Summary Proof of Evidence - Highways / …...4.1.2 My calculations (Main Proof of Evidence Appendix...

Summary Proof of Evidence

- Highways / Transportation

17/01359/MOUT - Higher

Town, Sampford Peverell

Place Land Limited

Date: 30 March 2020

Doc ref: -

Place Land Limited | Summary Proof of Evidence - Highways / Transportation | - | 30 March 2020 i

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

Issued by Hydrock Consultants Limited Over Court Barns Over Lane Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4DF

Tel: 01454 619533 Fax: 01454 614125 www.hydrock.com

Client Place Land Limited

Project name Summary Proof of Evidence - Highways / Transportation

Title 17/01359/MOUT - Higher Town, Sampford Peverell

Project no. C-06685-C

Status FINAL

Date 30/03/2020

Document Production Record

Issue Number P1 Name

Prepared by James McKechnie BA (Hons) PGDip FCIHT CMILT, Director

Checked by Rory McHugh HND HNC MCIHT, Technical Director

Approved by James McKechnie BA (Hons) PGDip FICHT CMILT, Director

Document Revision Record

Issue Number Status Date Revision Details

P1 FINAL 30-03-20 For submission

Hydrock Consultants Limited has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of the above named

client for their sole and specific use. Any third parties who may use the information contained herein do so at

their own risk.

Place Land Limited | Summary Proof of Evidence - Highways / Transportation | - | 30 March 2020 ii

CONTENTS

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

1.1 Preface ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 The District Council's Decision Notice ......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 DCC's Highway Recommendation ............................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Chronology .................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.5 Policy ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

2. HIGHWAY SAFETY ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Accident Records ........................................................................................................................................ 3

3. LOCATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY ..................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

4. PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY......................................................................................................................... 5

4.1 Existing Pedestrian Movements .................................................................................................................. 5

4.2 Geometry .................................................................................................................................................... 5

4.3 Footway Enhancements .............................................................................................................................. 6

4.4 Site Pedestrian/Cycle Access ....................................................................................................................... 6

4.5 Additional Pedestrian Access ...................................................................................................................... 7

4.6 Higher Town: Geometry.............................................................................................................................. 7

4.7 Summary of Pedestrian Provision ............................................................................................................... 8

5. CYCLE ACCESSIBILITY ................................................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

6. PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESS ..................................................................................................................... 10

6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 10

7. VEHICULAR ACCESS ON LINK ROAD .......................................................................................................... 11

7.1 Vehicular Access Junction ......................................................................................................................... 11

7.2 Bend to the South ..................................................................................................................................... 11

8. CANAL BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT SCHEME .................................................................................................. 12

8.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 12

8.2 Existing Operation ..................................................................................................................................... 12

8.3 Pedestrian Use of Canal Road Bridge ........................................................................................................ 13

8.4 Speed Surveys ........................................................................................................................................... 13

8.5 Relevant Design Speeds ............................................................................................................................ 13

8.6 Summary - Canal Bridge Improvement Scheme ....................................................................................... 14

Place Land Limited | Summary Proof of Evidence - Highways / Transportation | - | 30 March 2020 iii

9. TRAFFIC IMPACT ....................................................................................................................................... 16

9.1 Vehicle Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................ 16

9.2 Change in Turnpike Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 16

9.3 Effect of Development Traffic ................................................................................................................... 16

9.4 Change in Traffic Flow ............................................................................................................................... 17

9.5 Severance ................................................................................................................................................. 17

9.6 Pedestrian Delay (at road crossings) ......................................................................................................... 18

9.7 Pedestrian Amenity ................................................................................................................................... 18

9.8 Higher Town .............................................................................................................................................. 18

10. PLANNING PRECEDENTS ........................................................................................................................... 19

11. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 20

11.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 20

11.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 20

Place Land Limited | Summary Proof of Evidence - Highways / Transportation | - | 30 March 2020 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preface

1.1.1 My Summary Proof of Evidence should be read alongside my main Proof of Evidence and has been

prepared on behalf of Place Land Limited in relation to its appeal against Mid Devon District Council's

(MDDC) refusal to grant planning permission for application 17/01359/MOUT - outline for the erection

of 60 dwellings and construction of new vehicular access onto highway to the west of the site, land and

buildings at NGR 302469 114078, Higher Town, Sampford Peverell, Devon.

1.2 The District Council's Decision Notice

1.2.1 MDDC's Decision Notice dated 1st August 2019 includes three reasons for refusal, the first of which

relates to visual impact matters which are outside the scope of my evidence and are addressed by

others on behalf of my client. The second and third reasons for refusal were:

2. The site is not considered to be a sustainable location for this scale of housing development due to

poor pedestrian access. 60 dwellings would be a significant increase in the population of the village,

which has little employment and which would result in an unsustainable pattern of car-based

commuting and is not in compliance with policies COR1, COR12 and COR18 of the Mid Devon Core

Strategy (Local Plan Part 1) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The introduction of the substandard pedestrian footway at Sampford Peverell and the associated

crossing points are considered to be unacceptable and unsafe. The introduction of 60 dwellings on this

site will create a substantial increase in the numbers of cars which will need to access Sampford Peverell

and is not in compliance with policy DM2(d) of the Mid Devon Local Plan Part 3 (Development

Management Policies) and the National Planning Policy Framework

1.2.2 MDDC do not defend the second reason for refusal, further to advice which its Planning Committee

received from the Council's Group Manager for Legal Services and its Monitoring Officer on 23rd

October 2019. It is not clear, however, why the same advice in respect of the other RFR was not

followed.

1.2.3 I provide a contextual overview of sustainability as Appendix A to my main proof of evidence, but do not

dwell on this as it is not a point between the parties. Indeed, the LPA cannot rationally accept the

principle of development whilst arguing the site is not sustainable.

1.2.4 I take the third reason for refusal to relate only to the proposed works near to the canal bridge - i.e. the

introduction of the footway at that location and its associated (taking the ordinary meaning of the

word) crossing points. The third reason for refusal has nothing to do with the existing pedestrian

provision on Turnpike, nor cycle use of that road. Given that the appeal site has two pedestrian access

routes, neither does it raise any issue with pedestrian/cycle use of Higher Town.

1.2.5 The third reason is in total conflict with MDDC's continued promotion of the SP2 allocation through the

Local Plan process. The need, or not, for pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the canal bridge is a

function of the principle of development - these off-site works cannot logically be advanced as an

objection to Place Land's planning application, when the LPA agree the site can be developed for up to

60 dwellings.


1.3 DCC's Highway Recommendation

1.3.1 DCC has raised no objection to the proposed development, including its onsite layout, points of access

and proposed off-site works. All of these were derived in close consultation with DCC, reflecting its

policy and guidance requirements. The proposed highway improvement scheme around the canal

bridge, and also the traffic calming adjacent to the Higher Town site access, were DCC requirements

which it considers will deliver highway gain (principally in safety terms).

1.4 Chronology

1.4.1 In my main proof of evidence, I have set out a chronology which demonstrates inter alia that there is

consensus between MDDC officers, MDDC Members (continuing to promote the SP2 allocation), DCC

Highways, independent Road Safety Auditors, Trace Design (for MDDC) and Hydrock that the site is

sustainable and can be safely accessed. This is further confirmed by the EiP Inspector endorsing the

allocation as being sound (subject to MMs which do not relate to the principle of development).

1.4.2 There has been no change in MDDC policy which would lead to a differing view on the suitability of the

appeal site for development, evidenced by its continued promotion. Neither has there been a change in

national policy (e.g. National Planning Policy Framework) which would alter this position.

1.5 Policy

1.5.1 My main proof of evidence provides a thorough review of policies cited in relation to the appeal

application. I find no conflict with local policy, as alleged in the decision notice, and MDDC was wrong to

refuse the appeal proposals as they are consistent with the requirements of the NPPF in respect of

transportation/accessibility matters. MDDC must consider the development to be NPPF-consistent,

given its ongoing promotion as a draft Local Plan allocation (which must be consistent with national

policy in order to be considered to be "sound").


2. HIGHWAY SAFETY

2.1 Accident Records

2.1.1 For robustness1, despite not being identified in a high accident area, Hydrock assessed the latest 5-year

period and found that there have been no recorded accidents within the relevant study area within that

time.

2.1.2 Indeed, in the last 20 years, there have been no recorded accidents in this area with the exception of

two slight accidents at Battens Cross (dating from 2009 and 2012). Consequently, there is no adverse

safety record within the study area.

2.1.3 Stage One Road Safety Audits have been undertaken by an external organisation in relation to the

proposed access arrangements, and also for the proposed highway improvement scheme in the vicinity

of the canal bridge, all of which are approved by the LHA.

2.1.4 The PBA Hearing Statement describes Turnpike as 'severely unsafe'2, Higher Town as 'unsafe for

intensification of use'3, and the vicinity of the canal bridge as 'clearly and demonstrably unsafe'4. Based

on the empirical information in my main Proof of Evidence, the strong statements regarding safety

made by PBA are evidential non sequiturs. PBA's calibration of 'harm' is unanswerably wrong, as well as

contrary to the view of multiple independent experts who have reached the opposite view.

1 Neither DCC nor MDDC have stated that the site is within a high accident area, and my evidence supports the view that it is not. 2 Paragraph 7.4. 3 Paragraph 8.5. 4 Paragraph 4.15.


3. LOCATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 Neither MDDC nor SoS take issue with the locational sustainability of the site. However, it is useful to

consider the provision of accessible services, as well as the propensity or need for potential residents to

travel for education, work and leisure. I have set out my analysis at Appendix A of my main proof of

evidence.

3.1.2 My assessment shows that the appeal site is well located in relation to access to a range of goods and

services within Sampford Peverell and beyond. Furthermore, the site's agreed trip generation is

consistent with that of other development schemes which are considered to be sustainably-located,

particularly in its rural setting.

3.1.3 These sustainability credentials are further evidenced by the location of employment, shopping, leisure,

education and other activities in the vicinity of the appeal site, by comparison with regional average

travel distances to such facilities. In all cases, the appeal site is closer to these facilities than the regional

average - often considerably-so. This reduces the length of journeys which would be associated with the

appeal site, consistent with the objectives of the NPPF.

3.1.4 Although DCC accepts that it is not strictly required, the site would also implement a robust and

comprehensive Travel Plan, which is agreed as being appropriate by both MDDC and DCC.

3.1.5 The appeal site is well served by two principal pedestrian routes - Turnpike and Higher Town - with the

additional option of a longer route into the village centre via the south-western access towards the

canal towpath. Cycling is also a very realistic option for access to the village centre and well beyond.

3.1.6 Even if objectors' comments relating to these routes were correct, there is no reason why the appeal

site would be unsustainable by reference to the NPPF and by comparison with other sites nearby - it is

at least as well connected as other accepted sustainable development sites locally, and even if those

pedestrians were to drive (which I do not consider to be at all likely) then those few trips would be short

and would result in no material impact.


4. PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY

4.1 Existing Pedestrian Movements

4.1.1 There are currently a significant number of pedestrian movements on the highway network around the

site, including Turnpike, the Link Road, and Higher Town. These movements have been accommodated

without any safety problems for at least the last 20 years. This is supported by data in PBA's Hearing

Statement which indicates that there would have been at least 182,500 pedestrian movements along

Turnpike during that period.

4.1.2 My calculations (Main Proof of Evidence Appendix D paragraph 13.7.13) based on Department for

Transport accident data, indicate that Turnpike is statistically safer than average, and that appeal site

development trips would result in no significant increase in risk.

4.1.3 Taking a similar approach, the PBA trip rates would suggest that there have been approximately 1.38

million pedestrian trips along Higher Town in the last 20 years, also with no recorded safety problems. I

therefore conclude that Higher Town is safe for use by pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. This is

also the professional judgment of the LHA, independent Road Safety Auditors, Trace Design, MDDC

Officers and MDDC Members in promoting the appeal site for allocation.

4.2 Geometry

4.2.1 I have surveyed the footway widths on Turnpike between the proposed site access and the canal bridge

(Main Proof of Evidence Appendix E). Other than at three localised points, the footway is between 1.1m

and 1.8m wide, with 1.3-1.5m being typical.

4.2.2 The localised narrowings, below the dimensions set out above, are at:

• The western end of the row of properties on the southern side of Turnpike - here, there are two

locations where the footway narrows to 0.9m over very short stretches; and,

• Midway along that row of properties, where the footway is 1.12m wide, and 0.75m wide past an

existing pole carrying overhead wires.

4.2.3 Guidance allows for localised narrowings over a short distance and, in each of these cases, pedestrians

would have good visibility of each other. If needed, there are areas nearby (wider areas of footway,

gates, driveways) which would enable pedestrians to wait and pass without issue.

4.2.4 The footways along Turnpike are as wide as, or wider than, footways elsewhere in the village centre -

they are typical footways to be found in village settings locally, regionally and nationally.

4.2.5 Manual for Streets states5 that footway widths can vary dependent upon pedestrian demand levels, and

the Inclusive Mobility6 document adds further detail, noting also that 'Where the area concerned is an

historic environment, changes needed to improve accessibility should be made with sensitivity for site

context'7. The footway on Turnpike can accommodate (required width in brackets):

• A powered wheelchair, or one being pushed (0.7m);

• A pedestrian walking with a stick (0.75m);

5 6.3.23. 6 CD9.3. 7 Inclusive Mobility, p.2.


• Pedestrians walking side-by-side (1.2m); and,

• A pedestrian walking alongside or past another person pushing a pushchair or using a wheelchair

(1.5m).

4.2.6 There are no obstacles between the site and the village centre which would prevent use of the footway

by a pedestrian or wheelchair user as listed above.

4.2.7 At paragraph 13.8.3 of Appendix D of my main Proof of Evidence I have provided a Level of Service (LoS)

assessment for the footway on Turnpike. In all cases, the footway is comfortably within LoS 'A' which is

the best category, within which there would be few if any realistic constraints for users.

4.2.8 I have also provided a probability analysis which indicates that, when considering the whole of Turnpike

between the site and the canal bridge, pedestrians travelling in opposite directions would only meet for

3-8% of the AM and PM peak hours. For sections of footway which are <1.2m wide, the proportions are

0.3-0.9% of each peak hour. Consequently, the probability of two pedestrians meeting in these

narrower areas of footway is vanishingly small in my view (and need not happen at all if people pass in

the wider sections).

4.3 Footway Enhancements

4.3.1 There are other improvements which could be implemented in order to further-enhance pedestrian

access. Whilst neither I nor the LHA consider these improvements to be necessary, particularly given

the improbability/infrequency of any practical issues arising, they are capable of implementation at a

relatively low cost, if deemed appropriate. I describe these fully in my main Proof of Evidence.

4.4 Site Pedestrian/Cycle Access

4.4.1 A pedestrian/cycle access into the site is proposed on its southern boundary with Turnpike, comprising

a drop-kerb crossing onto the existing footway with tactile paving. Suitable visibility splays based on

existing observed speeds8 are available at this location. However, the LHA intends to implement a

30mph speed limit around the site, funded through a legal agreement with Place Land, meaning that

the splays shown on the application drawing are robust, being significantly in excess of the 43m

required by DCC and most other LHAs in areas where there is to be a new 30mph speed limit.

4.4.2 A drawing showing the extent of the proposed TRO can be found in Appendix F of my main Proof of

Evidence.

4.4.3 MDDC and the Rule 6 party have objected to the lack of a visibility splay drawing for the southern side

of Turnpike. The relatively straight alignment of Turnpike at this location means that visibility to the east

is readily achievable from the footway.

4.4.4 The LHA has approved the access plan9 on the basis that visibility from the southern side of Turnpike is

acceptable, given that pedestrians already walk in the carriageway at this point without issue10 - a

situation also accepted by MDDC11. Again, the alignment of Turnpike and the limited volume of traffic

means that this is not a problematic situation in practice. In this case, the appeal proposals would result

8 42.3mph eastbound / 44.3mph westbound. 9 SoCG between DCC and Place Land 1.1.2-1.1.5. 10 Consultation response of neighbour (Mrs Drew) dated 25th September 2017 - notes that 40mph traffic is problematic when exiting the driveway from 16 Turnpike and that pedestrians 'regularly' walk in the carriageway to access the cemetary. 11 SoCG between DCC and Place Land 5.2.3 & 8.1.2 / SoCG between MDDC and Place Land 4.5.5.


in the reduction of vehicle speeds (30mph TRO) and visibility for pedestrians (65.1m) comfortably

exceeds that (43m required). The situation is therefore already objectively safe and no change is

needed.

4.4.5 Nonetheless, I have investigated whether it would be possible to provide an alternative arrangement at

this location which addresses the comments of MDDC's latest consultant and the Rule 6 party. Whilst I

remain content with the application drawing, a potential alternative arrangement is shown in my main

Proof of Evidence.

4.4.6 Given the existing situation, where it is agreed by the authorities that pedestrians have safely walked in

the road, and the proposed introduction of a 30mph speed limit, I consider that the alternative layout is

not needed but would provide a suitable alternative arrangement if so required. This is also agreed by

the LHA.

4.5 Additional Pedestrian Access

4.5.1 A further pedestrian access is proposed in the south-west corner of the site. For the benefit of the

Inquiry and further to comments by the Rule 6 party, the application drawing has been worked-up to an

additional level of detail in order to demonstrate the nature of the access and footway/crossing

provision12.

4.5.2 This pedestrian access would therefore provide safe and suitable access for pedestrians to/from the

canal, and would also provide a much-improved access/waiting area for those using the school bus

stopping point at Batten's Cross.

4.6 Higher Town: Geometry

4.6.1 At section 13.9 of Appendix D of my main Proof of Evidence, my analyses show that Higher Town is

lightly-trafficked and has no recorded accident record in the last 20 years. Its shared use mirrors that of

many other village streets, with traffic demand and highway geometry reflecting guidance in Manual for

Streets and comments by MDDC that it offers a 'relatively safe 'shared' route for pedestrians, motorised

and non-motorised vehicles13.

4.6.2 In addition to the traffic speed surveys at the proposed site access, I have also provided additional

speed survey data which indicates average and 85th percentile speeds on Higher Town (near to the

Methodist Church) which are entirely consistent with shared use of the street. MDDC's own traffic

survey data confirms this in the vicinity of the junction with Turnpike.

4.6.3 The proposed access achieves the required geometry in order to provide safe visibility splays and to

enable the manoeuvring of passing vehicles along Higher Town. The approved (by the LHA) application

drawing already confirms the agreed geometry of the access, including footway/cycleway

width/gradient, carriageway widths, junction radii and visibility splays. However, I have also presented a

further plan (06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-D-0003 Rev P03 (Appendix I of my main Proof of Evidence) showing

one potential alternative access arrangement at this location. This shows how the access might be

constructed in an alternative way from the application drawing in terms of the onsite earthworks

requirements (only, given that none of the other elements are altered). Such earthworks would be

addressed through the reserved matters application.

12 This level of detail would generally follow post-detrmination, at s278 stage. 13 MDDC Statement to Local Plan Review Hearing 2: 27th September 2017.


4.6.4 This additional drawing is indicative and other designs might be equally acceptable, given that onsite

design is a Reserved Matter. In the context of my evidence, the drawing is particularly useful in

confirming the potential to provide a foot/cycleway which accords with DCC guidance on gradients.

4.7 Summary of Pedestrian Provision

4.7.1 The site has two pedestrian access routes to/from the village centre, complemented by a further

pedestrian access (south-west corner) providing access to/from the canal.

4.7.2 It is well within reasonable walking distance of a range of goods and services, and of local public

transport facilities, as set out in the agreed Transport Assessment and Travel Plan.

4.7.3 It would be unrealistic to describe a site with pedestrian accesses of this nature as poorly-connected or

'substandard' in the context of normal existing provision - indeed, to do so would set a precedent which

would fetter development across much of the national highway network. In this case, the pedestrian

network includes access to Tiverton Parkway rail station, which represents an unusually-high level of

provision in any village context.


5. CYCLE ACCESSIBILITY

5.1 Overview

5.1.1 I provide detailed analysis in relation to cycle access in Appendix J of my main proof of evidence. My

assessment shows that there have been no recorded cycle accidents between the appeal site and the

village centre in the last 20 years, despite significant cycle use of Turnpike, the Link Road and Higher

Town. The off-carriageway National Cycle Network (NCN) route along the canal is also well used by

cyclists.

5.1.2 Whilst the Link Road and Higher Town are quieter roads, I have shown that Turnpike either shares the

characteristics of, or is more lightly-trafficked, than nearby sections of the NCN. Given advice in Manual

for Streets to accommodate cyclists on the carriageway, and the similarities with the NCN nearby, I

conclude that Turnpike is also suitable for use by a range of cyclists.

5.1.3 It is my professional opinion that the site is therefore very accessible for cyclists, and that cycling would

provide a realistic mode choice for trips between the site, the village, Tiverton Parkway railway station,

and further afield.


6. PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESS

6.1 Overview

6.1.1 Access to bus and rail services is described at section 3.5 of the approved Transport Assessment in

support of the application, and also within the Travel Plan which has been accepted by DCC.

6.1.2 I do not repeat here the level of detail set out in those documents, but note that bus stops with regular

services are available on Turnpike within 300m of the site, with further stops being located on Lower

Town (750m to the east). My SoCG with DCC confirms (8.3.1) that these stops are 'accessible via the

existing footway and road network'.

6.1.3 Rail services are also described in the TA and TP, with Sampford Peverell unusually well served by rail

for a village of its scale, having access by foot, cycle, bus and car to mainline services at Tiverton

Parkway station, 1.2 miles to the east of the appeal site. DCC has delivered a new footway link to the

station from Lower Town, further enhancing its accessibility from the village.

6.1.4 Public transport is commonly an element in linked trips - e.g. walk-bus-walk or car-rail-car - in rural

areas. Similarly, car-sharing is a realistic and popular travel option, either formally-organised, or via

informal arrangements.

6.1.5 Whilst not a requirement of national policy, the site is in fact highly accessible to all non-car modes,

which is unusual in a rural district. In reality, Sampford Peverell is a very accessible village, and the

appeal site is similarly accessible by a range of modes of transport. Consequently, I consider that the

site has good public transport accessibility, especially in its more rural context, with the nearby rail

station being a particular advantage over other similar locations in the District and beyond. This

conclusion does not change, even if some pedestrians choose not to walk across the Canal Bridge but

choose instead to cycle, get the bus or even get the car a very short distance (given the numbers of

such pedestrians is so low).


7. VEHICULAR ACCESS ON LINK ROAD

7.1 Vehicular Access Junction

7.1.1 The proposed development would be served by a vehicular access onto the Link Road between

Turnpike and Higher Town.

7.1.2 Traffic surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed vehicular site access, showing design

speeds of 29.2mph northbound and 28.1mph southbound, which are reflected in the proposed visibility

splays. The road is 6.1m wide in the vicinity of the site access junction, widening to 7.9m at the bend to

the south.

7.1.3 The site access would comprise of a 5.5m wide road with two 2.0m verges. Replacement stone walls

would be provided either side of the access road. Whilst on-site design is a reserved matter, the

application drawing confirms that suitable gradients can be achieved, as agreed by DCC and others.

7.2 Bend to the South

7.2.1 There is an existing bend in the Link Road between the proposed site access junction and Turnpike. As

noted above, the road widens to 7.9m at this location, enabling the passage of two large vehicles.

7.2.2 DCC requested that additional visibility should be provided on the inside (east side) of the bend, across

the proposed development site and this is shown on the application drawings.

7.2.3 Whilst I take no issue with the provision of this visibility splay, I do not consider that it is necessary in

technical terms, given the existing safe operation of the Link Road. DCC takes a similar stance, agreeing

that either a lighter-touch visibility scheme, wholly within the Highway, or a simple re-marking of the

worn highway lining would be acceptable should the Inspector be so-minded.


8. CANAL BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

8.1 Background

8.1.1 It is my professional judgment that the canal bridge improvement scheme is not required as a

consequence of the appeal proposals. However, if it is considered necessary by the Inspector, then a

scheme has been agreed by DCC which could be secured via condition, given that these would be off-

site (s278) works.

8.1.2 The need, or not, for an improvement for pedestrians on Turnpike in the vicinity of the canal bridge is a

function of the principle of development. On that basis, the LPA's objection to the proposed

improvement scheme is inconsistent with its promotion of the appeal site via the Local Plan process.

This is fully appreciated by Council Officers who considered this reason for refusal to be unsupportable,

especially in the light of the TRACE audit (see Implications Report July 2019).

8.1.3 DCC actively chose to introduce the existing pedestrian bridge to the north side of the historic vehicle

bridge across the canal14. Associated with this was the provision of the existing drop-kerbs and 'virtual'

footway on Turnpike, to the west of its junction with Higher Town.

8.1.4 DCC has no current proposals to alter this arrangement, as it has provided for pedestrian demand for at

least 33 years without any safety or operational issues. It is illogical that MDDC has refused planning

permission on the basis of an improvement scheme that has been approved by the LHA, would be

funded by the developer and where its own developing policy requires improvements for pedestrians

and cyclists as a function of the agreed principle of development.

8.2 Existing Operation

8.2.1 There are several reasons why the existing layout has caused no problems and, in my view, would

continue to operate acceptably with the addition of pedestrian movements from the appeal site:

• Existing visibility is generally in line with observed speeds, and is more than sufficient for vehicles to

stop in an emergency;

• Highway safety cannot be confused with the elimination of all risk - the Highway Code and Manual

for Streets are clear that users of the Highway must take road and traffic conditions into account;

• The document Highway Risk and Liability Claims (Appendix L of my main Proof of Evidence) explains

that, in considering the use of the highway, the objective of the highway authority is to obtain the

maximum benefits for the community15. It notes that this task is different to that of minimising risk.

It goes on to say that local authorities should not become locked into a risk management mentality,

pointing out that the role of a local authority is to seek advantage for the community and that this

will necessarily involve some risks, with a balanced view needing to be taken16.

8.2.2 The Local Planning Authority has been unable to suggest any alternative scheme, and its related reason

for refusal is therefore contrary to the wishes of the Local Highway Authority.

8.2.3 Pedestrians travelling along Turnpike cross to the west of its junction with Higher Town. At this point,

there is no formal pedestrian provision on the northern side of Turnpike, meaning that pedestrians

14 The pedestrian bridge is shown on the 1987 OS 1:2500 map, but not on the 1969 version. 15 Paragraph 2.2. 16 Paragraph 2.4.


need to walk in a 'virtual footway' behind a narrow white line (carriageway edge marking) over a

distance of up to 40m (including the entrance to Higher Town).

8.2.4 Existing visibility at crossing points is shown in Table 10.1 of my main Proof of Evidence.

8.3 Pedestrian Use of Canal Road Bridge

8.3.1 Local residents have suggested that some people travelling to/from the village centre do so by walking

across the canal road bridge on its southern side. There is no pedestrian provision in this location, and

this action would necessitate walking behind a narrow white line (carriageway edge marking) with

limited visibility from and onto westbound vehicle traffic due to the road alignment. Stones protruding

from the bridge parapet reduce the width of the area behind the edge marking from 450mm (550mm

to the outside edge of the line) to 200mm (or 300mm to the outside of the line).

8.3.2 Given the stones protruding from the bridge parapets, this white line would need to be retained as part

of any s278 improvement scheme. Therefore, any suggestion that the proposed scheme 'forces' people

to cross the road due to the removal of this line is incorrect.

8.4 Speed Surveys

8.4.1 Traffic speeds surveys have been undertaken by PBA (for MDDC) and by Hydrock, as follows:

• PBA: Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) and speed surveys on Turnpike and Higher Town, using

pneumatic tube counters, between 7th and 13th January 2020.

• Hydrock: Radar speed gun survey of westbound traffic on Turnpike, on 27th and 31st January 2020.

8.4.2 I have not relied upon the PBA survey on Turnpike because of technical issues relating to its location

and installation.

8.4.3 Because of my concerns with the PBA speed survey on Turnpike, I undertook 200 speed readings of

westbound traffic in dry, free-flow conditions on 27th and 31st January 2020. This is in line with the

recommendations of guidance (CA185 Vehicle Speed Measurement)1718. It is therefore my professional

opinion that my own speed readings are accurate and inform the required Design Speed/visibility splay.

8.5 Relevant Design Speeds

8.5.1 In relation to the canal bridge area improvement scheme, we are able to rely on the MDDC survey of

Higher Town and the Hydrock survey of Turnpike.

8.5.2 Based on those surveys, the relevant design speeds are:

8.5.3 Higher Town:

• Northbound away from Turnpike 10.0 mph

• Southbound towards Turnpike 13.4 mph

8.5.4 Turnpike:

• Eastbound towards village centre 30.0 mph

• Westbound towards appeal site 20.5 mph

17 This relates to Trunk Roads so is not an absolute requirement for local roads, for which there is no specific guidance. 18 CD9.8.


8.5.5 The available visibility splays related to the proposed improvement scheme either meet or exceed the

requirements of these design speeds.

8.5.6 The perception-reaction time (1.5 seconds) and deceleration rate (0.45g/4.41 m/s2) used in the

calculation of Manual for Streets19 visibility splay requirements are agreed by MDDC20 and DCC21, as are

the corresponding figures used in the Highway Code (0.67 seconds and 6.57 m/s2 respectively).

8.5.7 The carriageway width across the canal bridge is 5.4m-5.6m. There is a 25.7m visibility splay onto

pedestrians crossing south-north on Turnpike. Table 6.1 of TRL Report 661 The Manual for Streets:

Evidence and Research22, which informed the drafting of Manual for Streets, indicates an estimated

stopping distance of 13.2m for a 5m wide road and 14.1m for a 7m wide road, taking no account of

slowing effects including bends, the junction with Higher Town and other pedestrian crossing points.

8.5.8 Consequently, even if Turnpike did not have these speed-reducing features, drivers would be able to

stop 11.6-12.5m in advance of a pedestrian crossing Turnpike at the location shown in the proposed

improvement scheme drawing23.

8.5.9 Rule 126 of the Highway Code states that the 'safe rule' in ensuring that there is sufficient distance

available to 'pull up safely' is 'never to get closer than the overall stopping distance' shown in the Typical

Stopping Distances Diagram. The text suggests that this should 'allow you to stop well within the

distance you can see to be clear'.

8.5.10 Whilst the available visibility splays / stopping distances for the proposed canal bridge scheme are

consistent with those set out in Manual for Streets, the Highway Code provides further reassurance that

they are robust - e.g. a driver travelling westbound on Turnpike at the observed design speed

(20.51mph) would be able to stop more than 13m in advance of a pedestrian in the road. Even if the

driver was travelling at 30mph then they would still be able to stop without causing an accident.

8.5.11 Vehicles turning into Higher Town from Turnpike are travelling at <10mph, consistent with the 11m

visibility splay shown on the design for the improvement scheme. Based on the Highway Code stopping

distances, vehicles would have to be travelling at almost 20mph in order for the visibility splays to be

unsafe - that is demonstrably not the case based on MDDC's own traffic surveys.

8.5.12 The Highway Code stopping distances also provide reassurance regarding the safety of the existing

highway layout around the canal bridge area which, albeit significantly improved by the proposed

highway scheme, already provides visibility well in excess of the distance required for drivers to stop

safely - e.g. there is already a 23m visibility splay from/onto the southern crossing point on Turnpike,

which would enable safe stopping from 30mph based on the Highway Code, whereas the observed

design speed is 20.51mph.

8.6 Summary - Canal Bridge Improvement Scheme

8.6.1 The proposed improvement scheme is not strictly necessary, given that I have shown how the current

layout has continued to operate safely over several decades and how it provides adequate visibility to

19 CD9.1. 20 SoCG between MDDC and Place Land, paragraphs 4.2.5-4.2.9. 21 SoCG between DCC and Place Land, paragraphs 2.1.4-2.1.6. 22 CD9.9. 23 Paragraph 4.5 of PBA's Hearing Statement erroneously states that Manual for Streets visibility splays are 'the visibility required by a pedestrian to be able to safely judge that they may step into the carriageway and not be at risk of collision with a vehicle'.


enable drivers to stop safely should the need arise, when the proposed increase in traffic in the AM and

PM peak is not discernible (let alone material). There have been no proposals to change the existing

layout in this location, which experiences existing pedestrian use. The level of development traffic and

pedestrian movements would not materially alter the safety of the layout.

8.6.2 DCC has required the provision of an improvement scheme at this location - one which would mirror

DCC's existing preferred pedestrian route and enhance the link to the pedestrian bridge across the

canal, installed by DCC and requiring pedestrians to cross Turnpike to access the bridge on its northern

side.

8.6.3 This improvement scheme would therefore improve one of the two pedestrian routes serving the

appeal site, the other being via Higher Town, which also operates safely.

8.6.4 The proposed improvement scheme would introduce a formal footway where none presently exists,

and would provide visibility splays in line with observed design speeds and the dimensions set out in

Manual for Streets.

8.6.5 Hydrock's speed survey addresses paragraph 5.10 of the PBA Hearing Statement, which states that

speeds surveys would 'resolve' the question of appropriate visibility splays.

8.6.6 Indeed, MDDC's own speed survey data shows the incorrect assumptions which led to the Hearing

Statement comment (paragraph 5.10) that 'a cynical view would be that the designer is aware that

speed surveys would not support the argument that vehicle speeds are…15mph or less on Higher

Town'. In fact, the surveys commissioned by PBA show the actual design speed to be 13.4mph.

8.6.7 The current proposal drawing, reflecting elements which would generally be agreed at s278 stage (e.g.

carriageway edge markings), does not remove the edge markings across the canal bridge. This

addresses the concerns of local objectors that state that this is their preferred route24, whilst also

providing a safer facility for other pedestrians.

8.6.8 The proposed improvement scheme would therefore improve conditions for existing users, in a

situation whereby even MDDC predicts just five additional pedestrians (AM weekday peak hour) and

three pedestrians (PM weekday peak hour) on Turnpike as a result of the appeal proposals. Across the

day, MDDC predicts that 30 additional pedestrians would use this route, equating to around two

pedestrians per hour outside of peak hours.

24 I take this statement at face-value, but would note that my own observation has been that pedestrians tend to cross Turnpike west of the Higher Road junction, rather than walking over the vehicle bridge above the canal.


9. TRAFFIC IMPACT

9.1 Vehicle Trip Generation

9.1.1 The TA in support of the appeal site predicted that 34 vehicular trips would be generated in the AM

peak hour and 38 such trips in the PM peak hour. This is generally consistent with the predictions at

section 3.9 of the PBA Hearing Statement, which predicts 33 AM peak hour trips, 32 PM peak hour trips

and 285 daily trips.

9.1.2 It has been agreed with DCC and MDDC that development traffic would join Turnpike from the Link

Road, with 57% heading to/from the east (Sampford Peverell village centre direction) and the remaining

43% to/from the west (Halberton direction).

9.1.3 This equates to the following traffic on Turnpike to/from the direction of the village centre:

• AM: 19 vehicles

• PM: 18 vehicles (PBA) / 22 vehicles (Hydrock)

• Daily: 163 vehicles (PBA)25

9.1.4 As agreed with DCC, the proposed development would not lead to any increase in traffic along Higher

Town - there is no reason why it would be advantageous to residents to take that route through the

village.

9.2 Change in Turnpike Traffic

9.2.1 Hydrock's TA (4.4.12) notes the results of a 12-hour (0700-1900) traffic count survey on Turnpike,

adjacent to the site frontage, which recorded 2,381 vehicle movements.

9.2.2 The site's trip generation of 163 vehicles would equate to a 6.8% increase in the number of vehicles

using Turnpike. In the peak hours, the increase would be 7.3% (AM) and 7.6%-9.2% (PM, depending on

whether one uses PBA or Hydrock figures).

9.2.3 As noted, it is common ground with MDDC that the development traffic flow would be within daily

variation, and with DCC that it would also be 'imperceptible'.

9.2.4 I further note the low levels of pedestrian trip generation26, the lack of any accident history on the local

network, and the low/imperceptible increase in traffic (SoCG with DCC and MDDC). There is no arguable

safety concern.

9.3 Effect of Development Traffic

Environmental Capacity

9.3.1 The concept of 'Environmental Capacity' is long established27 - the capacity to accommodate vehicles,

having regard to maintaining chosen environmental standards. The nature of the road (e.g. frontage

25 Hydrock's trip generation figures were based on a comparator site at Court Farm, Cullompton Phase 2, as requested by DCC. Daily trip rates were not needed for use in the TA, and are not available within the Court Farm TA. 26 TA 4.4.5 (15 daily pedestrian movements on Turnpike) / PBA Hearing Statement Table 2 (5 AM movements / 3 PM / 30 per-day on Turnpike). 27 Traffic in Towns, Buchanan (1963)


housing and other such receptors), its geometry, and the level of traffic combine to influence

environmental capacity.

9.3.2 Buchanan (1963) suggested that the environmental capacity of an access road or distributor road would

typically lie in the range of 300-600 vehicles per hour. There is no more-recent figure which would

supersede that assessment. I would compare Turnpike to a local distributor road, the environmental

capacity of which would consequently be towards the upper end of this range.

9.3.3 In this case, the vehicular flow on Turnpike, including development traffic, would be in the order of 278

vehicles per hour (AM peak), 260 vehicles per hour (PM peak) and well below that level for much of the

rest of the day.

9.3.4 There is nothing to suggest that traffic from the development would materially alter the highway

environment. It would certainly not lead to an exceedance of the environmental capacity of Turnpike.

9.4 Change in Traffic Flow

9.4.1 I refer to the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA, now IEMA) Guidelines for the Environmental

Assessment of Road Traffic (1993), which remain the current guidance informing the preparation of

related technical chapters within Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).

9.4.2 Whilst the appeal site is certainly not EIA development, many of the principles set out in the IEA

guidance are helpful in terms of establishing the likely significance of effects arising from the additional

of appeal site traffic.

9.4.3 The IEA guidance sets out two broad rules-of-thumb:

• >30% increase in traffic flow or the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs)

• 10%+ increase in traffic in 'specifically sensitive areas'

9.4.4 Turnpike is not a 'sensitive area' in highways terms (e.g. safety) and, as noted previously, the addition of

development traffic would lead to increases of around 7% - well below the 30% threshold, below which

no further assessment is required.

9.4.5 The IEA guidance goes on to note (3.16) that day-to-day traffic variation is typically around 10% and

that 'changes in traffic of less than 10% create no discernible environmental impact'. I have made

reference to the traffic data mentioned above, which confirms that the development traffic on Turnpike

would indeed be within daily variation.

9.5 Severance

9.5.1 Changes in traffic flow are considered to produce the following severance effects (IEA guidance, 4.31),

impacting upon the ability of people to move from one side of a road to the other:

• 30% - Slight

• 60% - Moderate

• 90% - Substantial

9.5.2 The 7% change in traffic arising as a consequence of the appeal site would have an imperceptible effect

on severance.


9.6 Pedestrian Delay (at road crossings)

9.6.1 The IEA guidance (4.27) suggests a lower threshold of 10 seconds' delay and an upper threshold of 40

seconds' delay when crossing the road. The upper threshold would equate to a two-way flow of

approximately 1,400 vehicles per hour.

9.6.2 As noted previously, the maximum two-way hourly flow on Turnpike is 259 vehicles. Consequently,

crossing Turnpike can be achieved without undue delay, and that situation would persist with the

addition of traffic from the appeal site.

9.7 Pedestrian Amenity

1.1.1 Pedestrian Amenity refers to the relative pleasantness of a journey, which is affected by the

combination of traffic flow, traffic composition and footway geometry. Fear and Intimidation effects can

arise for similar reasons.

9.7.1 At 4.39, the IEA guidance suggests that the significance of any change in amenity would be where the

traffic flow (or the proportion of HGVs) is either halved or doubled.

9.7.2 In this case, the development would lead to a 7% increase in traffic on Turnpike.

9.7.3 Fear and Intimidation effects can be estimated based on average traffic flow, 18-hour HGV flow, and 18-

hour average speeds. In the examples set out a p.37 of the IEA guidance, an average hourly traffic flow

per hour across an 18-hour day of 600-1200 vehicles per hour is shown to have a Moderate effect on

Fear and Intimidation (the lowest category of impact).

9.7.4 As above, the maximum hourly traffic flow on Turnpike is 259 vehicles per hour.

9.7.5 I conclude that there would be no measurable adverse impact on Pedestrian Amenity or Fear and

Intimidation as a consequence of the development. Moreover, the level of traffic on Turnpike is just

43% of the lowest level which the IEA states might have even a Moderate impact on the Fear and

Intimidation - consequently, Turnpike is and would remain a pleasant environment for pedestrians.

9.8 Higher Town

1.1.2 Whilst the appeal site would not generate any traffic on Higher Town, the level of traffic on Higher

Town (<50 vehicles per hour in peak periods) is well below that which would create any measurable

adverse impact on the ability of pedestrians to cross the road, or on amenity, fear and intimidation.

1.1.3 Higher Town is therefore a pleasant shared-use street with a record of safe operation, consistent with

Government guidance, and is typical of village streets across the local area and nationally.


10. PLANNING PRECEDENTS

10.1.1 In response to submissions by PBA and the Rule 6 party, I have reviewed a number of relevant planning

and other local authority decisions at Appendix N of my main Proof of Evidence.

10.1.2 MDDC's refusal of the application, and the case presented by PBA on its behalf, is inconsistent with

precedent in Mid Devon and elsewhere. Similarly, the comments of the Rule 6 party with regard to

access to the site are inconsistent with its comments regarding other potential development sites in the

village.


11. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

11.1 Summary

11.1.1 The proposed site would be served by a range of pedestrian, cycle and vehicle accesses, all of which

meet the relevant design requirements and are approved by the Local Highway Authority. There are

two main pedestrian routes to/from the village centre, both of which accord with the standards set out

in Manual for Streets 1 & 2, as does the pedestrian improvement scheme at the Canal Bridge, which

DCC Highways and consultants for MDDC recognise as a significant improvement for current and future

users.

11.1.2 The proposals are wholly consistent with policy regarding sustainability, accessibility, design and

highway safety. The site is accessible by a range of sustainable transport modes and is in close proximity

to goods, services and public transport - especially so in a rural context (noting the requirements of the

NPPF in that regard). Off-site works would deliver benefits not only for occupiers of the site, but also for

existing pedestrians and other highway users in Sampford Peverell, as agreed by the Local Highway

Authority.

11.1.3 This scheme does not seek to deliver 'substandard' solutions as alleged in the Decision Notice; rather,

the proposals are consistent with all applicable design standards and would realise betterment for

highway users in part of the highway network which is historic in nature.

11.1.4 The site does not have 'poor' pedestrian access, nor is the proposal 'unsafe' as stated in the Decision

Notice. By reference to NPPF paragraph 109, the effects of the scheme would be neither 'unacceptable'

nor 'severe' and the development should therefore receive highways approval in line with the advice of

the Local Highway Authority, independent Road Safety Auditors, and consultants employed to advise

the Local Planning Authority.

11.2 Conclusions

11.2.1 MDDC was wrong to refuse planning permission for the appeal scheme, given that it meets the

requirements of local and national policy. Based on the evidence provided at the time of the planning

application, and indeed on MDDC's own evidence submitted for the appeal, the site is sustainable and

would enable safe access by all modes of transport.

11.2.2 The appeal scheme is consistent with policy including, inter alia, paragraph 109 of the NPPF. I would

respectfully ask the Inspector to allow the appeal on that basis.

Summary Proof of Evidence - Highways / …...4.1.2 My calculations (Main Proof of Evidence Appendix...

Documents

Transcript of Summary Proof of Evidence - Highways / …...4.1.2 My calculations (Main Proof of Evidence Appendix...