7.10donald A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order Scheme Number TR010022 8.36 Applicant’s Comments on any Additional Information or Submissions Received by Deadline 1 Planning Act 2008 Rule 8 (1)(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 Volume 8 November 2019 A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order Applicant’s Comments on any Additional Information or Submissions Received by Deadline 1 Infrastructure Planning Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order 202[ ] Applicant’s Comments on any Additional Information or Submissions Received by Deadline 1 Regulation Number Rule 8(1)(k) Planning Inspectorate Scheme TR010022 Reference Document Reference TR010022/APP/8.36 Author A38 Derby Junctions Project Team & Highways England Version Date Status of Version Version 1 19 November 2019 Final for submission at Deadline 2 Planning Inspectorate Scheme Ref: TR010022 Document Ref: TR010022/APP/8.36 A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order Applicant’s Comments on any Additional Information or Submissions Received by Deadline 1 Table of Contents 1 Derby City Council 170 2 Derbyshire County Council 103 3 Cadent Gas 171 4 Historic England 173 5 Network Rail 176 6 McDonald’s 179 7 Breadsall Parish Council 186 8 Intu Derby 202 9 Severn Trent 204 10 Environment Agency 204 11 Derby Cycling Group 231 12 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust 240 13 Euro Garages 241 14 Public Health England 243 15 Friends of Little Eaton Canal 245 16 The Beavis Family 245 17 Simon Morris 247 18 ESP Utilities 250 Planning Inspectorate Scheme Ref: TR010022 Document Ref: TR010022/APP/8.36 A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order Applicant’s Comments on any Additional Information or Submissions Received by Deadline 1 1.1 Applicant’s Comments on any Additional Information or Submissions Received by Deadline 1 1.1.1 This document provides the comments of Highways England (the Applicant) on some of the responses made by Interested Parties to the Planning Inspectorate on Deadline 1, 5 November 2019 in respect of the A38 Derby Junctions scheme (the Scheme) Development Consent Order (DCO) application. 1.1.2 The Applicant has sought to provide comments where it appeared to be helpful to the Examination to do so, for instance where a response includes a request for further information or clarification from the Applicant or where the Applicant consider that it would be appropriate for the Examining Authority (ExA) to have the Applicant’s comments on a matter raised by an Interested Party in its response. 1.1.3 Where an issue raised within a response has been dealt with previously by the Applicant, for instance in the Applicant’s own response to a question posed by the ExA in its first round of written questions or within one of the documents submitted to the Examination, a cross reference to that response or document is provided to avoid unnecessary duplication. The information provided in this document should, therefore, be read in conjunction with the material to which cross references are provided. 1.1.4 The Applicant has not provided comments on every response made by an Interested Party to the questions raised. In some cases, no comments have been provided, for instance, because the response provided a short factual response, it reiterated previously expressed objections in principle to the Scheme or expressions of opinion without supporting evidence, or it simply contradicted the Applicant’s previous response to a question without providing additional reasoning. 1.1.5 For the avoidance of doubt, where the Applicant has chosen not to comment on matters raised by Interested Parties this is not an indication that the Applicant agrees with the point or comment raised or opinion expressed in that response. Planning Inspectorate Scheme Ref: TR010022 Document Ref: 8.36 1 A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order Applicant’s Comments on any Additional Information or Submissions Received by Deadline 1 Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1 Applicant’s comments Ref Source Comments Applicant’s Response 1 Derby City Council 1.1 Local Impact Section 7; page 15; 4th paragraph: “.... This DCiC comment also relates to a question in the ExA Report [REP1-035] However, there are a large number of First Written Questions (FWQ) No.4.36. network coding errors in the model on the Please refer to Highways England’s Volume 8.5 Mansfield Road corridor in terms of the Responses to ExA FWQ [000796] at item 4.36. priority at junctions. This could be causing It is accepted that the traffic model coding of Mansfield unrealistic delays along the journey time Road and its priority junctions could be improved. route used to measure changes on However, whilst there may be limitations to this specific Mansfield Road.” area of the highway model, Highways England reiterates the opinion that these noted deficiencies are not detrimental to the assessment and appraisal of the Scheme (for the reasons set out in the repose to FWQ 4.36). As an additional comment, it was noted [REP1-005 at item No 4.36] that the 2039 forecast year convergence issue related to the coding of the priority junctions and only occurs in the AM2 time period and only in the ‘Do- Something’ case. On further inspection, the convergence issue does not occur in the ‘Do-Minimum’ assignments because vehicles will be stored within queues at the A38 Little Eaton junction (I.e. the existing layout) and this will reduce the localised traffic demands upon these Mansfield Road priority junctions. In the ‘Do-Something’ case, the elimination of the queuing by grade separation would allow a higher intensity of traffic flow to load onto the A61 Sir Frank Whittle Road and the Mansfield Road priority junction adjacent to Sims Metal Management property. Planning Inspectorate Scheme Ref: TR010022 Document Ref: 8.36 2 A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order Applicant’s Comments on any Additional Information or Submissions Received by Deadline 1 Ref Source Comments Applicant’s Response Whilst the cause is a real effect that might be anticipated, the AM2 journey times reported by the 2039 traffic forecasting model on Journey Time Route No 4 southbound cannot be relied upon because of a random instability in this 2093 traffic forecasting AM2 time-period assignment. This statement reiterates the conclusion stated in Highways England’s Deadline1 response [REP1- 005 Item 4.36]. 1.2 Local Impact Section 9; page 23; 5th paragraph: “The The accesses from Brackensdale Avenue and from Report [REP1-035] increase in speed limit from 40mph to 50 Raleigh Street would be closed because of their proximity mph between Kingsway and Markeaton to the proposed Kingsway north-facing slip roads and their means that the A38(T) access from merging and diverging regions. Their closure would be Brackensdale Avenue and Raleigh Street required with the Scheme irrespective of the speed limit will also close.” that is applied to the A38 between the Kingsway and the Markeaton junctions. Refer also to Highways England’s response REP1-005 at item 4.37 (d). 1.3 Local Impact The DCiC Local Impact Report [REP1-035] includes commentary regarding the potential Scheme Report [REP1-035] effects upon air quality, noise and climate as directly related to traffic volumes and changes in traffic patterns as a result of the Scheme operation. The themes included in the Local Impact Report as related to these issues are discussed in the sections below, together with Highways England commentary. 1.4 Local Impact DCiC’s Local Impact Report includes a Highways England agree that the DCiC traffic Report [REP1-035] section on air quality impacts as management measures to improve air quality on Stafford associated with Scheme operation as Street (called the Roadside NO2 scheme in the Local detailed in ES Chapter 5: Air Quality Impact Report) is a material consideration. Thus the [APP-0043]. Highways England has assessment of Scheme effects on air quality as reported in reviewed the DCiC text and provides ES Chapter 5: Air Quality [APP-0043] has taken the commentary on the air quality topics as Roadside NO2 scheme into account, both during Scheme raised. construction and operation. Highways England is in Planning Inspectorate Scheme Ref: TR010022 Document Ref: 8.36 3 A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order Applicant’s Comments on any Additional Information or Submissions Received by Deadline 1 Ref Source Comments Applicant’s Response agreement with DCiC’s comment that (based on the information presented in ES Chapter 5: Air Quality [APP- 0043]) operation of the Scheme would reduce annual mean nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations by more than 1ug/m3 in Stafford Street so would have a beneficial impact on the only non-compliant road link in Derby. DCiC also state that the Highway England modelling shows that the Scheme would not result in any new exceedances. Highways England agrees with the DCiC comment that the method DCiC has used to assess NO2 compliance does not fully align with the method used to assess air quality in ES Chapter 5: Air Quality [APP-0043] and the latest results produced by DCiC for the compliance assessment. Thus DCiC requested that further investigation be undertaken in order to provide confidence that the Scheme will not create any new non-compliance areas elsewhere due to the difference in assessment methodologies. DCiC is particularly concerned about a house at the end of Kedleston Old Road which is very close to the A38. In relation to the above, DCiC provided Highways England with modelled NO2 concentrations in 2016 and 2020 at receptors located at 4m from roads across the city in-line with the Defra JAQU compliance method. The compliance method requires concentrations to be assessed at this distance rather than at the facades of properties.