maldon local development plan · maldon local development plan assessment of impact of proposed...

$: Maldon Local Development Plan · Maldon Local Development Plan Assessment of Impact of Proposed Development Sites in Heybridge, South ... \9 Trans Impr\TP\Projects\TTP1012 - Maldon$
Maldon Local Development Plan

Assessment of Impact of Proposed Development Sites in Heybridge, South

Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch on Highway Network

May 2013

Prepared by:

County Hall Market Road Chelmsford Essex CM1 1QH

For:

Maldon District Council

Council Offices Princes Road Maldon Essex CM9 5DL

EB004a

Maldon Local Development Plan

Assessment of Traffic Impact Report

ii

Document Control Sheet

Report Title Maldon Local Development Plan

CD Reference

Status Final

Revision 1

Control Date 14th May, 2013

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

1 Final B Johnston May ‘13 J Jones M Young

May ‘13 J Jones C Aarons

May ‘13

Distribution

Organisation Contact Number of Copies

Maldon District Council David Coleman 1

Essex County Council Hannah Neve 1

Essex County Council Kevin Fraser 1

Essex County Council Matthew Bradley 1

Essex Highways Brendan Johnston 1

EB004a

N:\9 Trans Impr\TP\Projects\TTP1012 - Maldon LDP\(4) Reports\Maldon LDP Report Final - May 2013.docx

iii

Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background to Study ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Report Structure ............................................................................................................... 1

2 Proposed Developments .................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Location and Number of Dwellings for Assessment ......................................................... 3

2.2 Study Area – Heybridge and Maldon ................................................................................ 4

2.3 Study Area – Burnham-on-Crouch .................................................................................... 6

2.4 Committed Developments ................................................................................................ 7

3 Forecast Traffic Flows ....................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Traffic Counts .................................................................................................................. 10

3.3 Assessment Year and Background Traffic Growth .......................................................... 10

3.4 Future Year Trip Generation ........................................................................................... 10

3.5 Trip Distribution and Assignment of Development Traffic ............................................. 12

3.6 Forecast Traffic Flows ..................................................................................................... 13

4 Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................. 14

4.1 Junction Assessments Methodology .............................................................................. 14

4.2 Understanding Junctions 8 Results ................................................................................. 14

5 Impact of Redistribution of Heybridge Development Traffic ............................................ 15

5.1 Reassignment of Heybridge Development Traffic to Link Road ..................................... 15

5.2 Resultant Traffic Flows .................................................................................................... 15

6 Impact of Heybridge and South Maldon Development .................................................... 18

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 18

6.2 B1018 Langford Road / B1018 Heybridge Approach / Holloway Road Roundabout ..... 19

6.3 B1018 Heybridge Approach / A414 Roundabout ........................................................... 20

6.4 A414 / Fullbridge Roundabout........................................................................................ 21

6.5 B1018 The Causeway / The Square / B1022 The Street Roundabout ............................ 22

6.6 B1022 Colchester Road / B1026 Goldhanger Road Roundabout ................................... 23

6.7 A414 / Spital Road Roundabout ..................................................................................... 24

6.8 A414 / B1018 Limebrook Way Roundabout ................................................................... 25

6.9 Limebrook Way / Fambridge Road Roundabout ............................................................ 26

EB004a


iv

6.10 Limebrook Way / Mundon Road / Park Road ................................................................. 27

6.11 Proposed A414 Bypass / South Maldon Development Access Junction (west of Limebrook Way Roundabout) ...................................................................................................... 28

6.12 Proposed A414 Bypass / Wycke Hill Junction ................................................................. 29

7 Impact of Burnham-on-Crouch Developments ................................................................. 31

7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 31

7.2 Junction Assessment Considerations .............................................................................. 31

7.3 B1021 Church Road / B1010 Maldon Road Junction ...................................................... 32

7.4 B1010 Maldon Road / Creeksea Lane Junction .............................................................. 34

7.5 Southminster Road Access.............................................................................................. 36

7.6 Accident Data on B1010 and B1012 ............................................................................... 38

7.7 Walking Threshold for Burnham Primary School ............................................................ 41

8 A414 and B1019 Impact .................................................................................................. 43

8.1 Traffic Flows .................................................................................................................... 43

8.2 A414 Oak Corner Junction .............................................................................................. 46

9 Summary of Findings and Concluding Comments ............................................................ 48

9.1 Study Findings Summary ................................................................................................. 48

9.2 Concluding Comment ..................................................................................................... 49

EB004a


v

Figures Figure 1. Heybridge Development Location .............................................................................. 3 Figure 2. South Maldon Development Locations ....................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Burnham-on-Crouch Development Locations.............................................................. 4 Figure 4. Heybridge and Maldon Junction Assessment Locations ............................................... 5 Figure 5: Proposed Wycke Hill Bypass Route ............................................................................. 6 Figure 6. Burnham-on-Crouch Junction Assessment Locations ................................................... 7 Figure 7. Maldon / Heybridge Committed Development Locations ............................................ 8 Figure 8. Burnham-on-Crouch Committed Development Locations ............................................ 8 Figure 9. Heybridge Redistribution of Traffic Following Link Road Reassignment – AM Peak .... 16 Figure 10. Heybridge Redistribution of Traffic Following Link Road Reassignment – PM Peak .. 17 Figure 11: 5 Year Accident Data Plot ....................................................................................... 40 Figure 12: Creeksea Lane - Burnham-on-Crouch Primary School Walking Threshold ................. 42 Figure 13: Impact on Main Maldon / Heybridge Access Road - AM Peak .................................. 44 Figure 14: Impact on Main Maldon / Heybridge Access Roads – PM Peak ................................ 45

Tables Table 3-1: Vehicle Trip Rates (per dwelling) for Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch Development......................................................................................................................... 10 Table 6-1: B1018 / Holloway Roundabout Junction Performance ............................................ 19 Table 6-2: B1018 Heybridge Approach / A414 Roundabout Junction Performance ................... 20 Table 6-3: A414 / Fullbridge Roundabout Junction Performance ............................................. 21 Table 6-4: B1018 The Causeway / The Square / B1022 The Street Roundabout Junction Performance ......................................................................................................................... 22 Table 6-5: B1022 Colchester Road / B1026 Goldhanger Road Roundabout Junction Performance ............................................................................................................................................. 23 Table 6-6: A414 / Spital Road Junction Performance ............................................................... 24 Table 6-7: A414 B1018 Limebrook Way Roundabout Junction Performance............................. 25 Table 6-8: Limebrook Way / Fambridge Road Roundabout Junction Performance ................... 26 Table 6-9: Limebrook Way / Mundon Road / Park Road Roundabout Junction Performance .... 27 Table 6-10: Proposed A414 Bypass / South Maldon Development Access Junction Performance ............................................................................................................................................. 28 Table 6-11: Proposed A414 Bypass / Wycke Hill Junction Performance .................................... 29 Table 6-12: Proposed A414 Bypass / Wycke Hill Signalised Junction Performance .................... 30 Table 7-1: B1021 Church Road / B1010 Maldon Road Junction Roundabout Performance ........ 32 Table 7-2: B1010 Maldon Road / B1021 Church Road - Western Intersection Junction Performance ......................................................................................................................... 33 Table 7-3: B1010 Maldon Road / B1021 Church Road - Northern Intersection Junction Performance ......................................................................................................................... 33 Table 7-4: B1010 Maldon Road / Creeksea Lane - East Junction Performance .......................... 34 Table 7-5: B1010 Maldon Road / Creeksea Lane - West Junction Performance ......................... 35 Table 7-6: B1010 Maldon Road / Creeksea Lane - South Junction Performance ........................ 35 Table 7-7: 5 Year Accident Data for B1010 by Mode ................................................................ 38 Table 7-8: Accident Circumstances ......................................................................................... 38 Table 8-1: A414 Oak Corner Junction Performance ................................................................. 46

EB004a

N:\9 Trans Impr\TP\Projects\TTP1012 - Maldon LDP\(4) Reports\Maldon LDP Report Final - May 2013.docx 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background to Study

Essex County Council (ECC) and Maldon District Council (MDC) have been working together to

progress MDC’s Local Development Plan (LDP) towards the submission stage. As part of this

process, ECC’s consultants, Mouchel, completed a study in December 2010 to assess the potential

impact of proposed development sites in Heybridge, Burnham-on-Crouch and Southminster in the

year 2026. In total, the effects of up to 1,000 dwellings in Heybridge, 600 dwellings in Burnham-on

Crouch and 100 dwellings in Southminster were assessed. The findings indicated that, whilst some

areas of the highway network would be congested, a ‘nil detriment’ scenario could be achieved if

certain mitigation measures were put in place. This included the introduction of a link road to

serve the new development in Heybridge and upgrades to three key junctions in Heybridge and

Maldon.

Following on from the above study, MDC and ECC have approached Essex Highways (EH) to

consider further development proposals across Heybridge, Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch. This

report therefore considers the implications of the latest proposals and how they impact (in terms

of capacity) both locally and further afield on the highway network.

The report will also take into account other considerations for proposed development sites. For

example, accident data will be scrutinised along the B1010 linking Burnham-on-Crouch with the

rest of Essex to establish if there are any definitive trends. This stretch of road has had a

reputation for poor safety in recent years and the security of the public will have to be a

consideration in the location of proposed development sites.

In relation to Burnham-on-Crouch in particular, two further issues are covered in this study.

Firstly, the feasibility of providing a development access junction on Southminster Road in

Burnham-in-Crouch will be considered. This stretch of road currently has a small bridge across

Pannel’s Brook. The report will assess whether this and potential sight lines (a line of trees and a

hedgerow border the north-south route) could be affected. Secondly, walking thresholds to the

primary school will be considered in Burnham-on-Crouch. Given that the existing primary school is

located on the eastern periphery of the town, the implications of travel to and from the site will

be assessed.

1.2 Report Structure

Following this introductory section, Section 2 details the proposed developments that are being

considered and the study area surrounding them, Section 3 will provide a summary of how future

year traffic flows have been obtained, before Section 4 details the methodology for the highway

capacity assessments which have been undertaken. Section 5 then proceeds to consider the

EB004a


impact of reassigning some of the proposed development traffic in Heybridge, Section 6 then

assesses the South Maldon development in conjunction with the Heybridge development and

Section 7 covers the likely effects of the proposed Burnham-on-Crouch developments. Section 8

then assesses the wider impact of the Heybridge and South Maldon developments before Section

9 summarises and concludes the report.

EB004a


2 Proposed Developments

2.1 Location and Number of Dwellings for Assessment

ECC / MDC have requested that three principal development sites be considered. They are:

1. Heybridge – 1,000 dwellings to be located in an area of land north of Holloway Road (this

is the same level of provision as the December 2010 study but, unlike previously, assumes

that all dwellings will be accessed via the proposed relief road linking Broad Street Green

Road with Holloway Road / Langford Road);

2. South Maldon – 1,250 dwellings across four separate parcels of land bordering the A414,

Limebrook Way and Park Drive; and

3. Burnham-on-Crouch – 900 dwellings, 450 of which are to be accessed by Creeksea Lane

and 450 by the B1021 Southminster Road and Marsh Road.

The corresponding locations are shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3. NB The outlined areas have yet to be

confirmed and are therefore purely indicative at this stage.

Figure 1. Heybridge Development Location

© Crown Copyright All Rights Reserved 100019602 2013

EB004a


Figure 2. South Maldon Development Locations

Figure 3. Burnham-on-Crouch Development Locations

2.2 Study Area – Heybridge and Maldon

The December 2010 study considered an area that included the following junctions in the

Heybridge and Maldon area:



EB004a


B1018 Langford Road / B1018 Heybridge Approach;

A414 / B1018 Heybridge Approach;

A414 / B1018 The Causeway / Fullbridge;

B1018 The Causeway / The Square / B1022 The Street;

B1022 Colchester Road / B1026 Goldhanger Road;

B1022 Colchester Road / Scraley Road / B1022 Broad Street Green Road;

A414 / Spital Road; and

A414 Maldon Road / A414 Wycke Hill / Wycke Hill Business Park Access / B1018

Limebrook Way.

In order to achieve a robust assessment of the newly proposed developments across the highway

network, traffic counts have also been undertaken at the following junctions for this study:

B1018 Limebrook Way / B1010 Fambridge Road;

Limebrook Way / Mundon Road / Park Drive; and

A414 Chelmsford Road / A414 Maldon Road / B1010 Burnham Road / B1418 Southend

Road (Oak Corner Roundabout).

Figure 4 shows the precise location of each junction.

Figure 4. Heybridge and Maldon Junction Assessment Locations


EB004a


Lastly, in addition to the relief road in Heybridge, the Heybridge and South Maldon part of this

study will look at a proposed link road to bypass the Maldon Road / Wycke Hill / Wycke Hill

Business Park Access / Limebrook Way (referred to hereafter as the ‘bypass’). This has been put

forward as part of the document ‘Preliminary Masterplan, Land at Spital Road / Wycke Hill,

Maldon’ (Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, November 2012). The junctions at each end of the link

will be considered in terms of their necessary level of performance for the assessment year of

2026. Figure 5 below is an excerpt from the above document and indicates an approximate

alignment for the road.

Figure 5: Proposed Wycke Hill Bypass Route

2.3 Study Area – Burnham-on-Crouch

The December 2010 study also considered the following junctions in Burnham-on-Crouch:

B1021 Southminster Road / Marsh Road / B1021 Church Road;

B1021 Church Road / B1010 Maldon Road;

B1021 Station Road / Alexandra Road;

B1021 Station Road / Devonshire Road / Foundry Lane; and

EB004a


B1010 Maldon Road / Creeksea Lane.

As agreed with ECC and MDC officers, each of the junctions listed has been considered in this

latest study. Figure 6 shows the precise location of each junction in Burnham-on-Crouch.

Figure 6. Burnham-on-Crouch Junction Assessment Locations

The Burnham-on-Crouch aspect of this study will also consider three other areas, as well as

highway capacity. They are:

Safety - concerns have been raised about the B1010, ie the main road into Burnham-on-

Crouch from the rest of Essex. The study assesses the levels and types of accidents that

have taken place on this route in the last 5 years since safety is a key consideration in the

planning process.

Access – half of the proposed development in Burnham-on-Crouch is accessed via

Southminster Road. The study will therefore consider the feasibility of providing an access

junction along this stretch of road in engineering terms.

Walking distances – the proposed Creeksea Lane development is on the periphery of the

town. The study will therefore consider the relative threshold for primary school children

to access Burnham-on-Crouch Primary School from the proposed development.

2.4 Committed Developments

The December 2010 report also considered a number of committed developments as part of the

future case scenario. Figure 7 and Figure 8 are taken from the report and have therefore also


EB004a


been accounted for in calculations of future traffic flows. The developments include areas set

aside for both housing and employment.

Figure 7. Maldon / Heybridge Committed Development Locations

Figure 8. Burnham-on-Crouch Committed Development Locations



EB004a


3 Forecast Traffic Flows

3.1 Methodology

This study has followed the same methodology for deriving future year traffic flows as the

December 2010 study. The only difference is the addition of the 3 traffic counts described in

Section 2.2. An overview of the methodology used to build the network of traffic flows for each

scenario is set out in the flowchart below. Subsequent sections give a more detailed explanation

of these steps.

Traffic Counts

Base Network AM and PM

Base Network + Background traffic growth to 2026

AM and PM

Add TEMPRO / NTM traffic growth factor to 2026 using alternative planning assumptions

Traffic from committed developments assigned to the network

2026 ‘Do Minimum’ Network AM and PM

2026 ‘Do Something’ Network AM and PM

Traffic from LDP locations assigned to the network

EB004a


3.2 Traffic Counts

Manual classified turn counts were carried out by ‘Count on Us’ on Thursday 27th May, 2010 at

each of the locations listed in Section 2.2. They were undertaken between the hours of 0730 and

0930 in the morning and 1630 and 1830 in the evening. The additional 3 traffic counts to support

this study (also manual classified turn counts) were completed on Thursday 22nd November, 2012.

These were 12-hour surveys commencing at 0700 and finishing at 1900. Peak hour flows of 0800

to 0900 and 1700 to 1800 hours (0745 to 0845 for the Oak Corner junction) were identified from

the counts. Appendices A and B show the base flows used in the study for Heybridge / Maldon

and Burnham-on-Crouch respectively.

3.3 Assessment Year and Background Traffic Growth

As per the agreement between Mouchel, ECC and MDC officers during the previous study, a

future design year of 2026 has been assumed for the highway capacity assessments.

Remaining consistent with the previous study, the same factors have been used to ‘growth’

background traffic levels from the base year to the design year of 2026, namely 1.099 and 1.109

for the AM and PM peak respectively in Heybridge / Maldon, and 1.093 and 1.096 for the AM and

PM peak respectively for Burnham-on-Crouch. This was done using the standard transport

planning methodology of combining the National Traffic Model along with TEMPRO local factors.

NB Alternative planning assumptions within TEMPRO have been input in order to avoid double

counting traffic from the LDP and committed developments.

3.4 Future Year Trip Generation

Again remaining consistent with the December 2010 study, the same trip rates for the proposed

developments in Heybridge, South Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch have been used. These have

been obtained from an interrogation of the TRICS (Trip Rate Information Computer System)

database and are summarised in Table 3-1 below. TRICS is a database of traffic surveys for various

types of development and is managed by JMP Consultancy. It is the standard transport planning

industry tool for quantifying the level of trip generation expected for proposed developments. It is

widely used by both developers and local highway authorities in putting together and assessing

planning applications respectively.

Housing Type AM Peak PM Peak

ARR DEP ARR DEP

Flats Rented 0.063 0.125 0.122 0.091

Flats Privately owned 0.045 0.179 0.149 0.069

Houses Rented 0.129 0.235 0.270 0.172

Houses Privately owned 0.157 0.457 0.401 0.235

Table 3-1: Vehicle Trip Rates (per dwelling) for Heybridge and Burnham-on-Crouch Development

EB004a


In order to determine the number of vehicle trips that are expected to be generated by the LDP

development sites in each peak period, sites have been identified in the TRICS database that are

comparable in terms of location, and where the survey sample size is sufficient. In this case, data

from edge of town sites were used. Full details of the trip rate data is contained within Appendix

A of the December 2010 study.

It should be noted that average trip rates (rather than the commonly-used 85th percentile rates)

were originally used because it was assumed that any future development would be expected to

provide a comprehensive package of sustainable transport measures, such as new or improved

public transport services and facilities, connections to the local pedestrian and cycle networks,

and a detailed travel plan to encourage the use of non-car modes of travel.

Based on the above trip rates, Table 3.2 below details total trip generation calculated for the

morning and evening peak periods in Heybridge. The housing split was based on information

provided by MDC officers.


ARR DEP ARR DEP

Flats Rented 4 9 8 6

Flats Privately owned 10 40 33 15

Houses Rented 20 38 43 28

Houses Privately owned 86 252 220 129

Total 120 339 304 178

Table 3.2: Summary of Heybridge Development Trip Generation

Similarly, Table 3.3 details the trip generation calculated for the morning and evening peak for the

proposed South Maldon development. Again, these are based on the same housing split as

Heybridge.


ARR DEP ARR DEP





Total 152 421 382 222

Table 3-3: Summary of South Maldon Development Trip Generation

EB004a


Lastly, Table 3-4 below shows the trip generation calculated for the two combined sites in

Burnham-on-Crouch. Once more, it has been based on the same housing spilt as both Heybridge

and South Maldon.


ARR DEP ARR DEP





Total 109 303 275 160

Table 3.4: Summary of Burnham-on-Crouch Development Trip Generation

3.5 Trip Distribution and Assignment of Development Traffic

Trip distribution and assignment methodology has also remained consistent with the December

2010 study (except, as stated in Section 2.1, in this case all Heybridge development traffic is being

assigned to the relief road between Broad Street Green Road and Holloway Road / Langford

Road). It was previously based on 2001 Census Travel to Work data and, with the more recent

2011 data unavailable at the outset of this piece of work, this criteria has been retained. Full

details of the methodology are covered in Section 3.5 of the previous work. NB The trip

assignment for the South Maldon and the section of Burnham-on-Crouch development adjacent

to Southminster Road / Marsh Road, were adjusted to account for their location being in a

different ward to the previous study’s development.

As described in Section 2.1 and shown in Figure 2.2, the proposed South Maldon development has

been divided into 4 parcels of land and therefore each section feeds onto the highway network at

different locations. It has been assumed that trips from 120 dwellings would access the network

on the proposed bypass, trips from 180 dwellings would access the A414 via the proposed

roundabout at the western end of the bypass, trips from 800 dwellings would access Limebrook

Way between the Wycke Hill and Fambridge Road roundabouts and trips from 150 dwellings

would access Park Drive just east of the Mundon Road roundabout.

With regard to Burnham-on-Crouch, and similarly mentioned in Section 2.1, trips from 450

dwellings have been assigned via Creeksea Lane. Trips from the other 450 dwellings have been

divided into 3 parts; 60% would access Southminster Road from west of the north-south aligned

route, 15% from the east side and 25% from Marsh Road.

EB004a


3.6 Forecast Traffic Flows

Following the trip distribution and assignment, updated future year (2026) traffic flows have been

obtained for AM and PM peak periods. These are included in Appendix C for the Heybridge and

South Maldon study area and are based on the assumption that all Heybridge development traffic

is assigned to the proposed relief road. Meanwhile, Appendix D shows the 2026 flows for

Burnham-on-Crouch.

EB004a


4 Assessment Methodology

4.1 Junction Assessments Methodology

Following the establishment of the future year traffic flows, the next task was to feed them into

junction assessment models. In the December 2010 study, these were carried out using Transport

Research Laboratory’s (TRL) ARCADY software for roundabouts or PICADY for priority junctions.

Both of these two pieces of software have now been superseded by TRL’s Junctions 8 software

however. The previous models have therefore been ‘imported’ into the newest version before

assessment in this study. NB It should be stressed that the previous assessments are not affected

by this process and therefore the different traffic flows in this piece of work are the only reason

for differing results.

4.2 Understanding Junctions 8 Results

The outputs of Junctions 8 have remained consistent with those produced by ARCADY and

PICADY. As such, a junction’s performance is given by the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) for each

approach. Generally, where the RFC is shown to be greater than 1.0 then the approach is said to

have reached its theoretical capacity as the number of vehicles arriving at the junction on that

approach exceeds its capacity. Any approach with an RFC above 1.0 would be expected to suffer

from significant vehicle queues and delays. However, for existing junctions, as a rule of thumb, an

RFC between 0.90 and 1.0 is usually taken as a point where an approach has reached its practical

capacity and where vehicles will start to experience some delay and congestion. Any arm with an

RFC of less than 0.90 can be considered to operate satisfactorily.

For ease of reference, the tables in the following sections have been colour-coded. Any junction

arm with an RFC of more than 1.0 is therefore shown in red, RFCs of 0.90 to 1.00 are shown in

amber, whilst green represents anything less than 0.90. The tables will also provide an indication

of the level of queuing likely to take place on each arm. These are shown in passenger car units

(pcus).

EB004a


5 Impact of Redistribution of Heybridge Development Traffic

5.1 Reassignment of Heybridge Development Traffic to Link Road

The December 2010 study was based on a number of assumptions regarding trip assignment. This

included the supposition that background trips passing through Heybridge would use the

proposed link road instead of the existing, congested route on the B1022 and B1018. Whilst the

majority of the development traffic was also assigned to the link road, some trips were assigned

directly to Holloway Road. In all, the previous study had 125 departures and 47 arrivals accessing

the development via Holloway Road in the AM peak. In the PM peak, there were 67 departures

and 113 arrivals via Holloway Road. All of these development trips have now been assigned to the

proposed link road in this study.

5.2 Resultant Traffic Flows

The resultant traffic flows are shown in Figures 9 and 10 and compares flows before and after the

reassignment for the AM and PM peak. In both figures, increases in flows are shown with red

arrows and falls are marked with green arrows. The figures also highlight the percentage change

for each link of the network.

As could be expected, assigning all the Heybridge development onto the proposed link road

reduces flows on Holloway Road in both peak periods. It also marginally reduces flows in both

directions along the B1018 The Causeway route. It does, however, push some traffic onto the

surrounding roads. Nevertheless, the increases are minimal compared to the December 2010

study’s forecast flows and are therefore not considered sufficient enough to impact junction

performance in the locality significantly.

EB004a


Figure 9. Heybridge Redistribution of Traffic Following Link Road Reassignment – AM Peak


EB004a


Figure 10. Heybridge Redistribution of Traffic Following Link Road Reassignment – PM Peak


EB004a


6 Impact of Heybridge and South Maldon Development

6.1 Introduction

This section sets out the junction assessment results for Heybridge and Maldon following the

reassignment of Heybridge traffic detailed in Section 5, and the addition of traffic from the

proposed South Maldon development. It considers each junction where issues were identified in

the December 2010 study, and as detailed in Section 2.2, two additional junctions near the South

Maldon development along Limebrook Way. It does not include details of the B1022 Colchester

Road / Scraley Road / B1022 Broad Street Green Road junction (the previous study identified no

capacity concerns at this location and this study has confirmed those findings) or the A414 Oak

Corner junction, which is considered in detail in Section 8. In each case, the flows have been

compared to the December 2010 study so that the full impact of the South Maldon development,

in addition to the Heybridge development, can be understood.

This section will also consider how the junctions connecting the proposed southern relief road to

the A414 (referred to in Section 2.2) should perform if the South Maldon development should

proceed as proposed.

EB004a


6.2 B1018 Langford Road / B1018 Heybridge Approach / Holloway Road Roundabout

Table 6.1 shows the performance of the junction in 2026 on completion of the South Maldon

development. The results confirm that the junction should perform satisfactorily in the AM peak.

However, with an RFC of 1.00 and maximum queue length of 22 vehicles, the Langford Road West

arm, ie towards Heybridge from Hatfield Peverel, is expected to operate at capacity in the PM

peak.

Base Year 2026 Background

Traffic

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings +

Reassignment to

Link Road and

South Maldon

RFC Q Length RFC Q Length RFC Q Length RFC Q Length

AM Peak

Langford Road East 0.55 1 0.64 2 0.87 6 0.90 8

Heybridge Approach 0.55 1 0.63 2 0.73 3 0.79 4

Langford Road West 0.42 1 0.47 1 0.55 1 0.57 1

Development Access N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.03 0 0.04 0

PM Peak

Langford Road East 0.40 1 0.46 1 0.60 2 0.64 2

Heybridge Approach 0.62 2 0.73 3 0.90 8 0.93 11

Langford Road West 0.63 2 0.76 3 0.92 10 1.00 22

Development Access N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.03 0 0.04 0

Table 6-1: B1018 / Holloway Roundabout Junction Performance

Given the level of development being planned, ie 1,000 dwellings in Heybridge and 1,250 in South

Maldon, plus the fact that 2026 represents a reasonably distant future year scenario, we would

not consider this junction’s performance to be a major concern. We would, however, be of the

opinion that any additional development would raise congestion issues. Consequently, further

mitigation may need to be investigated at this junction.

EB004a


6.3 B1018 Heybridge Approach / A414 Roundabout

The December 2010 study identified mitigation measures as necessary at this junction with the

addition of 1,000 dwellings at Heybridge. These entailed the provision of unopposed slip lanes

from Heybridge Approach to A414 East and A414 South to Heybridge Approach. Table 6.2 below

compares the Base and 2026 Background Traffic scenarios with the previous study’s mitigation

scenario for the Heybridge development, and the addition of South Maldon traffic. The results

indicate that the junction should operate satisfactorily in both peak periods in 2026 when traffic

from both developments is added if the mitigation referred to above is in place.


Traffic

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings plus

Mitigation

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings plus

Mitigation,

Reassignment to

Link Road and

South Maldon


AM Peak

A414 East 0.56 1 0.70 2 0.59 1 0.58 1

A414 South 0.65 2 0.81 4 0.53 1 0.58 1

B1018 Heybridge

Approach 0.69 2 0.84 5 0.79 4 0.84 5

PM Peak

A414 East 0.65 2 0.84 5 0.81 4 0.83 5

A414 South 0.75 9 0.91 9 0.53 1 0.57 1

B1018 Heybridge

Approach 0.57 1 0.68 2 0.59 1 0.67 2

Table 6-2: B1018 Heybridge Approach / A414 Roundabout Junction Performance

EB004a


6.4 A414 / Fullbridge Roundabout

With only one arm (B1018 The Causeway) in one peak period (AM peak) exceeding the

recommended threshold of 0.90 in 2026 with the Heybridge development, mitigation measures

were not considered necessary at this junction previously. The addition of South Maldon traffic

does not have much influence on this junction (most such trips route elsewhere) meaning the

only concern is the impact from the Heybridge development. Following reassignment to the link

road however, the pressure on The Causeway arm is alleviated slightly to the point where the RFC

falls to 0.90 from 0.93 previously. As such, we would consider the performance of this junction to

be reasonable in the 2026 scenario.


Traffic

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings plus

Reassignment to

Link Road and

South Maldon


AM Peak

B1018 The Causeway 0.71 2 0.65 2 0.93 10 0.90 8

Fullbridge 0.46 1 0.56 1 0.54 1 0.54 1

A414 West 0.61 2 0.76 3 0.72 3 0.78 3

PM Peak

B1018 The Causeway 0.55 1 0.66 2 0.69 2 0.67 2

Fullbridge 0.69 2 0.83 5 0.85 5 0.87 6

A414 West 0.57 1 0.80 4 0.81 4 0.81 4

Table 6-3: A414 / Fullbridge Roundabout Junction Performance

EB004a


6.5 B1018 The Causeway / The Square / B1022 The Street Roundabout

The December 2010 study showed that this junction will be under notable pressure when the

Heybridge development is added. Furthermore, due to the spatial constraints of the location,

mitigation measures were not considered feasible. However, it was shown that, despite

congestion issues, the addition of the Heybridge development traffic could be achieved with a ‘nil

detriment’ compared to the 2026 Background scenario if a relief road around Heybridge is

provided. With the South Maldon development not having any significant impact on this junction,

Table 6.4 confirms that the ‘nil detriment’ situation is retained in this particular study, ie the RFCs

on B1022 The Street in the AM peak and B1018 The Causeway in the PM peak actually drop

slightly compared the 2026 Background traffic scenario (which does not assess the impact of a link

road).


Traffic

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings plus

Reassignment to

Link Road and

South Maldon


AM Peak

B1022 The Street 1.00 27 1.19 137 1.15 103 1.17 120

B1018 The Causeway 0.67 2 0.75 3 0.67 2 0.71 2

The Square 0.28 0 0.33 1 0.34 1 0.32 0

PM Peak

B1022 The Street 0.65 2 0.74 3 0.69 2 0.71 2

B1018 The Causeway 1.06 50 1.29 200 1.19 130 1.26 173

The Square 0.51 1 0.58 1 0.57 1 0.54 1

Table 6-4: B1018 The Causeway / The Square / B1022 The Street Roundabout Junction Performance

EB004a


6.6 B1022 Colchester Road / B1026 Goldhanger Road Roundabout

This is another junction where the December 2010 study identified as having significant

congestion issues in 2026 and where mitigation measures were not feasible due to spatial

constraints. However, again, the previous study showed that the introduction of a link road

around the Heybridge development would allow a ‘nil detriment’ situation to be achieved

compared to the 2026 Background Traffic scenario. This situation remains following the Heybridge

reassignment and the addition of the South Maldon traffic. As indicated above, the impact of

South Maldon trips on this part of the network is minimal and therefore RFCs, although notably

high on B1026 Goldhanger Road in the AM peak and B1022 Colchester Road South in the PM

peak, are slightly lower than the 2026 Background Traffic scenario. Table 6.5 below demonstrates

the results.


Traffic

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings plus

Reassignment to

Link Road and

South Maldon


AM Peak

B1026 Goldhanger

Road 0.89 7 1.12 39 1.03 21 1.06 28

B1022 Colchester

Road South 0.41 1 0.47 1 0.41 1 0.43 1

B1022 Colchester

Road North 0.86 6 1.02 26 0.91 8 0.95 12

PM Peak

B1026 Goldhanger

Road 0.42 1 0.48 1 0.45 1 0.47 1

B1022 Colchester

Road South 0.91 9 1.06 62 1.01 32 1.04 47

B1022 Colchester

Road North 0.63 2 0.75 3 0.64 2 0.69 2

Table 6-5: B1022 Colchester Road / B1026 Goldhanger Road Roundabout Junction Performance

EB004a


6.7 A414 / Spital Road Roundabout

The December 2010 study identified the necessity for mitigation measures at this junction to

cater for the proposed Heybridge development traffic. These entailed the provision of an

unopposed slip lane from A414 South to A414 North and the widening of the A414 South exit

arm. Consequently, the proposed improvements have been carried forward in assessing the South

Maldon development. It should be noted that the reassignment of Heybridge development traffic

to the link road is not a factor in this location.

The results in Table 6.6 show that the junction should operate satisfactorily in both peak periods

following the addition of the South Maldon traffic if the mitigation measures are in place.


Traffic

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings plus

Mitigation

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings plus

Mitigation and

South Maldon


AM Peak

Spital Road 0.69 2 0.86 5 0.68 1 0.71 2

A414 South 0.80 4 0.95 14 0.27 0 0.28 0

A414 North 0.73 3 0.85 5 0.76 3 0.78 4

PM Peak

Spital Road 0.45 1 0.58 1 0.46 1 0.54 1

A414 South 0.92 9 1.08 77 0.31 0 0.31 0

A414 North 0.75 3 0.92 10 0.77 3 0.83 5

Table 6-6: A414 / Spital Road Junction Performance

EB004a


6.8 A414 / B1018 Limebrook Way Roundabout

The December 2010 study also identified this junction as needing improvements to accommodate

the Heybridge development traffic in 2026. These included the widening of the Limebrook Way

and A414 west approaches to the junction and the widening of the A414 North exit arm.

However, in this study the dynamics of the junction have changed. It has been assumed that A414

traffic, ie A414 West arm to A414 North arm and vice-versa, would re-route to use the proposed

bypass referred to in Section 2.2. A check of the current layout of the junction with updated turn

counts to include South Maldon traffic, but excluding A414 movements, has therefore been

carried out. It indicated that mitigation would still be necessary. Table 6.7 therefore demonstrates

the junction assessment results for 2026 compared to Base Year and 2026 Background Traffic

scenarios with mitigation in place.


Traffic

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings plus

Mitigation

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings plus

Mitigation and

South Maldon

with Bypass


AM Peak

B1018 Limebrook

Way 1.02 29 1.27 133 1.16 88 0.88 7

A414 West 0.81 4 0.94 12 0.79 4 0.26 0

A414 North 0.77 3 0.91 9 0.91 9 0.35 1

Morrisons Access 0.28 0 0.34 1 0.38 1 0.23 0

PM Peak

B1018 Limebrook

Way 0.67 2 0.84 5 0.63 2 0.52 1

A414 West 1.01 28 1.24 147 1.15 108 0.49 1

A414 North 0.74 3 0.87 6 0.92 10 0.59 1

Morrisons Access 0.53 1 0.67 2 0.38 2 0.54 1

Table 6-7: A414 B1018 Limebrook Way Roundabout Junction Performance

It is clear that, with mitigation and a southern bypass in place, this junction should operate

satisfactorily in both peak periods in 2026. Indeed, its performance is notably improved compared

to even the Base Year scenario. This confirms that a bypass has a significant benefit in terms of

reducing demand on this section of the network.

EB004a


6.9 Limebrook Way / Fambridge Road Roundabout

This junction was one of the three additional assessments carried out as a result of the South

Maldon development proposals. Consequently, it has also been assessed with the traffic flows

from all of the scenarios of the previous study, as well as the proposed South Maldon

development.

Table 6.8 confirms that, in all modelled scenarios, this junction performs satisfactorily. Given that

the majority of South Maldon trips will access the highway network to the west of the roundabout

and therefore not have to negotiate it, these results would seem reasonable and provide

confidence that the existing road layout can cater for future demands adequately.


Traffic

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings and

South Maldon


AM Peak

Fambridge Rd North 0.27 0 0.31 0 0.31 0 0.33 0

Limebrook Way East 0.33 0 0.37 1 0.37 1 0.41 1

Fambridge Rd South 0.51 1 0.58 1 0.61 2 0.65 2

Limebrook Way West 0.37 1 0.41 1 0.41 1 0.45 1

PM Peak

Fambridge Rd North 0.31 0 0.36 1 0.37 1 0.41 1

Limebrook Way East 0.22 0 0.25 0 0.26 0 0.27 0

Fambridge Rd South 0.36 1 0.41 1 0.42 1 0.44 1

Limebrook Way West 0.60 1 0.67 2 0.69 2 0.76 3

Table 6-8: Limebrook Way / Fambridge Road Roundabout Junction Performance

EB004a


6.10 Limebrook Way / Mundon Road / Park Road

As with the Limebrook Way / Fambridge Road roundabout, this was one of the three additional

junctions as a result of the South Maldon proposals. And similar to the above assessment, the

results of the assessments show that this junction will also perform satisfactorily in 2026 when

both Heybridge and South Maldon developments are added to the network. Table 6.9 highlights

the results.


Traffic

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings and

South Maldon


AM Peak

Mundon Road North 0.13 0 0.15 0 0.15 0 0.15 0

Park Drive 0.15 0 0.18 0 0.18 0 0.25 0

Mundon Road South 0.21 0 0.23 0 0.24 0 0.24 0

Limebrook Way 0.14 0 0.16 0 0.16 0 0.16 0

PM Peak

Mundon Road North 0.12 0 0.13 0 0.13 0 0.14 0

Park Drive 0.24 0 0.27 0 0.27 0 0.28 0

Mundon Road South 0.16 0 0.18 0 0.18 0 0.18 0

Limebrook Way 0.26 0 0.29 0 0.29 0 0.32 0

Table 6-9: Limebrook Way / Mundon Road / Park Road Roundabout Junction Performance

EB004a


6.11 Proposed A414 Bypass / South Maldon Development Access Junction (west of Limebrook Way

Roundabout)

In order to understand the scale of highway capacity required to accommodate both the

Heybridge and South Maldon developments, we have undertaken a preliminary assessment using

the updated traffic flows.

The principal movement at the junction would be a north to west movement in the AM peak

period and vice-versa in the PM peak. This is based on the assumption that A414 traffic would

route via the proposed bypass and therefore avoid the Limebrook Way junction. Early indications

show that a roundabout junction would need to have two lanes on both the entry and exit of the

A414 western arm. The other arms could potentially be single lane approaches, but would need to

incorporate suitable flares into the design. On the assumption that this is provided, Table 6.10

below shows an indication of the junction’s potential performance.

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings and

South Maldon

RFC Q Length

AM Peak

A414 Bypass North 0.73 3

Former A414 East 0.62 2

Site Access South 0.11 0

A414 West 0.65 2

PM Peak

A414 Bypass North 0.63 2

Former A414 East 0.28 0

Site Access South 0.03 0

A414 West 0.92 10

Table 6-10: Proposed A414 Bypass / South Maldon Development Access Junction Performance

It should be reiterated that the above figures are indicative. They are based on a preliminary

design and therefore should not be considered as confirmation of the junction’s likely

performance. Clearly design would need to be considered in more detail as part of the planning

process.

EB004a


6.12 Proposed A414 Bypass / Wycke Hill Junction

Unlike the western end of the proposed bypass, it has been extremely difficult to devise a suitable

junction at the eastern end on Wycke Hill due to the large conflicting traffic flows. As with the

western junction, the predominant flows are in each direction on the A414. However, there is also

significant demand on Wycke Hill northbound in both peak periods. Accommodating this demand

is problematic unless it is at the expense of at least one direction of A414 flow. Table 6.11 below

indicates the results that have been obtained for a roundabout junction. It should be noted that,

contrary to Figure 5 in Section 2.2 and in order to improve performance, it has been assumed that

the junction is three arms with a designated left slip lane from the A414 western arm to the A414

northbound arm, a designated straight on north to south lane bypassing the junction and no

additional development access, ie all development trips would have to access the network along

the bypass route itself.

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings and

South Maldon

RFC Q Length

AM Peak

A414 North 0.62 2

Wycke Hill South 2.58 393

A414 Bypass West 0.00 0

PM Peak

A414 North 0.47 1

Wycke Hill South 1.39 112

A414 Bypass West 0.01 0

Table 6-11: Proposed A414 Bypass / Wycke Hill Junction Performance

Therefore, even with the designated slip lanes, access from the southern arm (Wycke Hill) arm is

unsatisfactory in both peak periods. It should also be noted that, according to the Masterplan

drawing shown in Figure 5 in Section 2.2, this junction is only approximately 200m north of the

Limebrook Way roundabout and any significant queues could potentially extend back and across

it thus causing further congestion in the area. Furthermore, a house just to the north of the

proposed junction (on the west side of the A414) could also adversely affect plans for the design

of a suitable junction.

EB004a


In light of the above results, we have also undertaken a preliminary signals assessment using JCT

Consultancy’s LinSig software. This has entailed the provision of two lane approaches on each of

the three arms. Table 6.12 demonstrates the indicative results. NB Results in LinSig are shown in

Degree of Saturation (similar to Junctions 8, 100% is considered to be at capacity).

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings and

South Maldon

D of S

Mean

Max Q

Length

AM Peak

A414 North 101.6% 43

Wycke Hill South 100.0% 20

A414 Bypass West 53.1% 9

PM Peak

A414 North 79.8% 17

Wycke Hill South 76.5% 9

A414 Bypass West 73.8% 17

Table 6-12: Proposed A414 Bypass / Wycke Hill Signalised Junction Performance

The results show that, although the PM peak achieves a reasonable performance, the AM peak

has congestion issues on two arms. With the aforementioned proximity of other junctions, any

significant queues would be a concern.

Once more, it should be reiterated that the above results are drawn from preliminary design

junctions. More detailed design would be necessary before they should be considered wholly

reliable. However, irrespective of whether a roundabout or a signalised junction is planned for

this location, it is clear from our assessments that a sizable junction would be required to

accommodate future demand in this location. This may mean that, as part of the planning

process, an agreement will be necessary with developers to ‘free up’ additional land to

accommodate highway network demand.

EB004a


7 Impact of Burnham-on-Crouch Developments

7.1 Introduction

This section considers the impact of the proposed development sites in Burnham-on-Crouch on

the surrounding highway network. It firstly covers the junction assessments, before considering

the potential for a development access junction(s) on Southminster Road, accident statistics for

the B1010 Maldon Road and walking thresholds for Burnham-on-Crouch Primary School. As stated

previously, Appendices B and D contain Base Year and 2026 Forecast Traffic Flows from which the

junction assessments are based.

7.2 Junction Assessment Considerations

As well as a 100 dwelling development at Creeksea Lane, the December 2010 study considered a

500 dwelling development to the east of Burnham-on-Crouch town centre. Trips to / from the

development were split between Alexandra Road and Marsh Road. As stated in Section 2.1, this

latest study assumes that 450 dwellings will now access the highway network from Creeksea Lane

and 450 dwellings from Southminster Road. 75% of the Southminster Road dwellings have been

assessed from north of the junction with Marsh Road and 25% from Marsh Road itself.

Consequently, with the removal of trips on Alexandra Road and the majority of the proposed

development assigned to the B1010 Maldon Road in the peak hours, traffic flows have fallen

slightly in the central area of the town compared to the previous study.

In this study, the only increase in flows is on Southminster Road to the north of the town centre

and Maldon Road. We have therefore not undertaken assessments at the following junctions as

we can be confident that their performance, which was satisfactory in the previous study, would

be further improved in this study:

B1021 Station Road / Alexandra Road;

B1021 Station Road / Foundry Lane / Devonshire Road; and

B1021 Southminster Road / B1021 Church Road / Marsh Road.

The last of the above junctions has not been assessed because, despite an increase in overall flow

on the main north-south road, there are less trips to / from Marsh Road compared to the previous

study. As such, the junction should continue to perform satisfactorily.

EB004a


7.3 B1021 Church Road / B1010 Maldon Road Junction

7.3.1 Proposed Roundabout

The previous study identified improvements as necessary at this junction. These involved the

introduction of a mini-roundabout to replace the southernmost of three existing priority

junctions. With the overall number of dwellings being assessed in this study increasing from 600

to 900, we have therefore retained the amended layout for the purposes of this assessment.

Table 7.1 below shows the results of the proposed roundabout assessment (the southern of the

trio of existing priority junctions) compared to the previous study.


Traffic

2026 with 600

Burnham

Dwellings

(previous study)

plus mitigation

2026 with 900

Burnham

Dwellings plus

mitigation


AM Peak

B1021 Church Road

South N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.81 4 0.74 3

B1010 Maldon Road 0.62 2 0.85 5 0.49 1 0.53 1

B1021 Church Road

North 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.50 1 0.52 1

PM Peak

B1021 Church Road

South N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.61 2 0.62 2

B1010 Maldon Road 1.0 14 1.19 44 0.83 5 0.76 3

B1021 Church Road

North 0.00 0 00.0 0 0.57 1 0.54 1

Table 7-1: B1021 Church Road / B1010 Maldon Road Junction Roundabout Performance

The results confirm that the proposed junction should continue to perform satisfactorily in both

peak periods in 2026 with development traffic added. It is reasonable to have confidence in these

results as, with a large proportion of development traffic accessing Southminster Road from

Maldon Road, this junction is effectively bypassed for many trips, ie such trips would use the

western and northern intersections instead.

EB004a


7.3.2 Western Intersection

Table 7.2 below shows the results of the western intersection junction. As in the December 2010

study, its performance is shown to be satisfactory with the addition of trips from 900 dwellings in

both peak periods in 2026.

2026 with 600

Burnham

Dwellings

(previous study)

2026 with 900

Burnham

Dwellings

RFC Q Length RFC Q Length

AM Peak

B1010 Maldon Road West N/A N/A N/A N/A

B1021 Church Road North 0.58 1 0.75 3

B1010 Maldon Road East 0.00 0 0.00 0

PM Peak

B1010 Maldon Road West N/A N/A N/A N/A



Table 7-2: B1010 Maldon Road / B1021 Church Road - Western Intersection Junction Performance

7.3.3 North Intersection

Table 7.3 shows the results of the northern intersection assessment. Again, the results for the

2026 with development scenario indicate satisfactory performance in both peak periods.

2026 with 600

Burnham

Dwellings

(previous study)

2026 with 900

Burnham

Dwellings


AM Peak

B1021 Church Road South N/A N/A N/A N/A

B1010 Maldon Road 0.20 0 0.27 0


PM Peak

B1021 Church Road South N/A N/A N/A N/A

B1010 Maldon Road 0.27 0 0.36 1


Table 7-3: B1010 Maldon Road / B1021 Church Road - Northern Intersection Junction Performance

EB004a


7.4 B1010 Maldon Road / Creeksea Lane Junction

This intersection is similar to the Maldon Road / Church Road junction in that it is divided into a

trio of junctions. No capacity issues were identified in the December 2010 study. However, this

study sees a notable increase in the number of dwellings being accessed via Creeksea Lane (450

compared to 100 previously).

7.4.1 East Intersection

Table 7.4 shows the results of the assessment with 450 dwellings compared to the 100 dwellings

of the previous study. Although there has been an increase in traffic flow on both Creeksea Lane

and Maldon Road, the junction is shown to continue to perform satisfactorily in 2026 in both peak

periods.

2026 with 600

Burnham

Dwellings

(previous study)

2026 with 900

Burnham

Dwellings


AM Peak

B1010 Maldon Road East N/A N/A N/A N/A

Creeksea Lane 0.13 0 0.33 0

B1010 Maldon Road West 0.00 0 0.00 0

PM Peak




Table 7-4: B1010 Maldon Road / Creeksea Lane - East Junction Performance

EB004a


7.4.2 West Intersection

Table 7.5 below shows the results of the west intersection. Again, despite the increase in traffic

flow, the junction is shown to operate satisfactorily in 2026 in both peak periods.

2026 with 600

Burnham

Dwellings

(previous study)

2026 with 900

Burnham

Dwellings


AM Peak




PM Peak




Table 7-5: B1010 Maldon Road / Creeksea Lane - West Junction Performance

7.4.3 South Intersection

Table 7.6 shows the results of the south intersection. Once more, despite the increase in traffic

flow, there are no concerns in terms of the junction capacity in 2026 in either peak period.

2026 with 600

Burnham

Dwellings

(previous study)

incl mitigation

2026 with 900

Burnham

Dwellings incl

mitigation


AM Peak

Creeksea Lane North N/A N/A N/A N/A


Creeksea Lane South 0.06 0 0.15 0

PM Peak

Creeksea Lane North N/A N/A N/A N/A


Creeksea Lane South 0.05 0 0.11 0

Table 7-6: B1010 Maldon Road / Creeksea Lane - South Junction Performance

EB004a


7.5 Southminster Road Access

7.5.1 Site Description

As per a Development Framework Document (dated August 2012) prepared by a possible

developer for the area, the two proposal sites are located to the north of Burnham-on-Crouch

town centre and to the east and west of the B1021 Southminster Road. Pannel’s Brook separates

one site to the North and the other to the south. The southern site is immediately adjacent to St

Peter’s High School to the North and both sites are currently located in rural gap between areas of

existing development within Burnham-on-Crouch. The existing development to the north

incorporates what appear to be stables and therefore there may be equestrian road users

throughout the area.

The B1021 Southminster Road runs straight north to south between the sites at approx. just over

5.5m wide and appears to be subject to a 30mph speed limit by virtue of street lighting. The road

crosses Pannel’s Brook via a small bridge with relatively low brick parapet walls with the B1021

approaching on minor embankments either side. Both sites are lower than the level of the B1021

but with different rates of level change for each site. Ditches are present on both sides of the

bridge and to a greater extent on the eastern side which features greater numbers of trees.

Vegetation is also present on the western side but mostly located to the south including some

larger trees and a hedgerow which may have Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) imposed upon them.

A staggered system of street lighting is present which would appear to be supplied from the

overhead electricity mains supply on the Eastern side of the B1021 which appears to transfer to

underground mains from the overhead pole located immediately South of the Eastern bridge

parapet wall. The site also incorporates a number of illuminated signs on both sides of the road

therefore road crossing supplies are further anticipated. There is a telecoms overhead pole

located to the south-east of the southern site on the western highway verge which links overhead

to the south-east to a shared electricity pole on the eastern verge and the service run appears to

become underground on the western verge.

7.5.2 Junction Provisions

The provision of a single junction providing access to both development sites is not considered to

be a realistic prospect given the separation of the two proposed accesses points (approximately

120m) and the existing bridge between the two locations and would require major inappropriate

changes to the existing B1021 through route which would result in very high costs especially with

the presence of the brook considered.

Although the current speed limit is 30mph, it is possible that vehicle speeds could be higher as the

surrounding frontage is rural and implies that a higher speed limit applies. At present, vehicle

speeds are anticipated to be in the region of 40-45mph.Therefore, using the current situation, the

EB004a


visibility required in either direction will be a minimum of 120m (assuming a design speed of

70kph or 43.5mph as per DMRB TD 42/95, Table 7/1). The development will change the nature of

the area and provide a more urban feel for drivers therefore it is fair to assume vehicle speeds will

reduce once the development has taken place. Using Table 7/1 as above, the design speed can be

reduced to 60kph (37.3mph) or 50kph (31.1mph) resulting in visibility distances of 90m and 70m

respectively but likely that the higher design speed will be required.

There may be issues providing larger visibility splays to the south of the southern site which is

approached by a sweeping right hand bend but the proposed access location is located on a

straight section of the road which should permit for reasonable visibility of approaching vehicles.

There is also a slight restriction at the northern site where the main road climbs slightly to meet

the bends at Eve’s Corner junction which may affect visibility provision but this would be assessed

at detail design stage.

Existing vegetation will need to be removed or cut back at both sites. At the northern site there

are trees which may have accompanying TPO’s to both sides of the proposed junction which will

impact on visibility and a hedgerow to the north which provides some screening for the existing

houses at Ashwood Close but may have an adverse effect on provision of adequate visibility.

There may also be issues with the rise in vertical alignment between the site and the road level at

the northern site affecting the visibility. At the southern site, there will need to be consideration

given to linking across the road side ditch/ embankment of the main road to the site. The net

change in level does not appear to be as much at the northern site but the presence of the ditch

will require an engineering solution to enable access to the site.

EB004a


7.6 Accident Data on B1010 and B1012

Accident data for the 5 year period between 1st November, 2007 and 31st October, 2012 has been

examined along the B1010 from South Woodham Ferrers to Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex. This

represents the most recent available data. In total, there have been 115 accidents recorded along

the extent of the route. Table 7.7 summarises the data in terms of severity and the type of

vehicles involved whilst Table 7.8 details the accident circumstances. Figure 11, meanwhile, plots

the exact location of each recorded incident.

Mode Fatal Serious Slight Total

Motor vehicles only (excluding 2-wheels) 1 11 78 90

2-wheeled motor vehicles 2 8 9 19

Pedal Cycles 0 1 5 6

Horses and other 0 0 0 0

Total 3 20 92 115

Table 7-7: 5 Year Accident Data for B1010 by Mode

Circumstance (NB some accidents have more than one factor)

Fatal Serious Slight

Lost control of vehicle 1 13 19

Occurred on bends - 7 22

Occurred in process of turning movement 1 3 24

Involved right turn movement 1 2 18

Involved overtaking manoeuvre 1 3 7

Occurred after dark in unlit area 2 2 24

Failed to give way - 1 22

Wet / Damp conditions 1 9 33

Table 7-8: Accident Circumstances

As Table 7.7 therefore shows, three accidents were categorised as fatal, 20 as serious and 92 as

slight. Two of the three fatal accidents occurred in darkness where there was no street lighting.

One of these was caused by a vehicle overtaking and then losing control (alcohol and drugs were

involved). Another of these occurred in wet conditions when a motorcycle rider lost control falling

into the path of an oncoming vehicle. The other fatal accident occurred during daylight and was

caused when a towing vehicle turned right into a field and an oncoming motorcycle collided with

the rear of the trailer.

Thirteen of the serious accidents were caused by drivers losing control of their vehicles, and of

these, six occurred in wet / damp conditions. Seven of these accidents were cited as occurring on

a bend. Three of the serious accidents were caused due to turning vehicles and other vehicles

colliding with them and two were due to right turning vehicles. One accident was caused when a

EB004a


driver failed to give way to a pedal cycle at a junction. The other serious collision was caused by a

lorry knocking off an oncoming vehicle’s wing mirror which hit the driver.

Of the 92 slight accidents recorded, 19 resulted from drivers losing control of their vehicles and 22

were described as drivers losing control on a bend. Other slight accidents were caused by

overtaking vehicles, drivers failing to stop for slowing vehicles, drivers pulling out of junctions into

the path of oncoming vehicles. The pedestrian accidents were caused by a pedestrian crossing

from behind a stationary van into the path of a turning vehicle and the other accident was caused

by an intoxicated pedestrian in the middle of the road on the exit of a roundabout and was

clipped by a wing mirror.

In summary, there has been a higher number of accidents recorded along this stretch of road than

could be expected. A number of the incidents have been recorded at or near bends in the road –

something that is a feature of this route (particularly at the eastern end near Burnham-on-

Crouch). However, as Figure 11 shows, many of the accidents have also been recorded on the

straighter sections and along much of the length of the route. This may be attributable to the

route also being comparatively narrow for long stretches. This would seem to confirm that safety

is a greater issue on this section of the highway network than could be expected for a road with

relatively low traffic flows. However, Maldon district remains among the three Essex authorities

which suffer the lowest number of fatal or seriously injured accidents.

If considered necessary, there are various measures that can be undertaken at varying degrees of

cost to assist in reducing accident levels. These include reducing speed limits and the introduction

of cameras, road widening, improving visibility at junctions or on bends, better signposting of

junctions / bends, right turn lanes at junctions and anti-skid surface material at key points.

EB004a


Figure 11: 5 Year Accident Data Plot

EB004a


7.7 Walking Threshold for Burnham Primary School

The proposed Creeksea Lane development is situated at the western end of Burnham-on-Crouch.

With the town’s primary school situated on the eastern side of the central area, we have

undertaken an assessment of the relevant accessibility for school children. Figure 12 highlights

the location of the development site in relation to the primary school.

There is a statutory walking distance for the determination of whether a local authority should

provide transport to school. For pupils under the age of 8, this is over 2 miles (approximately

3.2km). Figure 12 shows the walking distance from the easterly edge of the proposed

development at Creeksea Lane to Burnham-on-Crouch Primary School is either 2km, 2.1km or

2.2km depending on the route chosen (it should be noted that two of the marked routes follow a

public right of way and feature an at-grade railway crossing, which may be inadvisable for primary

school children). Whilst the distances may therefore be acceptable to Essex County Council in

terms of not having to provide transport, they are above usual walking thresholds.

The School Travel Health Check (STHC) website (developed by a consultancy of former local

authority officers) deems 800m to be the distance that most pupils of primary school age should

“reasonably / realistically” be able to walk to school. There has also been a national campaign

which states that pupils should be able to walk for 20 minutes to school (at average speed, this

would be approximately one mile or 1.6km). With the Burnham-on-Crouch Primary School being

beyond both distances, it is possible that a higher than average number of school trips by car may

emanate from a development at Creeksea Lane.

Given the above points, it may therefore be prudent to consider school travel planning initiatives

and / or the provision of school transport if there is a desire to pursue a development in the

Creeksea Lane area.

EB004a


Figure 12: Creeksea Lane - Burnham-on-Crouch Primary School Walking Threshold

EB004a


8 A414 and B1019 Impact

8.1 Traffic Flows

This study has concentrated mainly on the impact of the proposed developments in and around

the built up areas of Heybridge, Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch. However, concern has also

been raised about possible impact of the proposed Heybridge and South Maldon developments

on the wider highway network.

With Maldon and Heybridge representing an easterly extremity in Essex, a large proportion of

highway demand in the morning peak is westbound towards Chelmsford and the A12, which acts

as the main regional distributor. This demand is reversed in the evening peak period. There are

currently two main westbound routes from Maldon and Heybridge, the A414 which routes

through the village of Danbury and the B1019 which connects to the B1137 and the A12 at

Hatfield Peverel. This section considers the increase in demand that can be expected as a result of

the proposed developments.

Figures 13 and 14 compare the AM and PM peak hour flows for the Base Year scenario against

those predicted for 2026 with development. They show the difference in actual numbers, as well

as percentage change for the links at Oak Corner on the A414 and on the B1019 Langford Road

just west of Heybridge.

The figures confirm that traffic increases are likely to be significant. In the AM peak, the A414

westbound flow on the approach to Oak Corner is predicted to rise by 47% (1,518 vehicles in 2026

compared to 1,031 in the Base Year). Although some of this traffic is predicted to route

southbound along the B1418 Southend Road, the demand on the A414 Chelmsford Road

westbound increases by 300 vehicles (1,174 compared to 874 in the Base Year) or 34%. Given that

the route along the A414 in Danbury is already congested in the morning peak, such an increase

should be considered a concern.

Similarly, the westbound B1019 towards Hatfield Peverel is predicted to increase by 247 vehicles

in the AM peak. This represents a 33% increase from the Base Year scenario. The likelihood is

that, even with some dispersal of trips onto more rural routes, the increase will lead to queuing at

the junction with the B1137 in Hatfield Peverel.

In the PM peak, Maldon-bound flows increase by 36% on Chelmsford Road (1,103 vehicles in 2026

compared to 813 in the Base Year) and 44% on Southend Road (635 vehicles in 2026 compared to

441 in the Base Year. As with the AM peak, the Chelmsford Road trips will have to negotiate

Danbury and its congested thoroughfare prior to accessing the Oak Corner junction.

EB004a


Figure 13: Impact on Main Maldon / Heybridge Access Road - AM Peak

EB004a


Figure 14: Impact on Main Maldon / Heybridge Access Roads – PM Peak

EB004a


Meanwhile, on Langford Road, a 33% increase is predicted in the PM peak (996 vehicles in 2026

compared to 747 in the Base Year. Whilst the modelling in this study has suggested that the

Langford Road / Holloway Road / Heybridge Approach junction can accommodate these

increases, there may also be an impact on the aforementioned B1137 / B1019 junction.

It should also be added that, whilst there is strong tidal flow tendency on both the A414 and

B1019, ie from Maldon / Heybridge in the AM peak and to Maldon / Heybridge in the PM peak,

Figures 13 and 14 confirm that there are also notable increases in flows in the opposite directions

in both peak periods. Naturally the increases will affect the performance of the wider highway

network and junctions in particular. It is therefore important that ECC and MDC consider this

within the planning process. Meanwhile, Section 8.2 below considers the impact of the overall

increases at the key Oak Corner junction on the A414.

8.2 A414 Oak Corner Junction

Table 8.1 demonstrates the junction performance of the Oak Corner roundabout. As stated in

Section 2, this junction was not the subject of assessment in the December 2010 study. A full

appraisal of each traffic flow scenario has therefore been completed.


Traffic

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings

2026 with 1,000

Heybridge

Dwellings and

South Maldon


AM Peak

A414 Chelmsford

Road 0.43 1 0.48 1 0.53 1 0.56 1

A414 Maldon Road 0.70 2 0.78 3 0.90 8 1.04 49

B1010 Burnham Road 0.65 2 0.80 4 1.01 14 1.23 41

B1418 Southend

Road 0.68 2 0.84 5 1.10 23 1.23 43

PM Peak

A414 Chelmsford

Road 0.75 3 0.86 6 1.02 29 1.16 97

A414 Maldon Road 0.47 1 0.52 1 0.59 1 0.62 2

B1010 Burnham Road 0.28 0 0.33 0 0.35 1 0.35 1

B1418 Southend

Road 0.79 4 0.94 10 1.19 56 1.43 116

Table 8-1: A414 Oak Corner Junction Performance

EB004a


The results indicate that the Oak Corner roundabout will perform satisfactorily in both peak

periods in 2026 in the Base Year and Background Traffic scenarios. However, the addition of 1,000

dwellings from Heybridge leads to delays on two of the four arms of the junction in both peak

periods. These delays are exacerbated with the addition of South Maldon traffic. It is therefore

clear that development traffic is responsible for the junction operating above capacity in the

future case.

Although mitigation has not been considered in any detail as part of this study, it would appear

that land may be available to upgrade this junction. Consequently, we would suggest that a

designated left turn lane from Chelmsford Road to Maldon Road would contribute to improved

performance. The widening of the Maldon Road exit arm would also be likely to reduce delays.

Given that the proposed developments are a key factor in the decline of the junction’s

performance, there is a strong argument that developer contributions should be made to assist

any mitigation measures.

EB004a


9 Summary of Findings and Concluding Comments

9.1 Study Findings Summary

This study has considered the impact on the highway network of 1,000 potential dwellings at land

on the north side of Heybridge, 1,250 dwellings across four parcels of land in South Maldon and

900 dwellings split between 2 main sites in Burnham-on-Crouch. The methodology for the study

has remained consistent with that used in a December 2010 study by Mouchel plc with regard to

trip generation, assignment to the highway network and capacity assessments.

The principal findings are summarised as follows:

Heybridge

The December 2010 study assumed that some of the proposed 1,000 dwellings would

access the road network along Holloway Road. This study has assigned all development

trips (and relevant background trips) to the proposed Heybridge link road. The resultant

changes in traffic flows on the highway network were considered negligible in terms of

affecting the performance of junctions in the locality.

Heybridge and South Maldon

Junction assessments were carried out at the same locations as the December 2010

study, but were supplemented by 3 additional sites on the south and west of Maldon. The

findings showed that a ‘nil detriment’1 scenario could be attained at all junctions assessed

previously, plus 2 of the 3 additional sites if a) all Heybridge development traffic is

assigned to the proposed link road, b) an A414 bypass route is provided to avoid the A414

/ Limebrook Way junction, and c) mitigation measures identified in the December 2010

study are retained at B1018 Heybridge Approach / A414, A414 / Spital Road and A414 /

B1018 Limebrook Way roundabouts (described in main text).

However, the A414 Oak Corner junction has been shown to operate above capacity in

both peak periods in 2026 with the addition of traffic from proposed developments at

Heybridge and South Maldon. Mitigation measures are therefore predicted to be required

at this location.

Furthermore, whilst it appears feasible to design a junction which will serve the proposed

A414 bypass to the west of Maldon satisfactorily, the study has confirmed that a sizable

junction would be necessary at the northern end to link into Wycke Hill. This may entail

1 NB Although a ‘nil detriment’ is achievable at The Causeway / The Square / The Street and Colchester Road /

Goldhanger Road junctions compared to the 2026 Background Traffic scenario, it should be reiterated that congestion is predicted at these locations due to the lack of space to provide mitigation measures.

EB004a


more detailed feasibility work and entering an agreement with developers to ‘free up’

additional land.

Burnham-on-Crouch

Junction assessments indicated that the proposed developments could be

accommodated satisfactorily on the existing highway network if the mitigation

measure identified in the December 2010 study at the B1010 Maldon Road / B1021

Church Road junction is retained, ie mini-roundabout at southern intersection.

From the Development Framework document prepared by a possible developer for

the area, it would not appear feasible to provide a single access to the proposed

development either side of Southminster Road. However, two separate junctions

would seem to be possible.

5 year accident data confirms that safety is an issue along the B1010 and B1012.

Although notorious for its windy nature, it is also notable that many accidents have

also been recorded along straight stretches of the route. Accident mitigation

measures along the route may therefore be prudent if Burnham-on-Crouch

developments are carried forward in the planning process.

The distance between the proposed Creeksea Lane development and Burnham-on-

Crouch Primary School is less than 2 miles (3.2km) and therefore the local authority

would not legally have to provide transport for pupils. However, it is beyond the

distance which primary school-aged children should “reasonably / realistically” be

expected to walk to school and could therefore mean that the development would

lead to higher than average car trips to school. Consequently, it may be prudent to

consider school travel planning initiatives and / or the provision of school transport.

A414 and B1019 Impact

The proposed developments at Heybridge and South Maldon are shown to increase traffic flows

notably in both directions on the A414 and B1019. Given that these roads route through already

congested locations on the highway network such as Danbury and Hatfield Peverel, it is likely that

the impact of the developments will be felt outside of the immediate study area. The results of

the A414 Oak Corner junction assessment would appear to confirm this and indicate that

mitigation measures may be required across a wider section of the highway network.

9.2 Concluding Comment

This study has shown that, whilst it may be possible to accommodate the proposed developments

with ‘nil detriment’ compared to the 2026 Background Traffic scenario if certain mitigation

measures are in place and new junctions are built with sufficient capacity, there are a number of

additional factors that need to be considered in the planning process. Furthermore, these are not

EB004a


necessarily restricted just to the area in and around Heybridge, Maldon and Burnham-on-Crouch.

The impact is likely to be felt further afield and issues such as safety should also be a

consideration.

EB004a


EB004a


Appendices

Appendix A: Heybridge / Maldon Base Traffic Flows ............................................................... 54

Appendix B: Burnham-on-Crouch Base Traffic Flows ............................................................... 58

Appendix C: Heybridge / Maldon 2026 Forecast Traffic Flows ................................................. 62

Appendix D: Burnham-on-Crouch 2026 Forecast Traffic Flows ................................................. 66

EB004a


EB004a


Appendix A: Heybridge / Maldon Base Traffic Flows

EB004a


B1022 Broad Street Green Road

343 31373 131

Scraley Road

B1018 Langford Road 51Holloway Road 185

220 87 673 30B1022 Colchester Road

421 268126182

479 276573 410 342 245 12 32 B1026 Goldhanger Road

B1018 Heybridge Approach 482

218 B1022 Heybridge Street485 A414 93 604 12 975583 501 A414 The Causeway

483 31 400 626

477 246

A414 329 458

Fullbridge

812 257

Spital Road

213362

850 275A414 680 275 174

Retail Park562 1482 119 28

141 89 B1010 Fambridge Road 106 Park Drive76

176 105 40 25A414 Maldon Road 91

255 522 160 B1018 Limebrook Way 144 42 108141 39 53225

76285 85 149 1734 Mundon Road

329 154 22

0745 - 0845

A414 Chelmsford Road54% 358 A414 Maldon Road

15926

55% 42% 3%571 433 27

26 256 4 B1010 Burnham Road39% 43 7%

277B1418 Southend Road 19

Heybridge & Maldon

Base Year AM Flows

0800 to 0900 hours

EB004a


B1022 Broad Street Green Road

276 48470 277

Scraley Road

B1018 Langford Road 20Holloway Road 99

352 119 382 70B1022 Colchester Road

323 14226990

433 475489 312 602 668 23 52 B1026 Goldhanger Road

B1018 Heybridge Approach 308

136 B1022 Heybridge Street612 A414 126 1003 10 664553 420 A414 The Causeway

424 50 475 526

589 405

A414 508 633

Fullbridge

825 264

Spital Road

157238

1003 311A414 510 435 176

Retail Park707 22138 208 53253 92 B1010 Fambridge Road 76 Park Drive

212124 133 58 44

A414 Maldon Road 114123 347 103 B1018 Limebrook Way 234 123 131

305 76 111319

34192 48 110 2828 Mundon Road

250 108 39

1700 - 1800

A414 Chelmsford Road55% 564 A414 Maldon Road

22920

53% 44% 2%355 294 16

17 415 9 B1010 Burnham Road40% 46 4%


Heybridge & Maldon

Base Year PM Flows

1700 to 1800 hours

EB004a


EB004a


Appendix B: Burnham-on-Crouch Base Traffic Flows

EB004a


B1021 Southminster Road

269 60

Marsh Road2743 45

90207 62

B1010 Maldon Road 109 25492

429 2242 16 18

B1021 Church RoadCreeksea Lane

452 16361 187

Alexandra Road

B1021 Station Road

3314

520 8 B1021 Station Road

107 120 246 100312

Foundry LaneDevonshire Road

6813

27 353 10 9

Burnham-on-Crouch

Base Year AM Flows

0800 to 0900 hours

EB004a



259 31

Marsh Road3672 21

50234 61

B1010 Maldon Road 51 25481

287 3664 13 10


560 46219 220

Alexandra Road

B1021 Station Road

2010


148 120 342 1072040


3616

40 241 13 16

Burnham-on-Crouch

Base Year PM Flows

1700 to 1800 hours

EB004a


EB004a


Appendix C: Heybridge / Maldon 2026 Forecast Traffic Flows

EB004a


B1022 Broad Street Green Road 126 201

9041 361 34

466 170 25 10 8 Scraley Road

23 175B1018 Langford Road 56

144 321 0 211393

210 97 731 384 B1022 Colchester Road

693 367133

1 209622 417 3 525

873 504 326 276 49 B1026 Goldhanger RoadB1018 Heybridge Approach 548

218 B1022 Heybridge Street716 104 630 13 1117692 615 A414 The Causeway

572 34 389 734

511 299

A414 402 544

Fullbridge

1123 283

Spital Road

51 2356 411

A414

1 1168 314 2 937 541727 0 349 1931

2 1772 Retail Park

0 26 8 4690 136 31

944 8 0 189 98 B1010 Fambridge Road 117A414 Maldon Road 84

215 116 44 32696 0 B1018 Limebrook Way 100276 537 444 702 177 61 191 51 1587 5 160 43 60

27 270

29 24 3 84208 352 93 165 21

41 37 Mundon Road406 170 24

0745 - 0845

A414 Chelmsford Road457 A414 Maldon Road17529

841 637 40

29 327 4 B1010 Burnham Road55


Heybridge & Maldon 2026 with Link

Road and S Maldon Bypass - AM Peak

0800 to 0900 hours

EB004a


B1022 Broad Street Green Road 81 231

13434 296 53

619 372 52 4 6 Scraley Road

37 296B1018 Langford Road 22

304 167 3 111607

380 143 387 984 B1022 Colchester Road

480 195290

0 102554 763 9 395

725 387 676 771 62 B1026 Goldhanger RoadB1018 Heybridge Approach 347

143 B1022 Heybridge Street934 149 1167 11 720615 429 A414 The Causeway

549 55 519 608

728 511

A414 640 771

Fullbridge

1172 293

Spital Road

32 1742 303

A414

6 1369 352 5 696 815983 0 613 2023

1 1658 Retail Park

0 29 41 11153 232 60

670 22 0 432 102 B1010 Fambridge Road 84A414 Maldon Road 236

167 148 64 50983 0 B1018 Limebrook Way 126577 284 185 447 115 188 291 172 15226 3 373 84 126

37 414

10 12 7 3890 220 53 123 33

40 31 Mundon Road299 120 43

0745 - 0845

A414 Chelmsford Road827 A414 Maldon Road25422

480 395 22

19 607 10 B1010 Burnham Road71


Heybridge & Maldon 2026 with Link

Road and S Maldon Bypass - PM Peak

1700 to 1800 hours

EB004a


EB004a


Appendix D: Burnham-on-Crouch 2026 Forecast Traffic Flows

EB004a



424 69

Marsh Road37630 54

134285 78

B1010 Maldon Road 246 317159

666 31396 75 48


601 17423 215

Alexandra Road

B1021 Station Road

3615

608 8.7 B1021 Station Road

128 131 269 109314


7414

38 420 11 9.8

Burnham-on-Crouch 2026 Forecast

Flows - AM Peak

0800 to 0900 hours

EB004a



336 39

Marsh Road50287 27

67367 99

B1010 Maldon Road 107 292211

383 43043 56 63


656 50270 261

Alexandra Road

B1021 Station Road

2211


185 132 375 1172244


3918

44 293 14 18

Burnham-on-Crouch 2026 Forecast

Flows - PM Peak

1700 to 1800 hours

EB004a

maldon local development plan · maldon local development plan assessment of impact of proposed...

Documents