Proof of Evidence of Rachel Hooper On behalf of Langley Burrell Parish Council and Langley Burrell Residents Association (Joint Rule 6 Status) Traffic on the B4069 Planning Appeal in respect of Land to the North and East of Barrow Farm, Chippenham The Town and Country Planning Act 2000 (as amended) Town and Country Planning (Hearings and Inquiries Procedure) (England) (Amendment and Revocation) Rules 2015 PINS Ref AP 3139183 Wiltshire Council Reference 14/10433/OUT This paper was drafted by Rachel Hooper, who was significantly supported and helped in the presentation of argument and evidence by Edward Barham, David Mannering, Richard Walker, Robert Whitrow, Robert Woodward and other members of the Langley Burrell Parish Council and Residents Association 1 Introduction 1.1 The primary author of this Proof of evidence is Dr Rachel Hooper, resident of Langley Burrell since 1996. I have been supported in this effort by a team of residents of the village representing the villagers who will be significantly impacted in their everyday lives if this Development goes ahead. 1.2 We have faced considerable challenges in putting together our case. None of us are legal professionals and we have very little experience in participating in processes like this. I hope all parties will bear our ‘first timer’ status in mind. Equally, we will try to hold ourselves to the customs and rules of the process. 1.3 We are mindful of our obligation to provide objective evidence to this hearing. Our evidence is largely non-technical, and is more qualitative than quantitative in nature. However, we have striven to give evidence behind all our assertions and we speak from a position of great expertise about the experience of living in Langley Burrell village. 1.4 Our fundamental objection to this Planning Application is that it “would have an unacceptable impact upon the tranquil nature of this part of the countryside, the setting of listed buildings at Maud Heath Causeway as well as its relationship to the nearby villages of Langley Burrell and Kington Langley.”1 We believe the proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of policies CP10, CP51, CP52 and CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015, the NPPF as well as section 16(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990. In this proof we put the case that the increased traffic on the B4069 has not been sufficiently modelled in the face of multiple proposed developments and many potential issues. If the Development is approved, a better alternative would be to make the primary access point through the Northern Distributor Link road (NDL). 1 Para 5, Wiltshire Council Statement of Case 1 2 Traffic on the B4069 2.1 This Proof focuses on the impact the Barrow Farm Development will have on the B4069. We are ever mindful of the fact that, while we are trying to present evidence in the format required by this process, we are not experts in transport planning. We are trying to reflect our genuine, day-to-day experience of using this road and roads in the area. 2.2 This proof will cover the following points 1. The B4069/Maud Heath Junction 2. Cumulative development impact on traffic on the B4069 south of the Maud Heath Junction 3. Roundabout access from the Development onto the B4069 4. Other issues with the B4069 5. Access off the NDL 3 B4069/Maud Heath junction 3.1 Of specific concern for the Residents, in all the evidence produced for this Planning Application, there is no modelling of the impact of the additional traffic from the Development on the junction of the B4069 and Maud Heath’s Causeway2, through the village of Langley Burrell. This junction serves not only Langley Burrell, but also a large ‘hinterland’ including Peckingell, Kellaways, Avon, East Tytherton, Tytherton Lucas, Foxham and Charlcutt, being variously the shortest way to Chippenham or the M4. The Queue Length modelling on Page 39 of the Transport Assessment stops at the proposed Barrow Farm junction. 3.2 We commissioned our own assessment of traffic flow through this junction, at Appendix G. We believe this is indicative of about 230 vehicles per peak period, per day, 2 Maud Heath’s Causeway in fact, runs from well behind Langley Burrell, through the village and turns left down the side of the B4069 into the top of Chippenham. However, the only other name for this road is ‘The Common’ which is equally imprecise as it also described the fields in question around Barrow Farm. For simplicity, in this proof, the road running east-west through Langley Burrell village will be referred to as Maud Heath’s Causeway. 2 trying to turn both into and out of this junction, into the increasingly busy B4069. 3.3 Our experience is that, year-on-year, it gets more difficult to turn through this junction because of the volume of traffic already on the B4069. The implementation of a 50mph speed limit has produced some small improvement, but the volume of traffic, especially at peak times, means waits to turn out of Maud Heath’s Causeway south onto the B4069 and north on the B4069 turning into the Causeway are noticeably lengthening. We are very concerned that, with the additional traffic from this Development and all the others being considered in this short length of road, the efficient of this junction will reduce. 3.4 The natural rise and bend of the road north of this junction, and any queueing created on the southbound B4069’s plethora of new junctions, will mean that rash decisions, made under pressure of time to turn left out of, or right into, the Causeway will significantly increase the risk of accidents at this junction. 4 Cumulative development impact on traffic on the B4069 south of the Maud Heath Junction 4.1 We make no claim to technical knowledge on traffic modelling, but express our concern that what modelling has been carried out, has failed to consider the cumulative impact of all the potential developments that will directly impact the B4069. We question if enough detail has gone into the Transport Assessment for the B4069 in particular. 4.2 In the immediate area, we currently have proposals for – 1. An expansion of the workforce and HGV traffic at Wavin’s 2. The North Chippenham Consortium Development 3. The Barrow Farm Development 4. The Rawlings Green Development 5. Plans for Langley Park, including residential, retail and light industry use 6. A Northern Distributor Link road 3 We cannot see that the Wavin expansion and the Langley Park Development have been included in the model. 4.3 Based on the planning proposals currently under discussion, in the 1000m between the B4069/Maud Heath junction and the B4069/Birch Grove junction in north Chippenham, drivers, cyclists and pedestrians will face 1. The new Barrow Farm roundabout 2. The new NDL roundabout through the North Chippenham Development 3. A revised access for HGVs from Wavins 4. The existing Hill Corner Road junction 5. The new Cocklebury Link Road Scheme (extending the NDL) 6. The existing Pew Hill mini roundabout 7. A new double roundabout outside Langley Park and Birch Grove 4.4 Based on all the above factors, we do not think that the Paramics modelling results at Section 5 of the Transport Assessment are likely to be representative of the real case for the following reasons 1. There is no inclusion into the calculation of the function of the B4069/Maud Heath’s Causeway junction. 2. Two localised, but significant traffic inputs from Wavins growth and Langley Park Development have been omitted. 3. The model creates a break along this length of this road. It measures as route 8, the ‘B4069 between Eastern Link Road and B4122’ and 10, the ‘B4069 Langley Road between Eastern Link Road and B4158 Malmesbury Road’. 4.5 A simple additive calculation3 of routes 8 and 10 suggests that morning, South Bound journey times across all 3 models might exceed thresholds. We believe that, if the Paramics model included the stretch from Point 5/6 in the village data set – ie the eastern end of the village, through to the B4158 Malmesbury Road at Hathaway Retail 3 We accept this might not be a legitimate methodology for all data, but it seems intuitive in regard of change in journey time, if not GEH. 4 Park, included the proposed growth of Wavin and the Langley Park Development, and all the new junctions along the route, there would be a severe increase in many of the model journey times. We would like to see these conditions modelled. 4.6 In our opinion, the cumulative effects of the developments listed above on traffic levels on the B4069 will significantly impact the safe and effective use of this road for drivers using both the B4069/Maud Heath’s Causeway junction and the length or road south of this junction. There seems to have been no modelling done to support or disprove our position. 5 Roundabout access from the Development onto the B4069 5.1 We interpret the reason the roundabout has been pulled into the Development site is in order to achieve the appropriate deflection on the approaches to the junctions. This creates a major realignment of the B4069. 5.1.1 One of our concerns is the fact that most of the hedgerow on the west side of the B4069, south of the Maud Heath Causeway junction will need to be removed to allow the roundabout to be constructed, along with visibility requirements and footways and street lighting. This will have a severe impact on the rural characteristics of the B4069 Maud Heath’s Causeway as well as the environmental and ecological issues resulting from the loss of mature hedgerows.