people”...there are so many, omissions, contradictions, erroneous assumptions in the transport...

In accordance with the Town and country planning act 1990 please accept the comments below on

the planning Outline application (Ref 3/19/0118/OUT).

I am a resident of Beane Avenue and will be directly inconvenienced by any approval to build on the

land East of Gresley Way. I strongly believe the existing residents have a right to expect that any

undesirable impact on them will be minimised. The development as outlined has a number of

features that if approved would not meet that objective and rather would cause severe disruption to

all residents of Chells Manor and everyone who uses Gresley Way and the White Way regularly. I

have further reviewed the application and wish to amend my previous objection submitted on 2nd

February to add a number of additional points, in support of my objection.

Having reviewed the application and some of the documents that support the application, such as:

Transport assessment,

Technical Note - Proposed Access Strategy including Junction Capacity Assessment (February

2016) produced for Pidgeon by Fairhurst,

MOU between Stevenage Borough Council and East Herts District Council signed Oct 2017,

site levels assessment,

Stevenage Design Guide,

there are so many, omissions, contradictions, erroneous assumptions in the Transport assessment

and failures to comply with the Stevenage Design Guide that I believe it is appropriate to stop the

planning process to allow time for review and debate of the many issues. It seems clear given the

number of failings that the application has not received proper scrutiny to date otherwise a more

mature and well thought out plan would have been presented approval.

I wish to raise 5 objections to this outline planning application:

1) The proposal to allow vehicular access to the development by building THREE new junctions

from the new development onto Gresley Way when other more efficient options are

available

2) The proposal to allow vehicular access via the central access point (junction 3)

3) The location of the Toucan crossing at the White Way

4) The proposal to build three story apartments at each site access point

5) The allocation of land for use by “Travelling, showpeople” and Gypsies.

My main objection is the current plan to bring all traffic from the new development onto Gresley

Way via THREE new junctions 1x 3 way and 2x 4 way crossroads all within a stretch of road that is no

more than 700M in length. The three locations I object to are (junctions 2 (Gresley Way/Uplands

Northern Site access) Junction 3 Gresley Way/The White Way/Central site access) and Junction 8

Gresley Way/Southern site access) as defined at para 1.7 of the Transport assessment (TA) Rev A.

I believe the conclusion reached in para 8.12 of the Transport assessment “It can be concluded that

the development lies in a sustainable location and will have no significantly adverse impact upon the

neighbouring junctions and the surrounding highway network. As such, the proposed mixed use

development should be fully supported through the Planning Process” is not validdue to the large

number of contradictions, erroneous assumptions and omissions therein.

THIS CONCLUSION COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG.

Why do I claim the Transport assessment is not valid?

Firstly - I have now spent some hours understanding the effects of traffic lights at junctions and,

despite the modelling claims, I have concluded that the three junctions, in such close proximity to

each other, will gridlock Gresley Way for long periods of the morning and evening peak periods

causing significant disruption to motorists and existing residents. An example of delay caused by

introducing traffic lights can already be seen during the evening peak period, is at the 3 way lighted

junction at Tesco’s on the London Road. It can regularly be seen that traffic returning to Stevenage

from Knebworth endure a 1.5 mile tailback, due to introduction of a single three-way lighted

junction. Here three more complex junctions are proposed in very close proximity to each other!

A 1.5 mile tailback on Gresley way would form a queue back to the roundabout (junction 6) at

Gresley way and Broadwater Lane for traffic heading from the south and right back to Fairlands Way

for traffic heading from the north.

Currently it takes between 44 and 50 seconds to drive the stretch of road between the planned

south access and the planned north access, depending on traffic. The TA note that there are no

queuing traffic on this stretch of road currently (which is true) but If the application is approved,

several minutes will be added to the journey time of most people who drive along this 700M long

stretch of road, plus I foresee numerous additional minutes delay prior to this due to the tail backs

down to the Poplars and to Martins Way in the other direction. The TA “Impact Assessment” makes

no reference to any delays caused by introducing traffic lights and therefore fails to recognise the

delays, noise, extra pollution and misery that introducing three junctions, in such close proximity,

will cause the community and users of the road for decades to come.

The planning application looks to introduce three junctions all controlled by traffic lights within a

700M stretch of Gresley way. I think I am right when I say that in Stevenage there are today only 6

lighted junctions, all of which are 3-way junctions (Tesco on the London Road, Sainsburys at Coreys Mill, ASDA on

Monkswood way, Gunnels Wood road junction with Cavendish Way, A602 at Bragbury End and Martins Way junction with Wedgwood

way). There are NO 4-WAY junctions, in fact the Nearest I have been able to find is Welwyn Garden

City (where Bridge Road meets Bessemer Road and Broadwater Road) and Potters bar (where Bakers Lane and Bakers Street

meet Mutton Lane). The TA fails to assess (it doesn’t mention at all) the time delay each of these lighted

junctions will impose on traffic using Gresley Way.

I have looked at the effects of traffic lights at four existing junctions. Two 3 way junctions (at Tesco

on London Road and Sainsburys Corrys Mill) and two 4 way junctions (in Welwyn Garden City and

Potters bar). A COMMON FACTOR IN ALL 4 JUNCTIONS IS THERE IS ALWAYS TRAFFIC QUEUING NOT

JUST AT BUSY PERIODS AND ALSO THAT THE TIME MOTORISTS ARE STOPPED BY A RED LIGHT IS

GREATER THAT THE TIME THEY ARE ON GO. The TA confirms that today no traffic is stopped on

Gresley Way so delays while waiting at lights must cause delay but the TA treats these delays as

negligible, which is wrong.

I observed the traffic flow at Tescos on Friday 8th February between 12.00 and 13.00 and at

Sainsburys, on the same day, between 13.30 and 14.00.

The two 3 way junctions observed are comparable to the junction that is planned at the south access

point on Gresley way. I observed the traffic flows to understand how the lights work and how long

the lights are on Red on average. It became clear that in one direction traffic flows more freely than

the other. This is because in the slower direction, (in the case of Tescos and Sainsburys it is the traffic

heading in the northerly direction that is held for longer) the lights need to allow traffic leaving

Tescos firstly to turn left, whilst oncoming traffic turn right into Tescos (across the northbound lane)

and then once that traffic has been stopped, any traffic leaving Tescos is free to turn right heading

south (again across the northbound lane). If the application is approved, traffic travelling in a

southerly direction on Gresley Way (at the south access) will experience longer delays than traffic

heading northbound as they will have to wait for two crossing streams (Traffic heading north

wanting to turn right onto the development and traffic looking to leave the development to turn

right and head northbound on Gresley Way).

I took all timings using a stop-watch and recorded the time at the start of the exercise when the

lights I was observing had just turned red. I recorded the duration the lights remained on red and

then the period they were on Green. In a period lasting 680 seconds (at the Tesco junction) the

north facing traffic was stopped (lights on Red) for a total of 400 seconds (59% of the time with an

average stoppage time of 36 secs). Obviously the lights were on Green for only 41% of the time

(average 26 seconds). The southbound traffic was not held for as long because as I mentioned above

they are only held for one period while traffic exiting Tesco and turning right have priority over

southbound traffic. In a period lasting 620 seconds (at the Tesco junction) the south facing traffic

was stopped (lights on Red) for a total of 165 seconds (27% of the time with an average stoppage

time of 15 seconds). Obviously the lights were on Green for 73% of the time (average 41 seconds).

Table showing results of survey of 3-way junction at Tescos

The same observations made at the Sainsburys/Corrys Mill junction showed that in a period lasting

640 seconds (at the Sainsburys junction) the north facing traffic was stopped (lights on Red) for a

total of 305 seconds (48% of the time with an average stoppage time of 50 seconds). Obviously the

lights were on Green for 52% of the time (average 55 seconds). Whilst observing the southbound

traffic, in a period lasting 605 seconds (at the Sainsburys junction) the south facing traffic was

stopped (lights on Red) for a total of 235 seconds (38% of the time with an average stoppage time

of 46 seconds) and hence on Green for 62% of the time (average 75 seconds).

Table showing results of survey of 3-way junction at Sainsburys

I was amazed by these results which tell us that traffic lights which manage two streams of

crossing traffic are on Red for between 50% and 60% of the time and the duration of each Red

phase is between 35 and 50 seconds. Obviously if only one lane has to be crossed the impact is

Tesco 3-way junction 12.00 to 13.00 Friday 8th February 2019 Northbound Tesco 3-way junction 12.00 to 13.00 Friday 8th February 2019 Southbound

Time Red Time Green Time Red Time Green

seconds Seconds seconds Seconds

30 35 15 55

35 50 15 35

40 35 15 35

30 20 15 25

40 10 15 40

40 10 15 35

35 25 15 45

40 20 15 55

35 15 15 60

30 15 15 30

45 45 15 40

Total 400 280 Total 165 455

680 59% 41% 620 27% 73%

Sainsburys 3-way junction 13.30 to 14.30 Friday 8th February 2019 Northbound Sainsburys 3-way junction 13.30 to 14.30 Friday 8th February 2019 Southbound



55 60 45 80

50 60 50 80

50 50 50 75

50 55 55 70

50 50 35 75

50 60 0 0

Total 305 335 Total 235 380

640 48% 52% 615 38% 62%

less severe but lights are still on Red for between 30% to 40% of the time with an average time of

15 to 46 seconds. This says to me that the south junction (if, and hopefully not, retained in its

current form) should be no right turn to aid flow on Gresley Way.

Clearly the actual wait times for the south junction at Gresley way can be optimised for traffic

conditions but the TA is deficient in that it does not present this information and so nobody knows

what will be the impact on their journey time as a consequence of building this junction. What is

clear though is that if 26000 motorists are using Gresley Way on average every day 50% of them at

least are going to be held waiting at a red light for a period of between 15 to 50 seconds. This is a

huge amount of wasted time (13,000 minutes per day) just at this single 3-way junction which the

TA fails to identify.

Next I looked at the effects of traffic lights at two 4 way junctions, one in Welwyn Garden City (where

Bridge Road meets Bessemer Road and Broadwater Road) and the other in Potters bar (where Bakers Lane and Bakers Street

meet Mutton Lane). I observed the traffic flow in Potters Bar on Sunday 10th February between 12.30 and

13.00 and in Welwyn, on the same day, between 13.30 and 14.00.

The two 4 way junctions I looked at are comparable (in complexity) to the junctions that are planned

at the central and north access points on Gresley Way. Both had traffic turning left, going straight

across and turning right when allowed, as is planned for junctions 3 (Gresley Way/White Way) and 2

(Uplands/Gresley Way) in this planning application. I observed the traffic flows to understand how

the lights work and how long the lights show Red, on average. The Potters Bar lights differed from

the Welwyn lights in that at Potters Bar both directions were on Red and Green simultaneously

whereas at the Welwyn lights only one direction was allowed to go at a time, with three directions

stopped waiting for the traffic allocated priority.



then the period they were on Green. In a period lasting 870 seconds (at the Potters Bar crossroads)

the traffic in direction 1 (moving away from me) was stopped (lights on Red) for a total of 490

seconds (57% of the time average stoppage being 63 secs). Obviously the lights were on Green for

only 43% of the time (average 46 seconds).

Table showing results of survey of 4-way junction at in Potters Bar

Potters Bar 4-way junction 12.30 to 13.00 Sunday 10th February 2019

Time Red Time Green

seconds Seconds

60 50

60 50

60 50

60 50

60 50

65 45

60 45

75 30

Total 500 370

870 57% 43%

At the Welwyn lights, only one direction was allowed to go at a time with three directions stopped

waiting for the traffic allocated priority, meaning the average waiting time was longer then at

Potters Bar.



then the period they were on Green. In a period lasting 730 seconds (at the Welwyn crossroads) the

traffic in direction 1 (moving away from me) was stopped (lights on Red) for a total of 595 seconds

(82% of the time with an average stoppage time of 66 secs). Obviously the lights were on Green for

only 18% of the time (average duration 15 seconds). In a period lasting 640 seconds (at the Welwyn

crossroads) the traffic in direction 2 (moving across from right to left) was stopped (lights on Red)

for a total of 445 seconds (70% of the time with an average stoppage time of 56 secs). Obviously

the lights were on Green for only 30% of the time (average duration 24 seconds).

Table showing results of survey of 4-way junction at in Welwyn

The results from the 4-way junction observations tell us that lights are Red for between 60% and

80% of their time lasting an average of a little over 60 seconds each time. Clearly very few

motorists arrive at the lights without getting stopped by a red light.

I agree the actual wait times for the two junctions proposed at Gresley way can be optimised for

traffic conditions but the TA is deficient in that it does not present this information and so nobody

knows what will be the impact on their journey time as a consequence of building these junctions.

The TA concludes that there will be no “knock on effect” as a result of having three complex

lighted junctions within 700 Metres of each other.

I believe these conclusions are wrong and challenge the Highways authority to erect three sets of

traffic lights along Gresley Way during the peak periods and watch the carnage unfold.

My observations (and the traffic levels contained in the TA) lead me to anticipate that for long

periods of the day there will be an almost continuous queue of traffic between these three

junctions. What is clear though is that if 26000 motorists are using Gresley Way on average every

day at least 70% of them are going to be held waiting at a red light for a period of that could be in

the order of 60 seconds at each of these 4 way junctions. This is a huge amount of wasted time

(52,000 minutes per day) at the two 4 way crossroads.

In conclusion a journey that today only takes between 44 to 50 seconds will now take between 4

and 6 minutes, just to travel 700M!

Delays of this magnitude are unacceptable. The delays will affect a very large population of

motorists, and more efficient road layouts MUST BE investigated.

Welwyn 4-way junction 13.30 to 14.00 Sunday 10th February 2019 Direction 1 Welwyn 4-way junction 13.30 to 14.00 Sunday 10th February 2019 Direction 2



60 10 45 20

50 15 60 20

60 20 65 25

85 15 60 25

75 15 50 30

60 15 60 30

70 10 60 25

70 15 45 20

65 20 0 0

Total 595 135 Total 445 195

730 82% 18% 640 70% 30%

I have also reviewed the Technical Note - Proposed Access Strategy including Junction Capacity

Assessment (February 2016) produced for Pidgeon by Fairhurst. This document studies the effects of

introducing roundabouts (not traffic lights) in the three positions that are now destined to have

lighted junctions installed. I have not seen an update to this document showing comparative analysis

so it represents an obsolete plan.

Nonetheless I would still question some of the assumptions used in this technical note, as they have

continued through into the TA. The modelling in the Technical note recognises that 100% of the

school-related traffic will use the junction at Gresley Way and the White Way. This means all that

additional traffic will have to drive either along the White Way or the full length of Gresley Way. This

is unnecessary.

APPENDIX B of the technical note contains a series of traffic flow spreadsheets. Fig 9 (for example)

shows that it is assumed the primary school will have 200 pupils. In fact the Transport assessment

says (para 7.29) A typical 2 FE Primary School is expected to have capacity for 420 pupils and

approximately 50 staff. On para 2.11 of the technical note it says “The generated school trips were

factored by a quarter on the grounds that most trips would be internal to the proposed

development”. Fig 9 says “The majority of Primary School trips will be generated from within the

development which it is intended to serve. 25% of the trips have been assigned externally, using the

above distribution”. This is an UNSUPPORTED assumption which has lead Fairhurst (and

subsequently the TA) to understate the number of school trips using the Gresley Way/White Way.

These two assumptions compound together to completely undermine the traffic modelling.

This suggests that favourable assumptions have been used in the modelling to make the impact of

traffic flows look significantly less than they will actually be.

Secondly - The TA in Table 7.2 purports to present a 24-hour traffic Flow for Gresley way, recorded

from an Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) survey which was conducted along Gresley Way for a week

commencing 4th June 2018. The TA says “it can be calculated that the two-way vehicular flow along

Gresley Way for an average weekday is 15,880.

However the 24-hour ATC figures above are not consistent with the numbers contained in the

Manual classified count conducted on Wednesday 6th June 2018 which produces “60 minute rolling

total figures” presented at appendix K of that same document. Just looking at the figures for junction

3 (as an example) the total number of vehicles are recorded every 15 minutes between 07.00 and

19.00. The number of vehicles measured by the manual count (per hour) ranges between 1352

(minimum between 10.00 & 11.00) and 3180m (maximum between 17.00 & 18.00). I have calculated

the 12 hour count by taking the figures every hour starting with 07.00 to 08.00 and continuing every

hour until 19.00 which shows the total number of vehicles using this junction is 26,136 (contradicting

the 15,880 vehicles in 24 hours as claimed by the ATC). I have recorded the number of vehicles using

this junction myself, on Saturday 9th February 2019 for just 1 hour between 16.15 & 17.15 to be

1219 vehicles. I also recorded the number of vehicles using the junction for 1 hour between 08.00 &

09.00 on Monday 11th February 2019 to be 1355 vehicles. My recordings correlate well with the 60

minute rolling total figures but both show that the ATC figures grossly understate the number of

vehicles using this junction, and hence the road.

Thirdly – The TA contains an estimate of the number of additional vehicles (“Trip Generation”) that

will use Gresley way at peak time (and each of the new junctions). I believe the TA both overlooks a

number of factors and contains errors that mean the estimate is substantially low. For example:

The decision to build so many new dwellings, a care home, assisted living, primary and pre-

schools, shops and a community centre will create a significant amount of additional traffic,

many of which are expected to use the central access point. The TA evaluates the traffic

expected to arrive at and depart from most of these facilities during peak times but I believe

the logic is materially flawed in a number of areas:

Contradicting the 2016 Technical note (APPENDIX B Fig 9), It is contended in the TA that a

primary school will typically have places for 420 pupils and 50 staff (para 7.29 & 7.30). The

TA makes the (flawed) assumption that whilst it is expected that 45% of pupils will arrive at

school by car, it then assumes that only 40% of these trips will be generated from outside of

the development. This means that only 76 pupil trips and 16 staff trips are assumed in the

modelling for the am peak period (08.00 to 09.00). This must mean that 60% (34 teachers

and 344 pupils) are expected to originate, either from within the development, or are

expected not to use vehicles to arrive at school (I would imagine there is data to show that

very few teachers live within a few hundred yards of the school they work at). Given there

are only 618 homes being built these two assumptions seem to vastly over estimate the

number of externally generated school trips.

The figures used here seem unrealistically low and it could be concluded that this is an

attempt to understate the impact of additional traffic on the existing traffic levels.

I do find it ironic that the TA records that “Access to education is considered to be

particularly important on this site as it is anticipated that young families will acquire a

number of the properties. Therefore, trips for educational purposes will potentially account

for a large proportion of the overall site trip generation” para 4.31. However the figures

allowed in the modelling do not represent “a large proportion of the overall site trip

generation” so the TA trip generation does not appear to be consistent with this sentiment.

Remaining with schools, the application makes no provision for secondary education, and

relies on being able to access existing Secondary schools within Stevenage. The TA notes

that Nobel school is within 1.1Km, suggesting this is walking distance. Of course it is but I

wonder just how many secondary school children walk 1.1Km to school every day? The TA

also fails to note that Nobel school is substantially over subscribed and very few pupils who

live on this development are likely to get places at Nobel. The TA (para 4.32) remarks that

“The site is well served by existing educational facilities with a number of primary and

secondary schools all located within a reasonable journey by foot or bicycle”. Given that the

next nearest alternative secondary school is in excess of 3KM from the development, the TA

seems to be suggesting that this is a reasonable distance to expect children to walk or cycle

every day to school.

I would challenge this reliance on attending Nobel or walking/cycling over 3KM every day

and contend that here is another example of assumptions being made that provide an

unrealistically low estimate of the trips generated to attend Secondary schools. In fact I

believe the TA assumes NO TRIPS will be generated to support attendance at Secondary

school, which has to be plain wrong! If the development is built, Secondary school

generated trips will increase the outbound travel numbers substantially at the peak hour

(08.00 to 09.00) and these are not currently modelled.

Fourth – The TA, at section 6, shows that a speed survey had been conducted on Gresley Way. It

concludes that currently the mean speed along the road is 35 to 42MPH, with the 85th percentile

speeds being 39 to 44MPH. Without debating the accuracy of these figures they do confirm that

today the traffic along the road is free running and other than in rare circumstances, there is no

standing traffic or delays due to build up of traffic.

What the study fails to do is to assess the impact on average speed as a consequence of introducing

the THREE junctions each with their own traffic lights! Now I would be the first to welcome any

scheme that reduces the speeds at which some cars drive along this road but I find the prospect of

having constant stationary traffic, right next to my back garden, even worse. I observe that when a

bus, heading north along Gresley Way turns left into the White Way, there is almost always a

number of cars following, where generally a queue of 3 to 8 cars has accumulated behind, as the bus

tends to travel more slowly than cars and will have slowed down to turn the corner. I make this

remark because if a bus turning left can cause a short bottleneck of this nature, (which doesn’t really

delay anyone) what affect will a red light for 30 seconds or more have? The TA shows that cars travel

along Gresley Way at a rate of one every 0.5 to 1 second depending on time of day. With these

traffic numbers a 30 second stoppage for a red light will create a build up of 15 to 30 cars, at each

set of lights. This is common sense but the modelling in the TA believes there will be no delays. A

pilot needs to be undertaken to confirm whether Gresley Way will remain a free running road or, as I

and many others believe, will turn into a car park, while a constant queue of cars wait their turn to

progress through THREE SETS of traffic lights.

Fifth - The Stevenage Borough Council “Design Guide” (Supplementary Planning Document Adopted

21st October 2009) sets out certain principles (below) that should be adopted by any new

development.

3.17 says The core objectives set out in this Plan will provide the framework for local decision

making that will ensure these objectives can be met.

The TA has failed to demonstrate that it has assessed whether the plan that has been submitted for

approval meets the objectives highlighted in Red (below). For example how can the TA have reduced

carbon emissions if the plan submitted for approval results in miles and miles of queuing traffic

every day and many minutes of additional journey time, where today no such queuing traffic is

present? Similarly if every motorist using Gresley Way experiences much longer journey times, how

can it be said that the plan meets the objective to Improve accessibility between employers and

their labour markets? In order to ensure minimal impact alternative schemes should be modelled

(with realistic figures), however there is no evidence that the TA has done this.

Local Guidance

3.16 To deliver the main vision for Hertfordshire nine objectives were set, across the three themes of Prosperity, People and Place. The

nine objectives listed in Figure 1.2 of the Local Plan are shown below:

Prosperity:

• Improve access to international gateways and regional centres outside Hertfordshire

• Enhance connectivity between urban centres in Hertfordshire

• Improve accessibility between employers and their labour markets

• Enhance journey reliability and network resilience across Hertfordshire

People:

• Enhance the quality and vitality of town centres

• Preserve the character and quality of the Hertfordshire environment

• Reduce carbon emissions

Place:

• Make journeys and their impact safer and healthier

• Improve access and enable participation in everyday life through transport

Clearly the desire to build so many new dwellings, a care home, assisted living, primary and pre-

schools, shops and a community centre will create a significant amount of additional traffic. Further

it is clear that subsequent planning applications sit behind this one for yet more homes east of this

development, which will add still more traffic in time. Under the current plan all that additional

traffic will find its way onto Gresley Way between Uplands and the south access (700M apart with

the central access in between). The Central access point in particular is of greatest concern because

so many vehicular movements are likely to arise from this convenient access point (as recognised by

the TA). However this means that residents and visitors to the new development, who use this

central access point, will drive the entire length of Gresley way to get to their destination. This

additional traffic will cause major disruption on Gresley Way and the White Way as traffic lights are

planned to control traffic at what will become a bottleneck (A 4-way junction). (Note my

observations regarding delays at 4-way junctions earlier).

I believe the Stevenage Design plan requires that new development should be designed to make use

of existing infrastructure as far as possible, in order to minimise its impact upon the environment. It

says Development proposals should take into account the existing routes around the site from the

initial design stage. Developers will also be required to improve existing routes where necessary.

This is not happening with this application.

I believe it would be far less disruptive if only TWO JUNCTIONS were created using existing

infrastructure, forcing all traffic to enter and exit the new development as far north and as far south,

as possible. This would avoid inconvenience caused to the vast majority of the existing population

who live either on Gresley Way (between Six Hills Way and Fairlands Way) or on the many estates

that spur off from the White Way (about 1200 households in all). Surely it is attractive to avoid

inconveniencing several thousand existing residents by ensuring that new residents and visitors to

the development join and leave the development at the farthest north and the farthest south points

as are practicable and use the spine road to get to their destination, rather than Gresley Way and

the central Junction? This spine road would provide a more sustainable solution supporting future

phases further east (if they are to be built subsequently).

It is perfectly feasible to avoid increasing traffic levels on Gresley Way by ensuring only two junctions

are built, one at the North and one South. There are several options that should be investigated and

the most feasible and efficient selected.

For vehicular access to and from the North, one option is to retain the currently proposed location

developing the existing junction (2) at Uplands. However this creates a costly and complex 4-way

crossroads, which will naturally become a bottleneck as it is signal controlled. A better alternative

may be to divert and extend the spine road to allow traffic to link directly onto the existing

roundabout (suitably modified for safety) at Fairlands Way/Walkern Lane (referred to as Junction 1).

This might require use of a small part of the land allocated for Travelling showpeople at the far north

end to extend the roundabout and on the eastern perimeter for the spine road but this incursion

into that allocation would be negligible and this solution would be far less disruptive for existing

residents and motorists who use Gresley Way. Another alternative would be to create a join on from

the new development onto Walkern Lane although this might create a bottleneck for those people

who drive into and out from Stevenage using that road daily. Finally, as an alternative, it should be

possible to build a more simple 3 way junction at the point already earmarked for the use by

“Travelling showpeople”, avoiding the need to build two NEW complex 4 way junctions within a

couple of hundred yards of each other.

For vehicular access to and from the south, one option is to retain the currently proposed location as

this is only a three way junction and would be more efficient than a four way junction. However

there will still be a significant impact on the residents and motorists using Gresley Way so it would

be worth considering imposing a “No right turn” on the exit from the new development onto Gresley

Way. An alternative is to bring traffic directly onto Gresley Way nearer to or at Lanterns Lane

(Junction 4). A large roundabout built to intersect with a diverted south access road that occupies

the southern perimeter of the development land, Lanterns Lane, Gresley Way would be a very

efficient way of allowing traffic to enter and exit the new development at the south end, whilst

aiding traffic flow on Gresley Way by avoiding the stops that traffic lights would impose.

The current Outline plan proposes central site access (Junction 3) at the existing junction between

Gresley Way/The White Way but plans to make this a crossroads (4-way junction). This access point

is completely unnecessary and will become the most disruptive of all, as I believe (and the TA

confirms this) it will become a magnet for additional traffic forcing it all along Gresley Way between

Uplands and the south access because as the TA anticipates it will service 232 homes (nearly 40%),

the school and other community facilities (and I wonder why the care home and assisted living

traffic wouldn’t use the access point too?). I fear that the number of extra vehicle movements will

severely disrupt the road at the White Way junction and will slow traffic flow to a standstill. My

studies referred to earlier indicate long delays caused by red lights lasting 1 minute and in some

cases longer that would mean significant traffic tailbacks along Gresley Way. The best possible way

to avoid this unnecessary disruption is to ensure people using the new development drive along the

spine road and only join Gresley Way at the north or south access points, which ideally should be as

far apart as is practicable. The impact of creating this central access point (perhaps inadvertently)

will result in a significant amount of the new traffic between the Uplands and the south access point,

which is both undesirable and avoidable. Furthermore I understand that the third access point was

only introduced to the plans, relatively recently, in order to enable three contractors to work

simultaneously on the build. Clearly therefore, there is believed not to be a traffic flow imperative

for this central junction and the resulting unintended consequences on traffic levels all the way

along Gresley Way far out-weigh any potential benefit from achieving a faster build rate.

There are multiple viable options for two access points that would ensure all the additional traffic

caused by the development was contained within the development using the new spine road to

connect onto roundabouts at the north (Walkern roundabout) and south. I strongly urge the

planners to re-consider the routing and size of the spine road that runs throughout the planned new

development. Adopting this proposal would save huge cost of building three large and complex

signalled junctions, reduce emissions, avoid standing traffic on Gresley Way and avoid delays to

motorists using Gresley Way. This approach also avoids any need to change existing junctions and

will avoid years of disruption to Gresley Way users during the build process.

Proposed amendments to site access points

Another consideration that arises from the proposed introduction of the central site access is the

location of a Toucan crossing point to the south of the junction with the White Way. The

introduction of this crossing will inconvenience existing residents who’s gardens are very close to the

proposed crossing through the additional pollution and noise caused by queuing traffic and by the

constant beeping noise from the crossing. It is questionable whether a crossing is necessary at all but

if it is deemed necessary there is ample room for the Toucan crossing to be located north of the

White Way rather than south, where no residents live close enough to be affected as the land to the

north of the junction is scrub-land and well away from any existing residents back gardens.

My next complaint is the decision to position the tallest buildings to be built on the new

development, which I am informed will be three story apartments, at the three (currently planned)

site access locations. It is clear from the visual impact assessments that have been conducted that

visual impact is something that is intended to be avoided/minimised. The planners appear to have

overlooked their own data by positioning taller buildings at the entrance to the new development,

(facing onto Gresley way) where, as the site level studies show, the land the new development is to

be built on is at its highest! The current plans will necessitate removal of large portions of the

existing bank that currently minimises the visual impact from the west to accommodate the

currently proposed THREE access points and to provide visibility for motorists leaving the

development. I was assured by Pigeon that the build would preserve as much of the existing bank

and trees as possible but If the application is approved, huge tranches of the bank will have to be

removed to accommodate the long runs-ins at the currently planned crossroads. This will make the

visual impact from the west far worse and moreover will mean that some residents living on or near

Gresley Way will now have their right to privacy compromised as they would now become

overlooked by people living in the 3 story apartments. It makes no sense to build the tallest buildings

at the highest elevation if your care about the visual impact of the development and the existing

banks that protect the visual impact must be retained, which means dropping the current access

points in favour of alternatives proposed. The planners need to place these taller buildings in

locations where they will have less or no visual impact on existing residents and, due to the site

levels on this development, this can easily be achieved by moving the apartments further into the

development (towards the east) where the levels are lower. I understand that precautions are being

taken to avoid visual impact from all other directions (east/south/north) so these mitigations will be

helped by a decision to move these apartments from the site access entrances towards the east as

they will be on lower elevations.

In addition to my objections above I am aware that it is proposed to build a site for “Travelling

showpeople”. I object to such a site being built on this new development as I believe there is a risk

this becomes a site where Gypsies live and it is too near to thousands of existing residents who

would be now placed at greater risk of burglary and other nuisance. Presumably these people

already have somewhere to live so why should they be moved to our doorstep?

people”...there are so many, omissions, contradictions, erroneous assumptions in the transport...

Documents