rebuttal proof of evidence: david robert bird - main … bird... · 2009-03-05 · rebuttal proof...

PINS Reference: APP/R3650/A/08/2089143/NWF LPA Reference: WA/2008/0788

Rebuttal Proof of Evidence: David Robert Bird BSc CEng MICE

On behalf of: Dunsfold Park Limited

Land at:

Dunsfold Aerodrome, Stovolds Hill, Cranleigh, Surrey

Description:

Public Local Inquiry pursuant to Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

February 2009 Savell Bird & Axon, Ariel House, 74a Charlotte Street, London, W1T 4QJ Tel. 020 7580 8844 Fax. 020 7580 8818

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

part of the WYG group

i

CONTENTS

.............................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

2 SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL EVIDENCE ............................................................... 2 Scope................................................................................................................... 2 Application History ............................................................................................. 3 Location .............................................................................................................. 3 Comparable Sites ................................................................................................ 4 Sustainability Appraisal ...................................................................................... 7 Travel Behaviour of Residents ............................................................................ 9 Sustainable Transport Strategy ........................................................................ 11 Lessons from Cambourne ................................................................................. 17 Eco-Village Buy-in............................................................................................. 19 Transport Policy ................................................................................................ 20 Transport Assessment Methodology................................................................. 20 Effects of the Development .............................................................................. 23 S106 Planning Obligation ................................................................................. 29

3 SDPNT EVIDENCE.............................................................................................. 30

4 CPRE EVIDENCE ................................................................................................ 32

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 34

APPENDICES

A Slyfield Site Plan B Extracts from housing and travel behaviour change research C Workplace Parking Charges Case Studies D Letter from Barratt Homes E Gravity Model Note F Nanhurst Crossroads Highway Boundary

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •


Dunsfo ld Transport Rebutta l Proof of Ev idence 1 X:\Projects\80000\83724\Proof\Proof Reports\090227 R04-DRB-Dunsfo ld Transport Rebutta l F INAL .doc

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Rebuttal Proof responds to traffic and transportation issues raised in the Proofs of

Evidence of Michael Green of Surrey County Council (SCC), Alasdair Denton-Miller on

behalf of Stop Dunsfold Park New Town (SDPNT) campaign and Tim Harrold, who acts

on behalf of Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



2 SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL EVIDENCE

Scope

2.1 Mr Green’s proof of evidence on transport raises the following key concerns:

• The location of the Eco-Village would be heavily reliant on the car;

• An urban extension of Guildford would better comply with policy and be less reliant

on the private car;

• The residents would be “new comers” to the area and will therefore travel longer

distances by unsustainable modes to access their existing social, employment and

educational networks;

• The proposed package of sustainable transport measures will be ineffective;

• The Eco-Village residents will exhibit similar unsustainable travel patterns to those

living at Cambourne, Cambridgeshire;

• Can the funding of the Sustainable Transport Strategy be realised and residents

and house builders would not “buy in” to the cordon charge.

• The proposed Eco-Village does not comply with transport planning policy;

• The methodology used to assess the impact of the development is flawed;

• The proposed improvements to the local transport infrastructure will not be

sufficient to provide for the Eco-Village generated trips.

• The difficulties in planning new settlements; and,

• Limitations of S106 obligations or Undertakings.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



2.2 I address each of these issues in turn below. However, where issues have already been

considered in my main Proof of Evidence and my position remains unchanged, rather

than repeat my position I have simply referred to my main evidence.

Application History

2.3 In section 3.0 of Mr Green’s proof, he sets out the background to the appeal proposals in

terms of the current planning permissions for the site and the Eco-town expression of

interest.

2.4 In November 2007, the Rutland Group submitted an expression of interest to the

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to become one of the UK’s

first Eco-towns (see Mr Bullock’s Rebuttal Proof for more details). In paragraph 3.10 of

his proof Mr Green suggests that “despite detailed submissions, the DCLG turned down

the bid in the first round of applications on 3rd April 2008”. He goes on to suggest that

“fundamental concerns remain”.

2.5 The expression of interest submitted by the Rutland Group only provided a brief overview

of the Eco-Village proposals with no detail in terms of sustainable transport measures and

effects of the development. The primary reason why the proposals were not taken

further was that the Eco-Village did not meet the minimum size criterion of 5,000

dwellings. The response on public transport was not that there were fundamental

concerns but rather that further work was required. The public transport proposals for

the Eco-Village have since been progressed considerably and are in keeping with the Eco-

town public transport criteria.

Location

2.6 In paragraph 5.2 of Mr Green’s proof he states that “the first transportation reason for

refusal can be summarised as being based upon the inappropriateness of siting a new

community in this very rural location due to its over dependence upon the private car.”

He goes on at paragraph 5.3 to suggest that according to national and local policies there

should not be housing or commercial development at this rural location.

2.7 I consider Mr Green’s analysis to be fundamentally flawed in two regards. First he does

not recognise the acceptability of appropriate rural development. Indeed he seems

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



unable to accept the possibility of any development outside the urban areas – be they

enhancements of existing villages or new settlements both of which are encouraged by

government policy. Secondly, he fails to give weight to the Sustainable Transport

Strategy for the site that will reduce reliance on the private car.

2.8 National policy for the location of housing development is set out in paragraphs 36 and

37 of PPS3 Housing, where there is support for creating mixed and sustainable

communities, ensuring that housing is developed in suitable locations which offer a range

of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure and

giving priority for development on previously developed land. The Eco-Village proposals

address all of these objectives.

2.9 Paragraph 32 of the Consultation Paper on a New PPS4: Planning for Sustainable

Economic Development recommends that the merits of development in rural areas should

not be dismissed: “In rural areas, recognising that accessibility – whether by private

transport, public transport, walking and cycling – is a key consideration, local planning

authorities should:…….recognise that a site may be an acceptable location for

development even though it may not be readily accessible by public transport.” .

2.10 Section 7.0 of my main proof sets out the Sustainable Transport Strategy for the Eco-

Village which will reduce the need to travel by enabling people to undertake day to day

activities on site and provide a far reaching combination of travel measures that will

effectively promote the use of sustainable modes of travel and reduce the emphasis and

reliance on the private car.

2.11 In addition, the Sustainability Appraisal [CD J18], submitted as part of the planning

application for the Eco-Village, demonstrated that the proposed new settlement at

Dunsfold Aerodrome has all the attributes of a sustainable development and accords with

sustainability objectives at the national, regional and local level.

Comparable Sites

2.12 In section 5.9 of Mr Green’s proof he sets out a comparison of the travel behaviour of

existing residents in the area surrounding the Eco-Village site and an urban extension of

Guildford. Mr Green uses the Slyfield Area Regeneration Project to compare against the

Eco-Village. Slyfield is a potential development site about 3.5km to the north east of

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



Guildford town centre (site plan provided as Appendix A). The site is currently being

considered in the emerging Site Allocations document in the Guildford Local Development

Framework.

2.13 Guildford Borough Council, Surrey County Council and Thames Water jointly appointed

Colin Buchanan to assess the traffic and highway implications for developing land at

Slyfield for mixed-use housing and employment. The capacity assessment assessed 1,000

and 1,500 houses and 15,000m2 of employment floorspace. It is interesting to note that

the capacity assessment of the local highway network assumed no traffic growth and no

committed development was considered. The study provided the following conclusions:

• The site is located within an area of heavily congested roads, the main concern

being the Woking Road corridor into Guildford. At certain points in the AM peak

hour it appears that the queue extends all the way up the Woking Road corridor.

• One of the key constraints in the Woking Road corridor is the junction of the

Woking Road with the A3 slip roads and the junction with Ladymead. The study

stated that there were “no obvious ways in which this junction could be improved.”

• The current highway arrangement would be insufficient to support additional traffic

without extending the queuing traffic.

• 1,000 units can be delivered on the site alongside associated infrastructure

improvements. With a comprehensive package of sustainable transport

arrangements in place as well, 1,500 units should be achievable on the site.

• The proposed junction upgrades between Jacobs Well and Stoughton Road require

land outside of the highway boundary.

2.14 Further to the above issues associated with the Slyfield site, I have reviewed Mr Green’s

assessment and have the following comments:

• An urban extension of Guildford would not address Waverley’s housing needs and

requirements as set out in the draft RSS. Therefore comparison also needs to be

made to alternative locations for development within Waverley.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



• The Census data, quoted by Mr Green, is based on existing employment provision

in the area. However, there are to be 2,000 jobs within the Eco-Village, as well as

6,000 jobs in the Cranfold cluster of villages (including Cranleigh), and those jobs

in nearby regional hubs and larger towns will be linked to the Eco-Village by direct

and frequent bus services.

• Travel-to-work data from the 2001 Census shows that existing residents in the

local area to the Eco-Village (i.e. Lower Layer Super Output Areas of Waverley

015A and 015B) travel similar distances to other residents in Waverley. 44% of

residents in the Eco-Village area travel over 10km to work compared with 41% on

average in the four Waverley towns (i.e. Farnham, Godalming, Haslemere and

Cranleigh).

• A comparison of mode of travel to work, based on 2001 Census data, is provided

in Table 2.1 below. The table demonstrates that the existing residents living in the

Eco-Village area travel more by public transport (11%) to those living in Cranleigh

(7%) and nearly as much as in Guildford (13%). Indeed, existing residents living in

the local area to the Eco-Village have a similar mode split to Waverley borough. It

is important to realise these are existing travel patterns and therefore do not

reflect the improvements that will come about due to the mixed use nature of the

scheme (leading to more walk and cycle trips) and the extensive public transport

provision.

Table 2.1 – Existing Residents Mode of Travel to Work

Mode Eco-Village

area Cranleigh

Waverley four

towns Guildford Waverley

Public transport 11% 7% 12% 13% 12% Car Driver 73% 71% 66% 58% 69% Car Passenger 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Bicycle 2% 4% 2% 7% 2% Walk 7% 11% 13% 15%* 10% Other 3% 1% 2% 2% 2%

*(NB. The figures presented in Table 2.1 below differ from those presented in Mr

Green’s proof as the Table 2.1 figures exclude working at or from home as a mode

of travel to work).

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



2.15 In section 5.11 Mr Green sets out the level of comparative accessibility to public transport

between the Eco-Village and the Slyfield site. The GIS package Accession was used by

SCC to undertake this exercise, however the public transport assumptions input into the

programme for the Eco-Village were not correct and therefore the Accession plots

(provided as Appendix MKG12 of Mr Green’s proof) do not provide a fair comparison of

the sites. I have undertaken an assessment of the accessibility to public transport of the

Slyfield site (using Mr Green’s assumptions for the Accession plot) and compared this to

the accessibility of the Eco-Village based on the proposed public transport services set

out in my main proof in Figure 8 and Table 7.1. Table 2.2 below provides a useful

comparison. I have included Cranleigh in the comparison as a benchmark given that

policy M1 of the Waverley Local Plan [CD D1] states that Cranleigh is highly accessible

by public transport, cycling and walking.

Table 2.2 – Public Transport Accessibility Comparison

Travel Time to Destination – AM Peak (minutes) Origin

Guildford Godalming Cranleigh Horsham London Slyfield 25 55 64 130 86 Eco-Village 39 35 23 41 100 Cranleigh 45 98 - 82 106

NB. Destination assumed to be the train stations at Guildford, Godalming, Horsham and

London Waterloo and Cranleigh High Street.

2.16 Table 2.2 above demonstrates that the Eco-Village is more accessible than Slyfield by

public transport to Godalming, Cranleigh and Horsham and only marginally less accessible

to Guildford and London. The Eco-Village is considerably more accessible than Cranleigh

to public transport to all of the destinations, which is considered by WBC to be “highly

accessible by public transport”.

Sustainability Appraisal

2.17 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) [CD J18], submitted as part of the planning

application, identified reasonable alternatives for meeting housing need and demand in

Waverley. As well as considering alternative housing options within Waverley, SCC

requested that an urban extension of Guildford should also be assessed. Therefore, the

options assessed as part of the SA were as follows:

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



• Option 1: the development of 2,600 dwellings within the existing urban areas of

Cranleigh (376 dwellings), Godalming (658 dwellings), Haslemere (470 dwellings)

and Farnham (1096 dwellings);

• Option 2: an urban extension to the north-east of Guildford incorporating 2,600

dwellings;

• Option 3: an extension of Cranleigh to the south-west to provide 2,600 dwellings;

and,

• Option 4: the development of the Eco-Village.

2.18 To assist with the alternative site appraisal, Mott MacDonald (MM) conducted an analysis

to compare the vehicle-kilometres likely to be generated by each of the four options

summarised above. This element of work relied on the gravity model methodology and

daily TRICS trip rates used for the TA [CD J9]. In section 5.12 of Mr Green’s proof he

sets out his concerns with the methodology adopted for the SA Appraisal of Alternative

Locations [CD J18] as follows:

• No account has been made that the alternative sites could provide all of the

sustainable measures proposed as part of the Eco-Village – a comparison would

only be valid if this constant were applied;

• No account has been made that the alternative sites are better placed to be

adapted to provide for sustainable travel in the event that policies change and the

need becomes even more urgent;

• The appraisal contradicts the Census data in that Waverley’s rural communities

travel greater distances to work than those people living on the edge of Guildford.

2.19 First, the SA [CD J18] assessment of the alternative locations undertook two transport

tests: one comparing the vehicle kms travelled per day for each option assuming that

none of the sites implemented a sustainable transport strategy, and a further test

comparing the vehicle kms travelled per day assuming that only the Eco-Village

implemented a sustainable transport strategy. Of these assessments, the first test

provides a comparable assessment of the site locations themselves. The second

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



assessment recognises that it is only the Eco-Village that has a developed Sustainable

Transport Strategy available to assess. Indeed, a number of alternative sites would not

all be able to provide an exemplar sustainable transport strategy as proposed for the Eco-

Village. For example, the first option to develop land in the four Waverley towns would

not provide the same level of sustainable transport improvements as those proposed at

the Eco-Village due to the dispersed and piecemeal approach to development with

multiple land owners making viable public transport particularly difficult to achieve.

2.20 Secondly, Mr Green does not provide any evidence to support his claim that the

alternative sites are better placed to provide for sustainable travel. It cannot be assumed

that urban developments are intrinsically more sustainable. Take, for example, the Queen

Elizabeth Park (QEP) development, 2.5km to the north of Guildford town centre, which

comprises 525 houses, 9,000m2 of employment and ancillary community facilities. Whilst

a Travel Plan has been implemented at the site, according to the “Making Residential

Travel Plans Work” document published by the DfT in September 2005, the QEP “car

mode share is 79.8%, which is considerably above the average in the surrounding area

and the target set in Surrey’s LTP” (Appendix 1, Page 74).

2.21 Given the comments set above and also comments made by Mr Green in section 6.9 with

regard to the gravity model, a sensitivity test of the transport analysis that was used to

inform the SA [CD J18] using a refined gravity model and alternative containment

assumptions is currently being undertaken. I will make this material available to Mr Green

as soon as I have it.

Travel Behaviour of Residents

2.22 Throughout Mr Green’s proof, but most notably in paragraphs 5.6a, 5.7.23 and 5.9.8 he

presumes that the majority of the residents at the Eco-Village will be “newcomers” to the

area, that they will maintain their existing social, employment and educational networks,

and that they will therefore travel long distances from the Eco-Village, by unsustainable

modes, to remain part of these networks. Mr Green does not provide any evidential base

for these assumptions.

2.23 With regard to the first assumption, that the majority of Eco-Village residents will not

move from the local area, I provide the following evidence to counter this, extracts from

which are provided as Appendix B of this proof:

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



• The ODPM’s Housing Market Assessment Manual (February 2004) suggests that

areas with at least 70% self-containment can be regarded as markets with their

own identity. Conversely, areas with lower levels of self containment are likely to

be part of a wider market. Savills have defined a “Local Market Area” for the Eco-

Village approximately 15 miles in radius, which captures 60% of in-migration from

within the UK to their Core Area and 54% of out-migration from the Core Area to

elsewhere in the UK. On this basis, the Local Market Area can be regarded as the

source of the majority of the demand for the Eco-Village, though the area should

be regarded as part of a wider market.

• The Survey of English Housing (2003) found that 83% of people moving house

moved to within 20 miles (32.2km) of their original residence, 60% moved within

five miles (8km).

• According to “Living in Cambourne: A Survey of Cambourne Residents” published

by Cambridgeshire County Council in July 2006, 56% of newcomers came from

less than 20km (12.4 miles) away.

• The Eco-Village is specifically designed to be attractive to those favouring a locally-

based lifestyle. For example, existing employees on the site and Cranfold residents

will receive priority in occupying housing.

2.24 Mr Green’s assumption that the majority of Eco-Village residents will travel long distances

from the Eco-Village, by unsustainable modes, to remain part of their former social,

educational and employment networks is not substantiated by evidence. In fact, there

has been a number of research studies undertaken over recent years which suggests that

key events, such as moving home or job, may have a significant influence on travel

behaviour. I summarise the most recent research studies below (extracts provided in

Appendix B):

• Research by Stanbridge in 2006 has shown that when moving house, 87% of

people considered their travel options when selecting a house, and 57% reported a

change of travel mode for at least one regular journey.

• A study conducted by Davidov in 2007 found empirical evidence to support this

theory, stating that “when an individual is faced with a permanent change in the

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



environment, behavior is not determined by habits but by the amount invested in

information on the best options”.

• Research into habit discontinuation by Verplanken et al (2008) has shown that

influential events and changes in the environment of a person’s life can weaken a

person’s habits.

2.25 These findings highlight a unique opportunity to influence habitual travel behaviour, and

establish new patterns of sustainable travel. This information is extremely relevant in the

context of the Eco-Village, since by its very nature as a new development, every resident

will have just moved there. Consequently the Eco-Village is in a unique position to

influence the transport choices of the new residents for the better in a way that may not

otherwise have been possible.

2.26 Even if Mr Green was right and some people maintained their existing networks, this is

not a particular feature of the proposed Eco-Village – it is just as likely to happen at

alternative development locations.

Sustainable Transport Strategy

2.27 In section 5.7 of his proof, Mr Green sets out his concerns with the proposed sustainable

transport strategy and its effectiveness. In section 7.0 of my main proof I set out the

details of the proposed sustainable transport measures and in section 8.0 of my main

proof I proceed to set out the potential effectiveness of the measures, citing best

practice. I consider the proposed sustainable transport strategy to be extremely robust,

innovative and far reaching and obligations will be put in place to ensure that the

measures are maintained for the life of the development, (a point I return to later in this

proof). In this section I deal with particular concerns raised by Mr Green in Section 5.7 of

his proof with regard to the effectiveness and deliverability of the proposed transport

measures.

2.28 With regards to walking trips within the Eco-Village, Mr Green states in paragraph 5.7.1

that “In terms of off site pedestrian provision, there is little that can be done to

encourage use of this mode for anything other than recreation.”

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



2.29 The essence of this criticism seems to be that people will not be able to walk to other

locations from the Eco-Village. Yet the villages and towns in Waverley all have similar

characteristics in terms of walking provision. They provide footways within the villages

and towns but little provision to connect to other areas. The majority of pedestrian

facilities between settlements are rights of way and used primarily for recreation

purposes. Mr Green assumes that urban areas are without their problems in terms of

pedestrian accessibility. Infact, many urban areas suffer from severance in the form of

congested road networks, ring roads and rail corridors. For example, Mr Green’s

preferred development site at Slyfield is severed from Guildford town centre by the major

highway infrastructure of the A3 and A25. Pedestrians crossing the A25 corridor are

required to cross eight traffic lanes.

2.30 In paragraph 5.7.6 Mr Green states that “It is simply Dunsfold Park’s location that makes

it so unlikely that cycling will be used by all but the most hardened of cyclists for day to

day activities off site such as work, retail, social or education.” Contrary to this, the

topography of the area surrounding the Eco-Village is conducive to cycling and according

to Mr Green there are “relatively low levels of congestion” (paragraph 5.7.9). The Eco-

Village proposes to provide an off-road cycle route (4.2km) connecting the Eco-Village to

Cranleigh as set out in my main proof. The evidence from Sustrans set out in Appendix D

of my main proof illustrates that a significant increase in cycling can be achieved through

the introduction of high quality routes.

2.31 In paragraph 5.7.6 Mr Green states that it is unlikely that residents living at the Eco-

Village and working in London will cycle to Cranleigh, get a bus to Guildford and get a

train to London. Instead, Mr Green states that they would drive to Guildford station and

get a train. I agree that people are unlikely to undertake the journey suggested by Mr

Green. What they are likely to do is to use the proposed bus service to Guilford. It

currently costs at least £8.50 per day to park at Guildford Station. If an Eco-Village

resident were to drive to Guildford and park at the station, they would be required to pay

£2 to £5 to exit the Eco-Village (£3 for a standard fossil fuel car) and at least £8.50 to

park at Guildford Station, resulting in a total cost of £11.50. This does not include the car

running costs. Compared to this the resident could get a limited stop bus from the Eco-

Village to Guildford for £1. The bus to Guildford will operate every 15 minutes in the peak

periods and will be of the highest quality.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



2.32 With regard to the proposed residential cordon charge scheme, Mr Green states in

paragraph 5.7.8 that “fiscal controls can potentially be one of the most effective forms of

controlling travel behaviour”. However, Mr Green goes on to question whether the

system will remain in place for the life of the development and that the proposed charges

are unlikely to have a great impact on travel. I set out the proposed cordon charge in

section 7.0, page 30, of my main proof and as I have illustrated above the cost is likely to

be a real incentive to use alternative modes. The S106 obligations will ensure that the

cordon charge is provided in perpetuity.

2.33 With regard to the proposed employee parking charge, Mr Green states in paragraph

5.7.12 that “Central Government have tried to no avail to encourage work place charging

for private, non-residential provision………” He goes on to state that “The political will for

such schemes simply does not exist, even in the UK’s highly accessible major centres”.

Mr Green’s analysis is simply not true. There are a number of existing case studies of

successful parking levy schemes at individual workplaces which I set out in Appendix C

of this proof. These examples demonstrate that there is current best practice for charging

employees to park at work.

2.34 With regard to there being no political will for such schemes, the Government first

consulted on the idea of a workplace parking levy in December 1998. In December 2008,

the DfT published a consultation paper on Workplace Parking Levies seeking views on

draft regulations for completing the legal framework to enable local authority workplace

parking levy schemes in England outside London. In paragraph 3.8 the consultation

paper states that “Since the TA2000 came into force the Government has been

encouraging local authorities to consider the use of road pricing, which we believe is

likely to be more effective in tackling congestion. But the Government does not wish to

rule out the use of WPL. This document therefore signals our readiness to put the

necessary regulations in place to allow the TA2000 powers to be used.”

2.35 I find Mr Green’s attitude to matters such as the parking charge puzzling. I would have

expected him to welcome measures to charge for parking compared with other free

employment car parks that are a feature of developments in Surrey.

2.36 In paragraph 5.7.15 Mr Green raises concerns with the effectiveness of electric vehicles,

which are to be promoted as part of the Eco-Village sustainable transport strategy. He

states that “they still use power, which is likely to have been produced through non-

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



renewable means”. The electric cars will be charged using energy from the biomass CHP

plant proposed as part of the Eco-Village. Again this is not something that would be

easily done from a piecemeal approach to housing development in Waverley due to the

critical mass required for a CHP plant.

2.37 In paragraph 5.7.16 Mr Green raises concerns with the effectiveness of a car share

database. He thinks that it is “very unlikely to generate a 10% reduction in residents’

commuting vehicle trips”. In Appendix D of my main proof I provide a number of car

share examples in the UK with varying results from 15-50%.

2.38 Mr Green sets out his concerns with the proposed public transport provision for the Eco-

Village in paragraph 5.7.17 of his proof. His concern is that the proposed public transport

services will not produce the beneficial patronage levels that one might expect in an

urban extension. Mr Green provides an example of a shuttle bus that was funded by the

developer of the former Alma Dettingen Barracks in North West Surrey. As stated in the

memo from Laurie James to Mike Green included as Appendix MKG8 of his proof, the

shuttle bus did not access the actual site and therefore residents were required to walk to

Deepcut Bridge Road to get the bus. For residents living on the edge of the development,

this walk is around 1km, a 12 minute walk, which is well beyond an acceptable distance

to a bus stop. All residents at the Eco-Village will live within 400m of a bus stop and

within easy walking distance of the transport hub in the village centre. In addition there

will be a turn up and go bus service to Cranleigh and Guildford with 10 and 15 minute

peak period frequencies, respectively. There will also be regular bus services to the

surrounding towns throughout the daytime and evenings. This level of service is not

comparable to the shuttle bus service at the former Alma Dettingen Barracks as set out in

Mr Green’s proof (paragraph 5.7.18). There are many examples of successful bus service

provision at new developments, some of which are summarised below:

• The Building Sustainable Transport into New Developments document published by

the DfT in April 2008 states that “At Beaulieu Park in Chelmsford, residents moving

into a new phase of the development were given a year’s free bus travel for two

people in each household, together with integrated bus and rail information.

Residents from the existing development were also given three months’ free travel

for every household, and a discount on their renewed season tickets. In addition,

the developer, Countryside Properties, funded extra morning and evening runs for

a bus between Beaulieu Park, the town centre and Chelmsford railway station, and

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



new bus stops were installed on site. The package has proved successful: the bus

service, which was initially guaranteed by the developer for five years, became

commercially viable in two and a half”.

• Page 48 of the Making Residential Travel Plans Work document published by the

DfT in September 2005 states that “At Caterham Barracks in Surrey, the service

management charges paid by residents include a contribution towards the costs of

maintaining a bus service to the site. Further funding to support the service is

provided by the developer, Linden Homes. The service is reportedly popular and

successful with over 315 passengers/ week. Residents were informed about the

charge from the outset and are apparently keen to use the service, knowing that

they have already paid something towards it. In addition, residents also contribute

funding to a Community Trust for the development”.

2.39 Finally in paragraph 5.7.22 of his proof, Mr Green sets out his thoughts on the proposed

parking provision. With regard to Mr Green’s point on the enforcement of the parking

within the Eco-Village, I set out the proposed parking provision and operation in

paragraph 7.7 in my main proof. Parking in the Eco-Village will be controlled through a

Car Park Management Scheme with resident and visitor parking permits which are a

common feature in controlled parking zones. A parking management team will be

employed by the developer to enforce the parking controls. In addition, certain permitted

development rights can be removed in order to prevent residents from making changes

to their front garden areas. For example, a planning condition would mean that hard

surfacing a garden for parking would require planning permission. As part of the ongoing

monitoring of the Site Travel Plan, monitoring of parking both on and off-site will be

undertaken. Should any issues arise, suitable mitigation measures will be discussed with

the Transport Steering Group, (of which SCC and WBC would be members) and

implemented. This will be dealt with in the S106 planning obligations.

2.40 In paragraph 5.7.22 Mr Green cites Kent County Council’s proposed revised parking

standards to take account of PPS3, which are proposed to be treated as minimum

standards for rural areas. One of the background documents to PPS3 is ‘Residential Car

Parking Research’ published by the Department for Communities and Local Government

(DCLG) in May 2007. This research considers the factors which have a significant

influence on car ownership and parking demand and looks at ways to make the most

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



efficient use of land, in accordance with PPS3 Paragraph 51. The research provides a

number of ways to maximize the efficiency of residential parking provision as follows:

• Page 5 states that “The allocation of spaces to individual dwellings can have an

adverse impact upon the efficiency of car parking provision……. In other words, by

allocating 1.0 space per dwelling, the overall parking requirement would increase

to 1.37 spaces per dwelling, which would result in a 13% increase in the space

required for parking, compared to a situation where car parking is unallocated”.

• At Page 6, the research states that “Basing expected car ownership upon Census

or other survey data, as set out above, implicitly assumes that new housing will

have similar car ownership characteristics to the existing housing stock in the

area”.

• Page 6 goes on to state that “The availability of public car parking spaces should

also be considered. In areas where all on-street parking is controlled by Controlled

Parking Zones, it may be acceptable to provide parking below normal levels of

demand.”

2.41 PPS3 is not recommending that Local Authorities should set minimum parking standards

in rural areas; it is asking Local Authorities to look a ways to make the most efficient use

of land taking into account expected car ownership levels.

2.42 PPG13 is very clear with regard to car parking provision. Paragraph 14 states that “The

availability of car parking has a major influence on the means of transport people choose

for their journeys. Some studies suggest that levels of parking can be more significant

than levels of public transport provision in determining means of travel (particularly for

the journey to work) even for locations very well served by public transport. Car parking

also takes up a large amount of space in development, is costly to business and reduces

densities. Reducing the amount of parking in new development (and in the expansion

and change of use in existing development) is essential, as part of a package of planning

and transport measures, to promote sustainable travel choices.”

2.43 I set out the proposed parking provision for the Eco-Village in Section 7.0 of my main

proof. The proposed parking provision is well below the Local Authorities parking

standards [CD C4], which will make a real contribution to reducing the reliance on the

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



private car. In addition, the layout of parking spaces will create a good quality urban

environment, removing cars from streets and confining them to parking barns and

courtyards. I consider that the proposals are in accordance with both PPS3 and PPG13.

Lessons from Cambourne

2.44 Section 5.8 of Mr Green’s proof sets out the findings of the Inspire East’s “Lessons from

Cambourne” study published in May 2007. In paragraph 5.8.2 Mr Green states that

Cambourne “has always been intended to be an exemplar of a sustainable community”.

In November 2005 South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Housing Associations’

Consortium published a document entitled “Cambourne, A Sustainable Community?”.

Page 10 of the document states that:

“The primary aim and objective for Cambourne is sustainability, summarised in the

Masterplan document as the conservation of village character, community, rural

character, ecology and energy. Remember, though, that planning permission was

granted in 1994, and sustainability issues and associated planning policy have evolved

since then.”

2.45 A comparison of the sustainable transport offer provided at Cambourne and the proposed

Eco-Village is set out in Table 2.3 below.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



Table 2.3 – Comparison of Eco-Village and Cambourne Transport Provision

Measure Eco-Village Cambourne

Bus Routes • 6 buses / hour to Cranleigh in peak periods

• 4 buses / hour to Guildford in peak periods.

• 3 buses / hour to Godalming and Horsham in peak periods

• Free community electric bus service

• Real time information at the transport hub, bus stops and in people’s homes and place of work

• £1 flat fare to any destination

• 3 direct buses in AM and PM peaks to Cambridge.

• 1 bus in AM peak and 2 buses in PM peak to St Neots

• No bus services serve Cambridge train station

• £3.30 single fare to Cambridge • No real time information

Walking and Cycling

• High quality network of pedestrian and cycle routes in the Eco-town

• Car restrained area • High quality cycle route to

Cranleigh • Improvements to existing rights

of way • Free bicycle with every house • Free bicycle rental scheme

• High quality network of pedestrian and cycle routes within Cambourne but no routes connecting to surrounding area

Charges • Cordon Charge for residents to exit the Eco-Village by car.

• Employee parking charges

Free parking and car use

Car share Car share database for residents and employees

Cambourne Business Park is a member of ‘Camshare’, a web based car-sharing scheme run by the Cambridgeshire Travel to Work Partnership.

Car club Car club for residents and employees

None

Travel Plan Site Travel Plan with full time Site Transport Co-ordinator School and Workplace Travel Plans

Workplace travel plans

Marketing Individualised Marketing Community website Route maps and timetables

Maps

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



2.46 Table 2.3 clearly illustrates that the Eco-Village sustainable transport strategy provides

considerably more opportunity to travel by non-car modes than Cambourne.

Eco-Village Buy-in

2.47 In paragraph 5.10 of Mr Green’s proof he sets out his concerns for people to buy into the

ethos of the Eco-Village. His main concerns are that:

• Residents may not accept the additional cost to fund the ongoing maintenance of

the Eco-Village transport measures; and,

• House builders will not be prepared to develop on a site with cordon charging.

2.48 I refer to the research study by Surrey University appended to Mr Bullock’s proof. The

majority of those moving to the Eco-Village will have chosen this development among

other options in the housing market. The incentives to live a locally-based lifestyle,

including the discouragement of unsustainable travel patterns will be a selling point of

the new community.

2.49 The transport measures are to be funded by revenue from the bus services, the cordon

charge, employee and visitor parking charges and revenue from employment space

donated by the developer to the Community Trust.

2.50 Appendix MKG7 of Mr Green’s proof provides two emails from house builders (Crest and

Barratt Homes) stating that they are not prepared to buy into the concept of road user

charging. However, Mr Green’s email to the house builders dated 16th January 2009 was

misleading in that it did not specifically mention the Eco-Village proposals and inferred

that the road charging proposals were a County wide initiative. The developer has since

contacted both Crest and Barratt Homes to provide some context to Mr Green’s email.

Both house builders have previously shown an interest in developing at the Eco-Village

and Barratt Homes has recently provided a letter stating their interest, which are included

as Appendix D. In his letter to the developer Martin Tuthill, the Development Director of

Barratt Homes Southern Counties, states that “A form of cordon charge, taken as part of

a carefully constructed traffic management plan, supported by enhanced public transport

and funded by a mixture of developer contribution and an ongoing resident service

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



charge would not prevent this company from continuing to pursue its earlier stated

interest in the site”.

Transport Policy

2.51 Section 5.13 of Mr Green’s proof considers the performance of the Eco-Village proposals

against current transport policy. Mr Green focuses on current transport policies at a

national and local level that refer to the location of developments and developing sites

that reduce the need to travel. I have dealt with the location of the development in

paragraph 2.6 of this proof and the accessibility of public transport in paragraph 2.15.

2.52 Current transport policies encourage mixed-use development that has good public

transport accessibility. The Eco-Village meets these objectives. I have set out the

compliance of the Eco-Village proposals to transport policy in Section 10.0 of my main

proof. In addition to this, Mr Owen has set out the relevance of the Taylor Review –

Living Working Countryside (July 2008) in Section 3.12 of his proof. The Taylor Review

set out a vision for sustainable, rural communities.

Transport Assessment Methodology

2.53 The first part of Section 6.0 of Mr Green’s proof sets out his concerns with the

methodology adopted for the TA [CD J8] and in particular the trip rates, internal trip

assumptions and distribution and assignment of trips onto the highway network.

2.54 In paragraph 6.5 Mr Green questions the appropriateness of using the TRICS trip rate

database. He states that the “establishment of a given rate does not ensure that as the

eventual outcome, and in many developments, there are been an historic under-

estimation of outcomes”. In Section 8.0 of my main proof I set out why the trip rates

used in the TA [CD J9] and the reductions applied to the vehicle trips both for internal

trips and mode shift to sustainable transport modes are conservative.

2.55 In paragraph 6.5 of his proof Mr Green also queries the estimated daily movements per

dwelling included in the TA [CD J9]. He states that Mott MacDonald estimated in 2003

that residential dwellings would generate 8.1 vehicular movements per unit per day. He

then goes on to state that in the TA [CD J9] submitted with the application in April 2008

Mott MacDonald estimate that each residential unit will generate 4.42 vehicular

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



movements per day (see Table 8.13 of the TA – 11,518 / 2601). The 2003 work that Mr

Green is referring to is a Transport Statement prepared for a change of use planning

application (LPA Ref: WA02/2046) which established what the site could have generated

at the peak of the BAe use. At the peak BAe use, there were 3 houses on the site and

44,703m2 of Aerospace floorspace. A daily trip rate of 8.1 vehicular movements per

dwelling was applied to the 3 houses on the site. This seems robust given that there was

no public transport services and no on-site facilities to generate internal trips.

2.56 Paragraph 6.6 of Mr Green’s proof deals with the containment assumptions made in the

Transport Strategy [CD J8]. I have dealt with this in Section 8.0 of my main proof which

provides evidence to demonstrate that the assumptions for internal trips applied to the

TA [CD J9] are likely to be a significant underestimate of the actual internal trips that

would be achieved by the mixed-use development.

2.57 In paragraph 6.9 Mr Green sets out his concerns with the gravity model used in the TA

[CD J9] to distribute development trips onto the local highway network. His main

concerns are as follows:

• Comparison with National Travel Survey (NTS) small urban area trip length data is

flawed as the Eco-Village residents will have established their social, education and

employment networks elsewhere and travel longer distances than in NTS.

• Sensitivity testing against comparable new communities should be made.

• The education distribution is based on an understanding of available school places

within the local area, which has not been justified.

• Distance groups used to compare gravity model to observed trip length data are

too large.

• Exponential or combined (i.e. Tanner or Gamma) functions may provide a better fit

to observed data.

• No validation data has been provided to prove the validity of the gravity model.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



2.58 I have dealt with Mr Green’s assumption that the Eco-Village residents will travel longer

distance to reach previously established networks earlier in this section. The definition of

a small urban area in NTS is “a self contained urban area over 3,000 but not over 10,000

population”. The Eco-Village is expected to be a self contained area with an estimated

population of 6,100 people and therefore a comparison against NTS small urban areas is

considered to be sound.

2.59 With regards to the education distribution, Volume 11 of the ES [CD J12] sets out the

details of the education strategy for the Eco-Village which was used to inform the

education distribution in the TA [CD J9]. Upon completion, the Eco-Village is expected to

be home to 507 children of primary school age, and 365 of secondary school age.

Therefore, the Eco-Village plans to accommodate a primary school large enough to

accommodate two-form entry (420 pupils), with capacity for further expansion. The scale

of the Eco-Village does not justify the construction of a secondary school. Rather, young

people resident at the Eco-Village will attend Glebelands in Cranleigh. Glebelands has a

predicted surplus of 148 places by 2008/9, though this is subject to review given

constantly changing demographic and migration trends. As the Eco-Village expands and

Glebelands’ capacity is reached, it may be necessary to expand the school with funding

from the developers of the Eco-Village. I understand this is currently being discussed as

part of the S106 planning obligations. Education for 16-18 year olds in the local area is

currently provided by Colleges in Guildford and Godalming and therefore 16-18 students

were split equally between these facilities.

2.60 The remaining comments on the gravity model have been considered and the gravity

model has been refined based on SCC’s proposed methodology (referred to as the ‘SCC

Methodology’ gravity model). A technical note prepared by Mott MacDonald is included as

Appendix E of this proof which sets out the ‘SCC Methodology’ gravity model, validity of

the model and results. In summary, the ‘SCC Methodology’ gravity model shows that the

TA [CD J9] and my main proof of evidence overestimate the trips using the A281

through Bramley and Shalford and underestimate the trips south on the A281 towards

Horsham. A comparison of the TA [CD J9] distribution and the ‘SCC Methodology’ gravity

model distribution is summarised in Table 2.4 below.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



Table 2.4 – Comparison of TA and Refined Gravity Model Distributions

Employee journey to work

Resident journey to work

Resident Retail Residents Leisure Screenline

New GM TA GM New GM TA GM New GM TA GM New GM TA GM

A281 Bramley 29% 36% 25% 41% 23% 39% 25% 41%

A281 Rudgwick 19% 29% 23% 28% 37% 23% 35% 24%

2.61 Finally, in terms of the TA [CD J9] methodology, Mr Green raises some concerns in

paragraph 6.9.7 with the assignment of development trips onto the local highway

network. The TA [CD J9] assumed a fixed assignment whereby all traffic routes via a

single route to get to each destination. Therefore, the fixed assignment methodology

does not consider route choice (i.e. there are three routes to Cranleigh from the Eco-

Village but all traffic is assigned onto the shortest route). In paragraph 6.9.8 Mr Green

states that it would have been more appropriate to have used a congested assignment

(also known as dynamic assignment). A congested or dynamic assignment of traffic is

only effectively achieved with a strategic traffic model such as SATURN. SCC does not

have a strategic model of this area and therefore individual junction assessments with a

‘shortest route’ assignment is considered to be a reasonable approach.

Effects of the Development

2.62 Section 6.0 of Mr Green’s proof deals with the impact of the Eco-Village on the transport

infrastructure. Mr Green raises concerns that the proposed improvements to the local

transport infrastructure will not be sufficient to provide for the additional trips generated

by the development.

2.63 For each of the proposed junction improvements, Mr Green has provided an initial

commentary on the proposals and then tested the performance of the improved junctions

against two scenarios: 10% and 50% increase in development generated traffic using the

TA [CD J9] development flows as a base (Refer to WSP report included in Mr Green’s

Appendix MKG14). The justification given for these +10% and +50% tests is that “there

is a real chance that these levels will be reaches if the main elements of the Transport

Strategy (road user charging / bus subsidy source) fails” (paragraph 6.10.6). I set out in

paragraph 8.29 of my main proof that the vehicular trip generation used for the capacity

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



assessment in the TA [CD J9] is significantly higher than that generated using average

TRICS trip rates with no reductions for internal trips and the Sustainable Transport

Strategy. I therefore consider the TA [CD J9] capacity assessment to be overly robust.

Therefore Mr Green’s sensitivity tests of a 10% and 50% increase in the TA’s [CD J9]

trip rates are, I believe, unrealistic scenarios.

2.64 Since the writing of my main proof I have undertaken some traffic counts and queue

length surveys at key junctions on the A281 corridor and undertaken further sensitivity

modelling for some of the junctions.

2.65 Traffic data for the TA [CD J9] was collected in 2005 and 2006. This data was then

growthed to 2008 and 2022 using NRTF Central adjusted to TEMPRO. A comparison of

the 2008 growthed flows at key junctions on the A281 with 2009 observed flows through

these junctions is set out in Table 2.5 below.

Table 2.5 – Comparison of 2008 and 2009 observed flows

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction 2008

Growthed 2009

Observed 2008

Growthed 2009

Observed Bramley Roundabout (I) 2197 1920 1843 1751 Shalford Junctions (V + W) 3072 2720 2339 2380 A281 / A29 (S) 2079 1603 1400 1365 A281 / A29 (T) 2709 1920 1610 1639

2.66 Table 2.5 demonstrates that the growth assumptions used in the TA [CD J9] have not

materialised and provide an overestimation of baseline traffic, particularly in the AM peak.

2.67 I deal with Mr Green’s comments on individual junctions below and refer to sensitivity

testing that has been undertaken in order to deal with some of the issues raised.

Nanhurst Crossroads (Junction A)

2.68 In paragraph 6.10.7 of Mr Green’s proof he raises particular concerns with the proposed

improvement to Nanhurst Crossroads (Junction A) included in the TA [CD J9]. In Section

9.72 of my main proof I set out the amended junction design to reflect the Stage 1 Road

Safety Audit comments. The revised design (included as Appendix G of my main proof)

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



deals with all the comments raised in the Safety Audit and the LINSIG model has been

adjusted to reflect the revised junction layout. Table 9.4 of my main proof demonstrates

that the improved junction will operate with spare capacity in 2022 with the development

trips assigned through it.

2.69 Mr Green also questions the deliverability of the Nanhurst Crossroads improvement in

terms of land ownership. I have been liaising with SCC’s highway boundary team to

ascertain the highway boundary for the proposed junction improvements. However, the

department do not have any information for the majority of the junctions and we have

been told that it will take some time to provide this information. Given that SCC improved

the Nanhurst Crossroads junction recently the SCC highway boundary team did have

information on this junction which I have attached as Appendix F of this proof. The

highway boundary information demonstrates that the proposed improvement is

deliverable within highway land.

Alfold Crossways (Junction F)

2.70 In paragraph 6.10.9 of his proof Mr Green states that some nodes of this junction are

over capacity. Table 9.3 of my main proof shows that node F4 (A281 / Loxwood Road) is

already operating over capacity. However, based on on-site observations, this is not the

case and there is little queuing at the junction. Even if some additional queuing does

occur as a result of the development, it only takes place on Loxwood Road and does not

affect the A281.

Bramley Roundabout (Junction I)

2.71 Paragraphs 6.10.9 and 6.10.13 of Mr Green’s proof deals with the Bramley Roundabout

(Junction I). Mr Green acknowledges that there are “significant challenges in attempting

to increase capacity at this very tight junction”. Indeed, I set out the issues associated

with this junction in paragraph 9.46 of my main proof as well as the limitations of the

ARCADY modelling package. In paragraph 6.10.13 Mr Green states that the Bramley

roundabout currently experiences “obvious queuing” throughout most of the working

day. This is not true. The ATC graph number 3 provided in Appendix E of my main proof

provides a traffic flow profile for the A281 near the Bramley roundabout for the years

2005 - 2008 and demonstrates that, outside of the peaks the traffic flows drop

significantly.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



2.72 It is interesting to note that Mr Green criticises the developer for the failure to address

any of the “serious issues surrounding the junction”. However, as demonstrated in Table

9.3 of my main proof, the junction is currently operating over capacity, which indicates

that SCC accepts congestion in the peak periods on radial routes.

2.73 As stated in my main proof (paragraph 9.22) there has been a reduction in traffic flows

on the local highway network from 2005 to 2008. I have therefore undertaken a

sensitivity test of the Bramley roundabout assuming no growth (as was accepted by SCC

for similar reasons for the Slyfield site). For this sensitivity test I have used the 2009

traffic data, added the development trips (as assumed in my main proof) and assigned

the trips through the Bramley roundabout junction, based on the trip distribution from

the ‘SCC Methodology’ gravity model. Tables 2.6 and 2.7 below compare the ARCADY

results for 2009 base with 2009 base + development scenarios.

Table 2.6 – Bramley Roundabout Sensitivity Test – AM Peak

2009 Base 2009 Base + Dev Arm

RFC Queue RFC Queue

A281 Horsham Road (SB) 0.973 12 1.159 64 B2128 Station Road (WB) 0.583 2 0.623 2 A281 High Street (NB) 1.085 37 1.415 198 Snowdenham Road (EB) 0.311 1 0.390 1

Table 2.7 – Bramley Roundabout Sensitivity Test – PM Peak

2009 Base 2009 Base + Dev Arm

RFC Queue RFC Queue

A281 Horsham Road (SB) 1.032 18 1.326 194 B2128 Station Road (WB) 0.407 1 0.431 1 A281 High Street (NB) 1.0866 6 1.121 52 Snowdenham Road (EB) 0.168 1 0.194 1

2.74 It can be seen from the tables above that the existing junction is currently operating

slightly over capacity and the Eco-Village development makes a congested junction

worse. As stated in my main proof, there is little scope to mitigate traffic impact at this

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



junction and if congestion conditions do worsen people will adjust their travel time, route

or mode.

Shalford Junctions (Junctions V and W)

2.75 The analysis in my main proof suggested that the Shalford roundabout (Junction V) and

A281 / A248 (Junction W) both currently operate over capacity.

2.76 As with the Bramley roundabout, traffic flows at these two junctions have not increased

over recent years. I have therefore undertaken a sensitivity test of the Shalford junctions

assuming no growth and using the 2009 traffic data to provide accurate base flows. I

have then added the development trips (as assumed in my main proof) and assigned

them through the Shalford junctions, based on the trip distribution from the ‘SCC

Methodology’ gravity model.

2.77 As demonstrated in the tables below, Junction W is currently operating over capacity,

which indicates that SCC accepts congestion in the peak periods on radial routes. The

development of the Eco-Village will merely make a congested network worse. However, I

have developed a scheme for these junctions that addresses the existing congestion

issue and would accommodate the development traffic (included in Appendix F).

2.78 Tables 2.8 and 2.9 below compare the capacity results for 2009 base with 2009 base +

development scenarios for Junction V (Shalford roundabout). Tables 2.10 and 2.11 below

compare the capacity results for 2009 base with 2009 base + development scenarios for

Junction W (A281 / A248).

Table 2.8 – Junction V Sensitivity Test – AM Peak

2009 Base 2009 Base + Dev

(with improvement) Arm

RFC Queue RFC Queue

A281 Horsham Road (SB) 0.541 1.2 0.600 1.5 A248 Kings Road 0.856 5.4 0.835 4.7 A281 Horsham Road (NB) 0.825 4.5 0.723 2.6

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



Table 2.9 – Junction V Sensitivity Test – PM Peak


(with improvement) Arm

RFC Queue RFC Queue

A281 Horsham Road (SB) 0.625 1.6 0.750 2.9 A248 Kings Road 0.684 2.1 0.690 2.2 A281 Horsham Road (NB) 0.766 3.2 0.631 1.7

Table 2.10 – Junction W Sensitivity Test – AM Peak


(with improvement)Arm

RFC Queue % Sat Queue

A281 Horsham Rd (NB) left ahead - - 0.860 12.9 A248 Broadford Rd left 1.019 19.1 0.875 8.3 A248 Broadford Rd right - - 0.466 2.1 A281 Horsham Rd (SB) ahead - - 0.735 7.9 A281 Horsham Rd (SB) right 0.925 14.4 0.341 2.0

Table 2.11 – Junction W Sensitivity Test – PM Peak


(with improvement)Arm

RFC Queue % Sat Queue

A281 Horsham Rd (NB) left ahead - - 0.759 9.5 A248 Broadford Rd left 1.119 44.2 0.721 6.4 A248 Broadford Rd right - - 0.597 3.0 A281 Horsham Rd (SB) ahead - - 0.832 10.6 A281 Horsham Rd (SB) right 0.880 9.3 0.363 2.4

Cranleigh Junctions (Junctions J and P)

2.79 As set out in Section 9.0 of my main proof, all development traffic towards Cranleigh was

assigned through junctions of A281 / Wildwood Lane (Junction J) and High Street /

Knowle Lane (Junction P). However there are three routes between the Eco-Village and

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



Cranleigh and, if there are capacity problems at one of these routes, traffic will divert to

use alternative routes.

S106 Planning Obligation

2.80 Mr Green raises concerns in Section 9.0 of his proof that the S106 planning obligation

may not provide sufficient commitment from the developer to maintain the Sustainable

Transport Strategy in perpetuity.

2.81 The developer is committed to establish a Community Trust, under a S106 planning

obligation, which will secure the community’s commitment to sustainable living. The

financial strategy of the Community Trust depends on managing financial risk by

balancing revenues and expenses across a portfolio of activities such as the cordon and

parking charges, bus revenue and bus running costs as I have set out earlier in this

proof.

2.82 The S106 has been prepared in such a way as to ensure full commitment of the

developer to delivering and maintaining the Sustainable Transport Strategy for the life of

the development.

2.83 This development is not unique in that there are many development sites that have come

forward in recent years that have committed the developer, through the S106 planning

obligation, to provide and maintain transport measures in perpetuity.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



3 SDPNT EVIDENCE

3.1 Mr Alasdair Denton-Miller sets out his main concerns with regard to traffic in section 3.2

of his proof of evidence.

3.2 SDPNT commissioned Motion Transport Planning to report on the capacity of the Bramley

roundabout and the impact the proposed development will have on it. The technical note

prepared by Motion, annexed to Mr Denton-Miller’s proof, undertakes similar capacity

testing to that provided in Mr Green’s proof (i.e. using the TA flows, the TA flows

increased by 10% and the TA flows increased by 50%). I have set out the reasons why I

think this testing to be unrealistic scenarios in paragraph 2.66 of this proof.

3.3 The Motion capacity assessment uses the same geometry and model parameters as used

in the TA [CD J9]. A site visit was undertaken to verify the measurements.

3.4 The 2006 base models demonstrate that the junction is currently operating over capacity,

with queuing and delay increasing for the 2022 base scenario. The technical note states

that the 2022 base + development scenario gives a 6km queue on the northbound arm

of the junction in the AM peak and a similar length queue on the southbound approach in

the PM peak. It should be noted that the Motion capacity assessment was based on the

TA development trip generation assumptions (i.e. 85th percentile trip rates) which I have

demonstrated are overly robust (Section 8.0 of my main proof). I provide some general

commentary in my main proof (paragraphs 9.17 to 9.38) on the capacity analysis and its

limitations as well as the interpretation of results. In paragraph 9.49 of my main proof I

also provide specific comments on the capacity assessment of the Bramley roundabout. I

consider my sensitivity test of this junction, as summarised in paragraph 2.73 of this

proof, to be a more realistic assessment of the junction.

3.5 The Motion technical note does provide a useful commentary on the potential to provide

more capacity at the junction. Paragraph 4.5 of the note concludes that “We consider

that due to the small amount of highway land available in the vicinity of the junction

there is little scope for improvements to the junction that would make a significant

reduction in the congestion predicted by the modelling of the existing layout.”

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



3.6 While the impact on the Bramley roundabout is one of Mr Denton-Miller’s key concerns,

he also raises concerns with the following:

• The impact of HGV generated traffic on the local highway network;

• The impact of development traffic on Wildwood Lane and Knowle Lane on the

route to Cranleigh;

• The travel plans, which form part of an overall Transport Strategy are a relatively

recent planning mechanism and there is little evidence whether they succeed their

objectives;

• Residents will not embrace a lifestyle proposed by the Eco-Village;

• Unlikely that the public transport services will be available from day one and

residents will therefore establish car based travel patterns,

3.7 The impact of all development traffic, light and heavy vehicles, has been considered as

part of the capacity assessment of the local highway network.

3.8 I have set out my commentary on the A281/ Wildwood Lane (Junction J) and High

Street/ Knowle Lane (Junction P) in section 9.0 of my main proof.

3.9 Contrary to Mr Denton-Miller’s understanding, Travel Plans are a well established part of

the planning process. In addition, I have set out evidence of best practice of the

sustainable transport measures proposed for the Eco-Village in Section 8.0 of my main

proof.

3.10 I have provided evidence of potential buy-in for the Eco-Village by residents and house

builders in paragraph 2.46 above.

3.11 The introduction of the bus services will be phased in accordance with the occupation of

the site and will be agreed with SCC. The bus phasing will balance the need to provide a

high quality service from day one with the efficient use of resources.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



4 CPRE EVIDENCE

4.1 Mr Harrold sets out his main concerns with regard to traffic congestion and highways in

section 5.0 of his proof of evidence.

4.2 In summary, his main transport related concerns are:

• The site has poor transport links;

• The impact of the development traffic on the Bramley roundabout and the wider

local highway network;

• The Eco-Village will not improve the road network to the level required;

• Resident cordon charge will proof unpopular, unworkable and unenforceable.

• The workability of the proposed parking barns; and,

• The location of the development is unsustainable.

4.3 Paragraph 32 of the Consultation Paper on a New PPS4: Planning for Sustainable

Economic Development recognises that a site “may be an acceptable location for

development even though it may not be readily accessible by public transport”. The Eco-

Village proposes to provide a high quality, turn up and go bus service to the key local

towns in the area. In addition, real time information will be provided at the transport

hub, the bus stops, within people’s homes and place of work on the site. I consider this

package will make a real contribution to reducing the reliance on the private car.

4.4 I have set out my commentary on the effects of the proposed development in my main

proof (Sections 8.0 and 9.0) and in Section 2.0 of this rebuttal proof.

4.5 While the Eco-Village is proposing to improve key junctions in the local area, transport

policy is clear on encouraging sustainable modes of travel and not necessarily seeking to

provide highway improvements to solve peak hour congestion as set out in Section 9.0 of

my main proof.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



4.6 I have provided evidence of potential buy-in for the Eco-Village by residents and house

builders in paragraph 2.46 above.

4.7 Mr Harrold states that the concept of parking barns and courtyards is untried and

unproven. This is not true. There are many European examples of parking barns and

courtyards such as the Vauban in Germany whereby residents owning a car (46%) must

purchase a car parking space in a car park on the outskirts of the residential area. In

Poundbury, Dorset the majority of parking is provided within internal courtyards.

4.8 I have provided evidence with regard to the location of the development in paragraph 2.6

of this rebuttal proof.

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Mr Green contends that only urban extensions can be sustainable and that rural

developments are unsustainable almost by definition. Urban extensions are not without

their traffic impacts and severance issues, as demonstrated in the Buchanan’s January

2006 report for the proposed Slyfield urban extension of Guildford. There are significant

benefits of locating development at the Eco-Village since this allows a mixed-use

development and introduction of a wide ranging and robust Sustainable Transport

Strategy.

5.2 The Taylor Review (July 2008) advocates developments that help people to work closer

to where they live in order to support and foster rural communities. Taylor goes on to

promote an approach that comprises of a central ‘hub’ of the existing town centre but

with new ‘spokes’ that form sustainable communities in their own right with a mix of

housing, employment and community facilities. The Eco-Village proposals are very much

in line with Taylor’s approach.

5.3 The Eco-Village has been planned to become an exemplar in sustainable development.

People choosing to live and / or work at the Eco-Village are likely to aspire to share this

vision and want to make sustainable travel choices.

5.4 I consider our approach to highway infrastructure works to be appropriate. We have put

forward improvements where appropriate and feasible but it is inevitable that residential

development in South East England will have a residual impact on the highway network

in the peak hours wherever it is located (urban extension or new settlement). Transport

policy is clear on encouraging sustainable modes of travel and not necessarily seeking to

provide highway improvements to solve peak hour congestion.

5.5 The focus of the development is to provide a robust yet innovative Sustainable Transport

Strategy which will provide real choices for people when they make trips rather than

relying on the car.

5.6 The developer is committed to establish a Community Trust, under a S106 planning

obligation, which will secure the community’s commitment to sustainable living. The S106

has been prepared in such a way as to ensure full commitment of the developer to

Savell Bird & Axon • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



delivering and maintaining the Sustainable Transport Strategy for the life of the

development.

Obscured Signature

rebuttal proof of evidence: david robert bird - main … bird... · 2009-03-05 · rebuttal proof...

Documents