supported the
application. This was superseded when HCC wrote their letter to the Council in
November 2011, advising that they were unable to support the highway
proposals included within it.
3.5 Following this I understand that additional highway analysis work was
undertaken by Waterman Boreham, in conjunction with HCC, to agree highway
proposals that would mitigate for the forecast development traffic arising from the
development. The result of this work was an entirely new set of proposed
highway drawings submitted by the applicant in support of their application, that
accompanied the Committee Report, and were supported by HCC’s 15th May
2012 letter. These proposals were significantly different to the original
proposals.
3.6 I have been unable to find a final Transport Assessment report, and I am advised
that this was not provided to HCC and/or the Council during the course of the
application. It is my considered opinion that this constitutes a significant
omission on the appellants behalf. From my review of material and
correspondence I consider that this should have been provided in April or May
2012, which was the time when HCC and Waterman Boreham were concluding
highways matters. In my opinion Members were therefore correct in stating at
the 25th July 2012 Committee Meeting that there was not a robust report on
highways matters before the Committee. In my opinion the absence of a final
Transport Assessment report makes the development proposals non-compliant
with the requirements of NPPF.
3-2 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
3.7 In my opinion the final Transport Assessment report should have been prepared
and submitted to provide the following: -
(i) A multi-modal transport assessment based on person trip generation,
rather than vehicular trip generation alone. This should have quantified
all users by mode, existing and proposed, and assessed forecast
impacts;
(ii) Final agreed parking provision disaggregated by user (car user, Disabled
car user, Parent & Child car user, motorcycle, cycle) and other material
considerations within the site, especially servicing and home delivery
(dot.com). This would reflect the latest internal site layout 6459_P501
Rev B and any changes agreed since that drawing revision;
(iii) A comprehensive description of the reasons why HCC could not support
the original TA (as outlined in their November 2011 letter) and how their
concerns were overcome (as outlined in their May 2012 letter);
(iv) A description of why the Viables roundabout and Lister Road / Wella
Road junction originally needed to be changed, but no longer require
improvement as part of the latest set of proposals;
(v) Comparable summary tables that would have enabled readers to clearly
distinguish between the existing and forecast junction performance. This
would have helped decision makers, because this fundamental summary
information was entirely absent prior to Committee,.
(vi) Clearly show the changes that are to be introduced to the highway
network in plan form – as described in Part 1;
(vii) Include specific assessment and commentary by mode in the later
section(s) of the report, comparing existing Personal Injury Accident data
3-3 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
with potential change in safety performance due to the proposed highway
changes. Such an assessment would also normally be supported by a
Road Safety Audit (covered later); and
(viii) Provide clarity on the Gross Floor Area of the development (see Other
Relevant Matters).
TRAFFIC DATA – INSUFFICIENT DETAIL
3.8 The traffic data that the original Transport Assessment was based upon was
collected on Friday 7th and Saturday 8th November 2008. According to Section
4.18 of Guidance on Transport Assessment “The assessment should include
recent counts (normally surveyed within the last three years) for peak period
turning movements at critical junctions.”
3.9 The manual classified turning count data was older than 3 years.
3.10 Section 4.19 of Guidance on Transport Assessment states that traffic data
should be collected in neutral months and avoid seasonal variations, with neutral
months being April, May, June, September and October. It should be noted that
neither the November 2008 traffic data or the “infill” data (March 2011) was
collected in a neutral month. I consider that data should have been collected in
a neutral month, given the significant scale of this development.
3.11 The traffic data collected for the highway network would have included for
cyclists, but no use has been made of this baseline information on cyclists.
3.12 Apart from some pedestrian count data collected specifically at Brighton Hill
Roundabout in February 2012 (Appendix G), I can find no information that
covers the baseline pedestrian flow data.
3-4 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
PART 2: SUMMARY
3.13 I consider that the following are relevant summary points supporting the reasons
for refusal: -
(i) The failure of the appellant to provide a final multi-modal Transport
Assessment report is a significant omission – a fact that sufficient detail
has not been provided;
(ii) The lack of this report, supporting the proposed in-principle highway
changes, the appellant has not demonstrated that the proposals are
robust, or safe, or convenient, or suitable to provide access for all future
users by each mode of transport;
(iii) Pedestrians and cyclists have not been adequately considered in existing
and future scenarios.
3-5 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
4. REASON FOR REFUSAL 3: PART 3 – DESIGN OF OFF-
SITE HIGHWAYS WORKS
LINSIG TRAFFIC MODELLING – GENERAL POINTS
4.1 LinSig is a traffic modelling software tool that is used in both the design process
for new junctions and assessment of the performance of existing junctions. It
has been used by the appellant’s consultant to develop all in-principle off-site
highways works required to mitigate the traffic impact of the development.
4.2 There are errors in the traffic modelling work and there are some significant
differences between what has been modelled in LinSig and presented on the
drawings. These errors suggest that the assessment work has both
overestimated and underestimated future junction performance. The Technical
Note in Appendix C provides detail and plan references.
HIGHWAY SAFETY – GENERAL POINTS
4.3 Highway safety features in both reasons for refusal. In addition to this local
residents raised concerns over highway safety, including a local Head teacher,
during consultation.
4.4 Guidance on Transport Assessment Section 4.25 states that: “Local authorities
should take account of the likely effect on road safety of any modification, and
should require road safety audits where appropriate.”
4.5 Further Guidance on Transport Assessment Section 4.93 states that: “If the
mitigation measures require physical improvements to the highway network, the
developer should ensure that, in any design of mitigation works, appropriate
4-1 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
design guides and parameters are used. Road Safety Audits may be required for
any development-related highway works and, when produced, should be
conducted in compliance with the relevant standards.”
4.6 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) at Volume 5 Section 2 Part 2
(HD19/03) states in Section 2.21 that: “Stage 1 Road Safety Audits will be
undertaken at the completion of preliminary design.....and for development-led
Highway Improvement Schemes before planning consent where possible.”
4.7 HCC’s Practice Note: “Offsite Highway Works Carried Out By Developers On
Behalf Of The Highway Authority” Fourth Edition, Revised February 2010, in
Section 2.2(c), and Appendix 11, requires that “All schemes are subject to a full
highway safety audit procedure; i.e. Preliminary, Detail...”
4.8 HCC’s Practice Note: Section 2.2(d) states: “All schemes shall be subject to a
Non Motorised User Context Assessment in accordance with HD 42 and as
described in Appendix 13. The aim of this assessment is to review the existing
provision for Non Motorised Users (NMUs) and identify opportunities to improve
conditions for pedestrians, mobility impaired, cyclists and where appropriate,
equestrians. This assessment should be carried out during the initial planning
stage for the offsite highway works and supplied as part of the Preliminary
Design Check.”
4.9 In considering the above, the scale of the development and the scale of the
mitigation proposals I consider that the lack of Stage 1 Road Safety Audits are a
significant omission. The appellant, in not undertaking a Stage 1 Road Safety
Audit, has left a greater degree of uncertainty over the mitigations proposals by
not proactively undertaking this at an earlier stage. It is therefore evident that
4-2 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
the appellant has not demonstrated that the proposals are safe or otherwise for
any user.
DESIGN OF OFF-SITE HIGHWAYS WORKS – DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS
4.10 I now review the detail of each proposed in-principle highway drawing in turn
with my own conclusions. I draw on the Atkins’ Technical Notes on LinSig
junction assessment (Appendix C) and Road Safety Assessment (Appendix D).
THE HARROW WAY / TESCO SITE ACCESS
4.11 Reference should be made to Drawing No 208084 111C & 108B (1) in Appendix
B.
4.12 Examination of the LinSig model indicates that the capacity of the right turn for
vehicles exiting the site is likely to overestimate its capacity as it has been
modelled in LinSig as a full lane (with a default ‘storage’ of 60 Passenger Car
Units (PCU)) where the drawing suggests a short lane with a capacity of 7
PCUs.
4.13 The Road Safety Assessment (Appendix D: Location E) has identified the
following safety related issues: -
(i) The property “Redruth” is prejudiced by the proposed changes. Given
the proximity to the junction, stop line and island, the design of the
junction may not be suitable and may increase the risk of collision for
drivers turning right out of that property.
(ii) A shared use footway/cycleway should have an effective width of 3
metres – it should be free from obstructions such as signal/sign posts and
street lighting poles. The shared way appears to be 3 metres wide but I
4-3 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
consider that there will be poles and/or street lighting that will constrain
this effective width.
THE A30 WINCHESTER ROAD / BRIGHTON HILL RETAIL PARK ACCESS /
SITE ACCESS
4.14 Reference should be made to Drawing No 208084 113C.
4.15 Examination of the LinSig model has indicated that: -
(i) The right turn lane of the A30 Winchester Road eastbound arm has been
allocated a default storage of 60 PCUs, although the drawing provided
indicates that only 16 PCUs can be stored in this lane. This
overestimates capacity in this location;
(ii) Both egress lanes from the Brighton Hill Retail Park access are allocated
a default storage of 60 PCUs each lane, although there is only
approximately 6 PCUs of separate provision. This significantly
overestimates capacity in this location.
4.16 The Road Safety Assessment (Location B) identified the following safety issues:
(i) The proposed layout does not prohibit vehicles wishing to turn right into
the store from Brighton Hill Retail Park. Vehicles can then exit the car
park to the Harrow Way. There is a risk that vehicles turn right and if they
do there will be a conflict with vehicles entering from the A30 Winchester
Road, pedestrians walking to and from the retail park and vehicles
prohibited from exiting the retail park (Appendix J); and
(ii) There is no provision for cyclists to exit via the A30 Winchester Road
from the proposed store. Cyclists may decide to travel against the flow of
4-4 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
traffic, which could result in collisions between cyclists and pedestrians or
traffic.
THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY WORKS AT THE HARROW WAY / LISTER
ROAD JUNCTION
4.17 Reference should be made to Drawing No 208084 118A and 108B (2).
4.18 Examination of the LinSig model has indicated that: -
(i) The time required for pedestrians to cross the proposed pedestrian
crossings has been calculated using a rate of 1.2 metres per second (the
Department for Transport: Puffin Crossings Good Practice Guide –
Release 1 (2006) section 4.7 on page 16 identifies that the average
walking speed of 85 percent of pedestrians is 1.2 metres per second or
greater). Table 2.1 below compares the time allocated in the LinSig
model and the time required to cross the crossings.
Table 2.1 – Crossing times at The Harrow Way / Lister Road junction
Time allocated in Required time
LinSig model (seconds)
(seconds)
Arm 1 The Harrow Way Westbound 6 9
Arm 2 The Harrow Way Eastbound 5 8
Arm 3 Lister Road 9 13
Table 2.1 shows a significant shortfall between the allocated and required
crossing times which would need to be addressed by reducing the
4-5 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
amount of ‘green signal time’ allocated to vehicles. Accordingly the
forecast junction performance has been overestimated.
(ii) There is an overly long wait time for those pedestrians at the junction,
with pedestrians only able to cross during an “all red” stage, which occurs
once during a 240 second cycle (4 minutes). In my opinion this would
encourage pedestrians to cross when the ‘red man’ is displayed when it
is not safe to do so.
4.19 The Road Safety Assessment (Location F) has identified safety related issues: -
(i) There is a lack of detail, such as poles, lighting columns, push buttons,
signal heads and signing (particularly for cyclists) and it is unclear
whether 3m effective clear width would be provided for the shared
footway/cycleway, particularly at the easternmost crossing of the junction;
and
(ii) No advance stop lines for cyclists are shown.
THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY WORKS AT BRIGHTON HILL ROUNDABOUT
4.20 Reference should be made to drawings reference 124B.
4.21 General observations: -
(i) It is proposed to significantly increase the width of the circulatory
carriageway prior to Western Way. This requires reducing the grass
verge and the introduction of a new footway adjacent to third party land.
The proposed footway is narrower than the existing footway of 2 metres.
I have measured clockwise the proposed dimensions as 1.6 metres and
1.7 metres respectively at the two pinch points that can be observed on
4-6 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
the drawing. To replicate a like-for-like footway it would be necessary to
acquire third party land or redesign the junction. It is unclear whether the
effective width would be further constrained by signage, lighting and/or
traffic signal pole equipment. The number of pedestrians using this
footway currently, or in the future has not been recorded or predicted by
the appellant.
(ii) There is an unexplained loss of footway continuity on the plan at the
south eastern and north eastern subway.
4.22 Examination of the LinSig model and drawings show the following
inconsistencies:
Western Way – Entering roundabout
4.23 The nose of the splitter island on the Winchester Road egress will obstruct the
path of vehicles entering the junction on Western Way attempting to make a
manoeuvre beyond the Winchester Road turn;
4.24 The allocated capacity of the ‘short lane’ on the offside is 10 PCU. This does not
appear to have been shown on the drawing as there is no sign of tapering over
the 50 metres shown, suggesting that capacity is underestimated; and
4.25 A pedestrian crossing on this arm is shown on the drawing, but has not been
modelled in LinSig. On the understanding that the crossing would be provided
then the capacity of the junction is currently overestimated.
4-7 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
The Harrow Way
4.26 On the circulatory carriageway, an allocated radius of 10 metres has been given
to the left turning lane, whilst measurement suggests that the left radius is 20
metres. .
4.27 On the circulatory carriageway, the remaining lanes have been allocated a
radius of 20 metres. The drawing suggests that the carriageway is broadly
straight and therefore an ‘infinite’ radius would be more appropriate.
Brighton Way
4.28 Additional pedestrian crossings have been modelled on the carriageway in
LinSig but these have not been shown on the drawing. It is unclear why these
have been modelled because they are not shown on this drawing.
A30 Winchester Road (West)
4.29 The nearside lane on the circulatory carriageway should be a ‘short lane’ with a
circulatory capacity of 3 PCUs. This is modelled as a long lane with a capacity
of 60 PCUs. This overestimates available capacity if demand for use of that lane
is greater than 3 PCU.
Winchester Road (Old)
4.30 The lane that exits the circulatory carriageway at Winchester Road is not
signalised within the LinSig model. A crossing is shown on the drawing that
would indicate that the model should include this – without the crossing this
would significantly overestimate traffic capacity.
4.31 The Road Safety Assessment is covered in Section 5.
4-8 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY WORKS AT THE WINCHESTER ROAD
ROUNDABOUT
4.32 Reference should be made to Drawing No 208084 125.
Winchester Road (East)
4.33 It would appear that there is a forecast queue in this location in future year 2017
PM peak period 1700-1800 hours of 13.9 PCUs. The other arms of the junction
are forecast to operate either close to capacity or with significant residual
capacity in the PM peak. The reason for this is not clear when capacity could be
better balanced to reduce forecast queuing on this arm.
Ringway South
4.34 The twin left turn lanes have been allocated an infinite radius in LinSig, but the
radius has been measured as 45 metres. I consider that this will overestimate
capacity.
Ringway West
4.35 The LinSig assessment has measured the nearside lane entering the
roundabout as a ‘short lane’ with capacity of 5 PCUs. It appears to be a ‘full lane’
in the drawing. I consider that this will underestimate capacity.
4.36 The Road Safety Assessment (Location C) established a number of safety
issues: -
(i) The number of lanes on the circulatory carriageway on certain sections is
being increased from 2 to 3, which in my opinion results in narrower
lanes. This may present increased side swipe accidents particularly for
4-9 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
HGV’s and shunts due to those drivers seeking to avoid a side swipe;
and
(ii) Approach speeds may increase on Ringway West and Ringway South
approach arms to the roundabout as a result of the proposals. This could
result in a vehicle losing control on these entry arms. In my opinion the
situation is more complicated on the Ringway South approach because of
the nearside lane is initially formed as a continuation of Wella Road.
There is increased risk of conflict between weaving traffic in this short
section with higher approach traffic speeds. The increased risk of conflict
would be due to greater difficulty in judging speed of other vehicles in this
section of highway.
THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY WORKS ON THE HARROW WAY
4.37 References should be made to Drawing No 208084 108B (1), (2) & (3).
4.38 The section of The Harrow Way at its junction with Cumberland Avenue is
missing from the plans.
4.39 There is no commentary to explain how the shared cycleway is integrated into
the proposed store’s new access to facilitate pedestrians and cyclists and
encourage more use of these modes to travel to the proposed new foodstore.
4.40 The Road Safety Assessment (Location D & G) has highlighted some areas of
concern over the suitability of the footway/cycleway: -
(i) The potential conflict between signal, or lighting poles, and cyclists;
4-10 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
(ii) The level differences at the rear of the shared way would present a
hazard particularly for cyclists approaching each other and manoeuvring
to avoid collision, particularly at night and in inclement conditions; and
(iii) No advance stop lines for cyclists are shown.
REASON FOR REFUSAL 3 SUMMARY
4.41 Part 1 and Part 2 confirmed that insufficient detail had been provided and this is
further supported by my conclusions regarding Part 3.
4.42 The most significant omission is the lack of a final Transport Assessment report
that covers all modes of highway user. The proposed junctions should be
supported by this report.
4.43 I have identified that there are a significant number of errors in the junction
modelling underpinning the proposed mitigation. There are errors in the LinSig
modelling and inconsistencies between drawings and models. This is sufficient
to cast doubt upon the reliability of the process used to design and assess the
impact of the proposals.
4.44 Therefore, as quoted in reason for refusal 3,: “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.”
4.45 I am satisfied the proposed mitigation does present safety issues and these
would lead to hazards and danger to future road users. In my view the appellant
should have carried out Stage 1 Road Safety Audits to demonstrate that the
4-11 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
proposed mitigation was deliverable, and where unsafe, that it is possible to
provide the alternative within the public highway boundary.
4.46 Therefore, as quoted in reason for refusal 3,: “It has also not been demonstrated
that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved”; and
4.47 Simply by virtue of the above, and the lack of detail supporting the design it is
impossible to state definitively: “that the proposed highway works can be
effectively undertaken within the transport network in such a way as to mitigate
the significant impacts of the development.
4.48 The proposed development does not comply with Saved Policy E1 of the
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and paragraph 32 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).
4-12 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
5. REASON FOR REFUSAL 4: BRIGHTON HILL
ROUNDABOUT
POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 Reason for refusal 4 states that the proposed development would be 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).
5.2 I have already outlined Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough
Local Plan 1996-2011 in Section 2. Saved Policy A2 states:
“The Borough Council will only grant planning permission for developments with
vehicular and pedestrian generation implications where:
i. cycling and walking infrastructure are integrated with the development
and linked with surrounding networks; and
ii. development takes account of the needs of public transport.
Elsewhere within the Plan area opportunities will be examined to improve
provision for pedestrians, cyclists and to encourage the use of public transport
including community transport in areas not served by conventional public
transport...”
5.3 There are several sections within the National Planning Policy Framework that I
consider relevant to reason for refusal 4. Under “Core Planning Principles”,
paragraph 17 states: -
5-1 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
“...planning should...actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest
possible use of public transport, walking and cycling”
5.4 Under “Promoting Sustainable Transport”, I outlined paragraph 32 in Section 2,
while paragraph 35 states:
“...developments should be located and designed where practical to...
give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high
quality public transport facilities;
create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and
cyclists or pedestrians...; and
consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.”
5.5 Under “Requiring good design”, paragraph 58 states:
“Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that
developments...support local facilities and transport networks...”
5.6 I consider that the design of the Brighton Hill through-about does not comply with
the above policies for the reasons listed below: -
(i) It would worsen provision for pedestrians and cyclists;
(ii) It would reduce priority for pedestrians and cyclists; and
(iii) It would not create safe and secure layouts that minimise conflicts
between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians.
5-2 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY WORKS AT BRIGHTON HILL ROUNDABOUT
5.7 This section reviews Brighton Hill Roundabout and I summarise the findings of
the Atkins’ Technical Note presented in Appendix E.
5.8 This section examines reason for refusal 4 and the following specific points
about the proposed highways works in particular:
(i) They would not adequately cater for the needs of vulnerable road users;
(ii) They would add to the hazards and result in severance, danger,
inconvenience, obstruction and interruption of the movement of traffic;
(iii) They do not provide safe and convenient movement for all users; and
(iv) They do not integrate the development into the existing surrounding
network.
5.9 The remainder of this section is set out as follows:
(i) Effect on vulnerable road users; and
(ii) Road Safety Assessment.
EFFECT ON VULNERABLE ROAD USERS
5.10 Vulnerable road users include pedestrians, cyclists, powered two wheelers,
wheelchair users and equestrians.
5.11 At present, vulnerable road users can negotiate the Brighton Hill Roundabout
without interacting with road traffic as the four subways link in the centre of the
roundabout to the surrounding street network as follows: -
(i) The North-eastern subway links the centre of the roundabout to the east
side of the A30 North-eastern arm and North side of The Harrow Way;
5-3 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
(ii) The South-eastern subway links the centre of the roundabout to the south
side of The Harrow Way and east side of Brighton Way;
(iii) The south-western subway links the centre of the roundabout to the south
side of Winchester Road / west side of the A30 south-western arm; and
(iv) The north-western subway links the centre of the roundabout to the north
side of Winchester Road and west side of Western Way.
5.12 As such, there are two approaches to each existing subway, so that there are
eight approaches, or origin/destination points, in total as shown in Table 3.1
below.
Table 3.1 – Pedestrian / cyclist subways at Brighton Hill Roundabout
Subway Approaches to subway Approach reference
From the east side of the A A30 East North-eastern subway From the north side of B The Harrow Way From the south side of C The Harrow Way South-eastern subway From the east side of D Brighton Way From the west side of the E A30 West South-western subway From the south side of F Winchester Road
From the north side of G Winchester Road North-western subway From the west side of H Western Way
5.13 The pedestrian surveys from February 2012 (Appendix G) showed the highest
pedestrian flows are between the North-western and South-eastern subways.
5-4 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
This predominant movement includes pedestrians, including a proportion of
school children, and cyclists.
5.14 The works at Brighton Hill Roundabout create a new dual two lane carriageway
through the centre of the roundabout. As such, the existing segregated
pedestrian and cycle links across the roundabout would be severed.
5.15 The proposal is to remove the two western subways and require the installation
of nine at-grade pedestrian crossings. This will mean that pedestrians will be
required to cross a minimum of four new at grade pedestrian crossings to travel
between the centre of the roundabout and the western side of the roundabout.
WALK DISTANCES
5.16 In order to assess the impact of the proposed layout on pedestrians and cyclists,
the distances between the eight origin/destination points have been measured
for the existing and proposed layouts. The difference in distances is shown in
Table 3.2 below, as extracted from the Technical Note in Appendix E.
Table 3.2 – Existing & proposed walk distances at Brighton Hill Roundabout
Origin / A B C D E F G H Destination A - - -94m -64m +35m +35m +48m +83m B - - -140m -110m -11m -11m +2m +37m C -94m -140m - - +9m -30m -17m +18m D -64m -110m - - +39m 0m +13m +48m E +35m -11m +9m +39m - - -5m -34m F +35m -11m -30m 0 - - +65m +18m G +48m +2m -17m +13m -5m +65m - - H +83m +37m +18m +48m -34m +18m - -
5-5 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
5.17 Table 3.2 shows that walking distances decrease for 10 out of 24 routes,
increase for 13 routes and do not change for one route, while the proposed
layout results in an overall decrease of 132m across the 24 routes.
5.18 However, for the busiest pedestrian route between the North-western and South-
eastern subways (G & H to/from C & D), the proposed layout results in an
increase of 56 metres using the South-eastern subway, based on distance
alone.
WALK TIMES
5.19 The walking times between the origin/destination points have been calculated
based on a walking speed of 1.2 metres per second.
5.20 Walk times for the proposed layout include signal times from the LinSig model
for the pedestrian crossings. The model assessed three scenarios in 2012,
namely AM Peak (0800-0900 hours); PM Peak (1700-1800 hours); Saturday
Peak (1100-1200 hours) and three scenarios in 2017 for the same time periods.
5.21 Table 3.3 shows the proposal would result in an increase in walk times overall
and for the busiest pedestrian route. The minimum increase is 39 seconds
between Winchester Road Eastbound and The Harrow Way Westbound /
Brighton Way (2012 Saturday) and a maximum increase of 151 seconds
between Western Way and The Harrow Way Westbound/Brighton Way.
Table 3.3 – Difference between existing and proposed walking times
Scenario Difference in walking times (seconds) Overall Winchester Road E - The Western Way - The Harrow Way Harrow Way W / Brighton Way W / Brighton Way 2012 AM +3,670 +93 +118 2012 PM +2,590 +67 +92 2012 Sat +1,974 +39 +64
5-6 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
Scenario Difference in walking times (seconds) Overall Winchester Road E - The Western Way - The Harrow Way Harrow Way W / Brighton Way W / Brighton Way 2017 AM +3,502 +108 +133 2017 PM +2,406 +67 +92 2017 Sat +4,006 +126 +151
5.22 In addition, the proposed development will result in an increase in traffic using
the roundabout as outlined in Table 3.4 below. Whilst all arms will see an
increase in traffic volumes, The Harrow Way arm has been included as the
highest percentage increases are forecast here, of all six approaches to the
junction.
Table 3.4 – Percentage increases in traffic flows at Brighton Hill roundabout with store
Scenario Overall % increase The Harrow Way arm
2012 Friday AM 3.2% 14.1% 2012 Friday PM 6.8% 49.4% 2012 Saturday mid 11.1% 77.3%
5.23 Table 3.4 shows that there will be an 11.1% increase in traffic overall and a
77.3% increase in traffic on The Harrow Way arm for the Saturday peak scenario
(1100-1200 hours). This is considered a significant increase in traffic in this
location. Increased traffic on approach arms and the links between junctions
leads, in my opinion to increased severance and a barrier to pedestrian
movement across those links.
5.24 To summarise the impact on vulnerable road users at the Brighton Hill
Roundabout as follows: -
5-7 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
(i) The existing arrangement provides full segregation between pedestrians
and vehicular traffic. This would no longer be the case.
(ii) There would be an increase in distance for most of the routes affected by
the proposed layout, including a 56 metre increase in the busiest
pedestrian route between the North-western and South-eastern subways;
(iii) The proposed layout would result in significantly increased walking times
both overall and for the busiest pedestrian route between the North-
western and South-eastern subways; and
(iv) The proposed development will increase traffic using the Brighton Hill
roundabout leading to increased severance on approach arms to the
roundabout. In my opinion increased traffic volumes detract from the
adjacent pedestrian and residential environment
5.25 It can therefore be concluded that the proposed layout would result in an
increase in severance for vulnerable road users.
ROAD SAFETY ASSESSMENT
5.26 The Road Safety Assessment (Appendix D: Location A) identified the following
issues: -
(i) Pedestrian safety will be negatively impacted by the at-grade signalised
pedestrian crossings of the new link road and also deletion of two
subways, giving rise to additional at-grade pedestrian/cyclist crossings at
junction arms. At-grade facilities will be associated with an increased
number of accidents compared to subway facilities. TRL report PPR507
“Puffin pedestrian crossing accident study” shows that there were 0.38
pedestrian accidents per year and 1.58 overall accidents per crossing site
from the sample researched. The existing accident record at Brighton Hill
5-8 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
Roundabout shows that only one pedestrian accident (Accident reference
100528705) occurred as a result of crossing the roundabout within the
nine year period ending 31st December 2012. This occurred on 17th
December 2010 when a 14 year boy was knocked down after crossing
the carriageway at-grade from the central island. Pedestrian accidents at
the roundabout are therefore currently extremely low and I consider that
numbers are likely to increase;
(ii) No Advance Stop lines are provided for cyclists;
(iii) There is potential for injudicious crossing of the A30 through-about link
pedestrian crossings; the drawing does not indicate if central reserve
guard railing will be provided to ensure users are directed safely through
a staggered arrangement to the next crossing point, while on demand
facilities would minimise the risk of crossing against a red signal;
(iv) There is no inclusion of vehicle restraints to safeguard vehicular users
and pedestrians below in the event that a vehicle leaves the carriageway,
given the difference in levels between the A30 through-about links and
subways on the eastern side of the roundabout;
(v) The proposed stop line at the pedestrian crossing on Winchester Road is
very close to the roundabout exit so drivers may not have time to react to
red signals and pedestrians crossing the road;
(vi) The Western Way exit from the roundabout would appear to be the only
unsignalised arm of the whole junction. Use of this crossing by
pedestrians is likely to increase as it is a pedestrian route towards the
proposed store and it should be clarified why there is no proposed signal
controlled crossing here;
5-9 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
(vii) The proposal does not include measures to dissuade pedestrians from
taking short-cuts across arms that will not have a pedestrian facility.
Islands and verge areas that are not intended for pedestrian use should
be marked on the drawing and measures included to dissuade accidental
or deliberate use as a short-cut, such as guard railing;
(viii) A signing and signalling strategy for the junction has not been developed,
both of which often require significant space. This infrastructure could
require poles or lighting columns in footways;
(ix) No details of lighting for the new through-about links or widened areas of
carriageway are provided;
(x) There is a lack of information on levels, making it difficult to assess the
proposed gradients and whether existing gradients will be made worse by
the proposed development; and
(xi) No yellow box or keep clear markings are indicated, which would keep
entry points and pedestrian crossings clear of stopped traffic as there is
potential for blocking back during busy periods. Without these I would
consider there is a risk the queues of traffic would block other traffic
movements which would result in a poorer level of junction performance
than represented by the LinSig junction capacity assessments.
INTERRUPTION OF TRAFFIC
5.27 The proposals at Brighton Hill Roundabout require the traffic signals to be
operational 24/7. This would interrupt the smooth flow of traffic off peak.
5-10 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
REASON FOR REFUSAL 4 SUMMARY
5.28 The proposal increases both the walking distances and the walk times for most
routes. The predominant pedestrian desire line is negatively impacted by the
proposals.
5.29 The proposals are significant in scale and the infilling of two of the four subways
requires nine at-grade crossings. This introduces a significant safety issue
because the existing subway network has a very low accident rate, whereas the
proposal introduces at-grade crossings, where there is evidence to suggest that
the likelihood of a collision involving a pedestrian and a vehicle are significantly
raised.
5.30 The proposal at Brighton Hill Roundabout would: -
(i) Increase the risk of an accident between pedestrians and a vehicle;
(ii) Be significantly less attractive and reduce the priority of pedestrians and
cyclists;
(iii) Reduce priority and convenience for pedestrians and cyclists; and
(iv) Interrupt the smooth flow of traffic outside of peak times
5.31 I therefore agree “...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.
5-11 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
5.32 I have evidenced that “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”
5.33 The proposed development is contrary to Saved Policies E1 and A2 of the
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 and the relevant
paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).”
5-12 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
6. OTHER RELATED MATTERS
AGREED STATEMENT ON TRANSPORT MATTERS
6.1 I have reviewed the ‘Final Draft Agreed Statement on Transport Matters’ (Core
Document 9.12) which is agreed between the appellant and Hampshire County
Council. I make some observations on the Statement below. This is not a
Statement of Common Ground.
6.2 Reference is made in Section 4 (of the Statement) to the savings in accidents
forecast at the Brighton Hill roundabout, Winchester Rd roundabout and the
junction of Harrow Way / Lister Road on account of their proposed signalisation.
I have examined these assumptions in relation to the combined accident rates
(for junctions in built up areas) as summarised in DMRB Volume 13 Economic
Assessment. The results of this analysis do not lead me to conclude that partial
or complete signalisation – as in the case of Harrow Way / Lister Road junction –
will actually confer any benefits in terms of a reduction of accidents, and may
actually result in a slight increase at the Harrow Way / Lister Road junction. This
said, I do acknowledge the benefits of signalising the Harrow Way / Lister Rd
junction for both pedestrians and cyclists.
6.3 It is commonly assumed that signalisation of free flow junctions will automatically
result in a reduction in accidents for the reasons described in the Statement.
This is not necessarily the case as signalised junctions are themselves prone to
other aspects of driver behaviour such as ‘shooting’ through red lights which
accentuate the risk of collision with opposing vehicles.
6.4 I note in Section 12 reference to the following junctions being at or close to
capacity in 2012 and 2017 in the existing situation.
6-1 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
(i) Brighton Hill roundabout
(ii) Winchester Road roundabout, and
(iii) Lister Road / Wella Road
6.5 No reference is made in the original Transport Assessment to the 2012 existing
situation in respect of Brighton Hill or Winchester Road roundabouts.
6.6 It is noted that there does not appear to be any comparison of existing (2012)
predictions with actual observations recorded as part of the traffic surveys at
these and other junctions. The lack of such a comparison, effectively validating
the existing LinSig models before use, in respect of 2012 and 2017 forecasts,
greatly weakens any assessment of benefits when comparing the existing
arrangement with proposed alternative arrangements in these years.
GROSS FLOOR AREA
6.7 On behalf of a food store operator I have sought planning permission for a
number of retail foodstores and it is my opinion that the proposed development
constitutes A1 food retail development in excess of 8,240m2 gross floor area.
6.8 There is confusion over the size of the store in the application. The size of the
store is a fundamental measurement that is used in the calculation of the store’s
trip generating potential. The industry standard trip database TRICs, correctly
used by the appellants consultant, provides trip rates that are applied to
development floor areas. These trip rates are based upon Gross Floor Area
(GFA). If the GFA is incorrect then this has a direct, and potentially significant,
impact on all downstream analysis work. This point is particularly relevant
6-2 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
because each of the in-principle proposed off-site highways junctions relies on
correct GFA in the underpinning analysis work.
6.9 I believe that clarification is required because conflicting advice on this matter
has been provided. The appellants planning consultant advised, as shown on
the planning application form and replicated in the appellants Statement of Case,
that the store is 8,240m2 Gross Internal Area (GIA). The appellant’s highways
consultant advises that the Gross Floor Area (GFA) is 8,240m2. It should be
noted that GIA is not equal to GFA. GIA does not include the walls, overhanging
canopies and other features of a building. The more appropriate equivalent of
Gross Floor Area is Gross External Area (GEA).
6.10 Typically the difference between GEA and GIA lies approximately between 3%
and 10%, although there are exceptions to this range. I consider that a typical
portal frame or warehouse type structure would be at the lower end of the range
and an urban historic building would be in the region of 10%. As there was
conflicting material provided on this matter, the Council has measured the Gross
Internal Area as equivalent to the planning application 8,240m2. In scaling off
the site layout plan (DWG. 6459_P501 rev B) the total Gross External Area,
including the cages area, would be 8,530.75m². This would suggest that GEA is
3%-4% higher than GIA for this store.
6.11 Trip rates (per 100m2) are directly multiplied by GFA the number of vehicles on
the highway network going to and from the store would be higher. Therefore in
my opinion, the analysis work under represents the potential impact of traffic on
the highway network by approximately 3-4%.
6-3 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
6.12 I consider that the trip distribution methodology is acceptable, though it is unclear
which retail impact assessment data it is based upon. It is my view that the use
of GL Hearn retail impact assessment data, prepared in support of a previously
withdrawn application in 2009, rather than that provided by Martin Robeson,
lacks consistency for the application.
FUTURE MAINTENANCE LIABILITY
6.13 Significant improvements to the highway are proposed and it is unknown to what
extent future maintenance liability has been considered.
6.14 The highway improvements required to mitigate development, include the
introduction of: -
(i) traffic signals;and
(ii) significant additional areas of carriageway, supporting structure and
footways
All will need future maintenance.
6.15 Any future maintenance costs would lie with the residents of Basingstoke and
Hampshire and I do not believe that this has been suitably thought through within
the Section 106 agreement. I consider that the introduction of additional
financial burden upon residents to maintain infrastructure to facilitate private
sector development is inappropriate.
6-4 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 The appellant is seeking approval of application (number BDB/75056) for the
“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).
7.2 Reason for refusal 3 states that there is insufficient detail to demonstrate the
proposals will mitigate against the significant impact of development. I have
demonstrated that a comprehensive and suitably robust final multi-modal
Transport Assessment report was not provided by the appellant. This is a
fundamental omission.
7.3 The drawings showing the proposed highway changes were lacking consistent
detail, it appeared that certain information was missing or incomplete. The lack
of road names on some drawings did not assist the reader.
7.4 The in-principle offsite highways works and their assessment include errors and
are lacking in detail to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed highway
works would adequately mitigate the significant impacts of the proposed
development for all highway users.
7.5 It has also been evidenced that safe and suitable access to the site has not been
demonstrated. There are a number of concerns and outstanding safety issues
that would highlight that the proposed changes to the highway network are not
safe, as demonstrated by the Road Safety Assessment.
7-1 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
7.6 It has also been demonstrated that suitable access is in question because of the
scale of the changes that are required to the highway network that appear to
cater for traffic, but at the expense of other highway users, particularly the
pedestrian and the cyclist. In my opinion the Transport Assessment has the feel
of a historically traditional approach biased towards the car, when this is
considered in light of current best practice.
7.7 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).
7.8 Reason for refusal 4 relates specifically to the proposed changes at Brighton Hill
Roundabout. The required changes to mitigate development in this location are
significant. The proposals seek to increase the number of lanes circulating the
roundabout from two to three and the introduction of a through about introduces
a further 4 lanes through the middle of the roundabout. This means that there
are 12 traffic lanes to cross and 6 crossings on the predominant pedestrian
desire line.
7.9 The predominant route for vulnerable road users bisects these new lanes and
the proposals do introduce significant additional at-grade crossings that would
need to be negotiated, whereas before the subway provided a direct segregated
route for pedestrians.
7.10 It is not easy to see the scale of the changes proposed from the drawing from
existing to proposed, particularly the loss of verge south of Western Way. There
are inconsistencies over crossings of the two western circulating carriageway
exits that remain unclear.
7-2 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
7.11 The Road Safety Assessment has raised a number of safety matters that
demonstrate that the proposals represent a worsening for highway users. The
introduction of at-grade crossings would likely increase the risk of an accident
involving a pedestrian and vehicle, over and above the existing situation. It
should be noted that pedestrian accidents at this roundabout are extremely low
in the current arrangement and evidence from national research demonstrates
that a worsening of pedestrian accidents is highly likely.
7.12 Journey times are increased across the roundabout, particularly for predominant
movement, to the detriment of vulnerable road users over the current form of
crossing. It is noted that there are improvements in certain pedestrian
movements, though it is unknown how many pedestrians would benefit from
these.
7.13 It is therefore 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.
7.14 As such the proposals do introduce hazards to pedestrians that are not currently
there. Therefore it is agreed that the proposals at Brighton Hill Roundabout do
introduce danger, inconvenience and obstruction to pedestrians and cyclists.
7.15 The proposals do require the introduction of signal operation 24 hours a day 7
days per week. If the subways were retained it may be possible to have part
time working of signals, thereby not interrupting the movement of traffic at all
times. At non peak times free flow conditions would be preferable.
7-3 Former Smiths Industries Aerospace Ltd, The Harrow Way, Basingstoke
Proof of Evidence of Scott Marshall
7.16 It can be therefore be summarised that 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.
7.17 This is 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).”
7.18 The proposed food store has a gross floor area in excess of 8,240m2 gross floor
area, 3-4% more than assessed. The trip distribution used within the Transport
Assessment is based upon data within a withdrawn application. Development of
this scale is significant and it proposes significant changes to the highway
network to mitigate against the impact of development. I have concerns over the
technical assessment approach that is not robust.
7.19 The cost of future maintenance will ultimately rest with HCC and Basingstoke
and it is my opinion that this should not be the case.
7.20 In my judgment the highways issues I have identified suggest that the appeal
should be dismissed.
7-4