Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt, Transport Assessment · Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes...

of 342 /342
Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt, Transport Assessment Curtins Ref: TPMA1282/TA Revision: Final Issue Date: 03 October 2016 Client Name: Daniel Thwaites PLC Imperial West Sophos International STRUCTURES CIVILS ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORT PLANNING SUSTAINABILITY EXPERT ADVISORY SERVICES Birmingham Bristol Cardiff Douglas Edinburgh Kendal Leeds • Liverpool • London Manchester • Nottingham Merchant Exchange 17 19 Whitworth Street West Manchester. M1 5WG. Tel: 0161 236 2394 www.curtins.com

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt, Transport Assessment · Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes...

  • Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Curtins Ref: TPMA1282/TA Revision: Final Issue Date: 03 October 2016 Client Name: Daniel Thwaites PLC

    Im

    pe

    ria

    l W

    es

    t S

    op

    ho

    s I

    nte

    rnati

    on

    al

    STRUCTURES CIVILS ENVIRONMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORT PLANNING SUSTAINABILITY EXPERT ADVISORY SERVICES Birmingham Bristol Cardiff Douglas Edinburgh Kendal Leeds Liverpool London Manchester Nottingham

    Merchant Exchange

    17 19 Whitworth Street West

    Manchester. M1 5WG.

    Tel: 0161 236 2394

    www.curtins.com

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page i

    Control Sheet

    This report has been prepared for the sole benefit, use, and information for the client. The liability of Curtins with respect to the information contained in the report will not extend to any third party.

    Author Signature Date

    Fred Frempong BSc (Hons) MSc MCIHT Senior Transport Planner

    03 October 2016

    Reviewed Signature Date

    Aaron Tilley MCIHT Principal Transport Planner

    03 October 2016

    Authorised Signature Date

    Alex Vogt BSc (Hons) MSc MCIHT Technical Director

    03 October 2016

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page ii

    Table of Contents

    1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1

    1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1

    1.2 Purpose of This Report ....................................................................................................................... 1

    1.3 Scope of the Report ............................................................................................................................ 1

    1.4 Structure of the Report ........................................................................................................................ 1

    2.0 Site Location and Highway Layout ................................................................................................. 3

    2.1 Site Location ........................................................................................................................................ 3

    2.2 Existing Access Arrangements ........................................................................................................... 4

    2.3 Surrounding Highway Network ............................................................................................................ 5

    2.4 Highway Safety ................................................................................................................................... 5

    3.0 Development Proposals ................................................................................................................... 7

    3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7

    3.2 Proposed Access ................................................................................................................................ 7

    3.3 Pedestrian and Cycle Access ............................................................................................................. 8

    3.4 Parking Provision ................................................................................................................................ 8

    4.0 Accessibility by Sustainable Modes of Travel ............................................................................. 10

    4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 10

    4.2 TRACC Analysis................................................................................................................................ 10

    4.3 Pedestrian Accessibility .................................................................................................................... 10

    4.4 Accessibility by Cycle ........................................................................................................................ 12

    4.5 Accessibility by Public Transport ....................................................................................................... 14

    4.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 15

    5.0 Traffic Forecasting ......................................................................................................................... 17

    5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 17

    5.2 Scope of Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 17

    5.3 Baseline Data Acquisition ................................................................................................................. 17

    5.4 Assessment Years and Traffic Growth.............................................................................................. 18

    5.5 Committed Development ................................................................................................................... 18

    5.6 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................. 19

    5.7 Traffic Distribution ............................................................................................................................. 22

    5.8 Impact of Proposed Development Traffic .......................................................................................... 23

    6.0 Highway Capacity Assessment ..................................................................................................... 25

    6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 25

    6.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 25

    6.3 Interpretation of Model Outputs ......................................................................................................... 25

    6.4 Junction 1 Preston New Road/Branch Road (PICADY)................................................................. 26

    6.5 Junction 2 Branch Road/Myerscough Smithy Road/Mellor Brow (ARCADY) ................................ 27

    6.6 Junction 3 Myerscough Smithy Mini Roundabout .......................................................................... 28

    6.7 Junction 4 Site Access Roundabout .............................................................................................. 28

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page iii

    6.8 Junction 5 A59/SEZ Signalised Access ......................................................................................... 29

    6.9 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 31

    7.0 Transport Planning Policy ............................................................................................................. 32

    7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 32

    7.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ................................................................................... 32

    7.3 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) .................................................................................. 33

    7.4 Lancashire Local Transport Plan 2011-2021 .................................................................................... 33

    7.5 Ribble Valley Borough Council - Adopted Core Strategy, 2008-2028 .............................................. 33

    7.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 34

    8.0 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 35

    8.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 35

    8.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 36

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page iv

    Tables Table 2.1 Personal Injury Accident Data Summary ..........................................................................................6 Table 4.1 CIHT Suggested Acceptable Walking Distances ........................................................................... 10 Table 4.2 Summary of Bus Service Frequencies from Myerscough Smithy Road ........................................ 15 Table 4.3 Summary of most Frequent Train Services from Blackburn ........................................................ 15 Table 5.1 Traffic Growth Factors .................................................................................................................... 18 Table 5.2 SEZ Committed Development Traffic ............................................................................................ 19 Table 5.3 Summary of Staff Working Days based on Staff Survey ............................................................... 20 Table 5.4 Staff Modal Share based on Staff Survey ..................................................................................... 21 Table 5.5 Staff Modal Share based on Staff Survey ..................................................................................... 21 Table 5.6 Proposed Development Vehicular Trips ........................................................................................ 22 Table 5.7 Proposed Development Distribution .............................................................................................. 22 Table 5.8 Proposed Development Distribution .............................................................................................. 23 Table 6.1 Junction 1 Capacity Assessment Results ...................................................................................... 26 Table 6.2 Junction 2 Capacity Assessment Results ...................................................................................... 27 Table 6.3 Junction 3 Capacity Assessment Results ...................................................................................... 28 Table 6.4 Junction 3 Capacity Assessment Results ...................................................................................... 29 Table 6.5 Junction 5 Capacity Assessment Results ...................................................................................... 30

    Figures

    Figure 2.1 Regional Location Plan

    Figure 2.2 Local Location Plan

    Figure 4.1 Pedestrian Catchment Plan

    Figure 4.2 Cycle Catchment Plan

    Figure 4.3 Sustrans Cycle Routes

    Figure 4.4 Public Transport Catchment Plan

    Drawings

    Drawing TPMA1282_100C Site Access Proposals

    Drawing TPMA1282_102 Swept Path for Refuse Vehicle

    Drawing TPMA1282_103 Swept Path for Horse Box

    Traffic Figures Traffic Figures All Traffic Figures contained at the rear

    Appendices

    Appendix A Site Layout

    Appendix B Staff Survey

    Appendix C Modelling Output

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 1

    1.0 Introduction

    Curtins has been appointed on behalf of Daniel Thwaites PLC to provide traffic and transportation

    advice in relation to the proposed relocation of their operations from the centre of Blackburn to Sykes

    Holt, Mellor Brook. The proposed new site is approximately 7km away from the current site.

    This Transport Assessment (TA) has been prepared in order to consider the development proposals

    and their potential impact on the surrounding area from a traffic and transportation perspective.

    Curtins attended a scoping meeting with LCC and Ribble Valley Council on the 12th December 2014

    to discuss the development proposals and the key issues to be considered within the TA. It was also

    agreed during this meeting that a Travel Plan would be produced to encourage travel by sustainable

    means.

    Since the scoping meeting, development of the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone (SEZ) has progressed

    significantly including the delivery of a new signalised junction off the A59. In light of the changes on

    the surrounding area and an evolved masterplan for the site, Curtins has undertaken further scoping

    consultations with LCC to establish the geographical study area and other key issues to consider in

    the TA.

    To summarise, this TA contains the following:

    A description of the highway network in the vicinity of the site;

    A review of the accident record in the immediate vicinity of the site for a three-year period;

    A summary of the development proposals;

    A summary of relevant transport planning policy;

    A review of accessibility by all sustainable modes of travel;

    Information regarding traffic generation and trip rates; and

    Commentary on the highway impact associated with the development proposals.

    Following this introduction, Section 2 of the report provides a comprehensive description of the

    existing site and its location. This includes the local highway network and facilities for pedestrians,

    cyclists and public transport users.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 2

    Section 2 also reviews the local area in terms of highways safety by way of obtaining records of

    accidents adjacent to the site over the most recent five-year period available.

    The development proposals are summarised in Section 3, including the proposed parking provision

    and access arrangements.

    The accessibility of the site by sustainable modes of travel is assessed in Section 4.

    Section 5 outlines the traffic forecasting methodology used to establish the likely traffic generation

    associated with the development proposals, with Section 6 providing details of the capacity

    assessments undertaken at five off-site junctions and the site access point.

    Relevant local and national transport policy is summarised in Section 7, and the report is summarised

    and concluded in Section 8.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 3

    2.0 Site Location and Highway Layout

    The proposed development site is located off the A59 Myerscough Smithy Road in Mellor Brook to the

    northwest of Blackburn.

    The site comprises approximately 1.8 hectares of land with some derelict buildings including one

    listed building occupying part of the site.

    Figure 2.1 illustrates the location of the site in relation to the wider surrounding areas.

    Figure 2.1 - Regional Site Location Plan.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 4

    Figure 2.2 shows the site in a more local context relating to the local highway network.

    Figure 2.2 - Local Site Location Plan

    The site is currently accessed via a priority junction that sits next to the new enterprise zone

    signalised site access off the A59 Myerscough Smithy Road.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 5

    It is Curtins understanding that, whilst the access arm is not formally signalised, it has been

    incorporated into the signal design by use of detectors.

    There is also a gate at the roundabout to the east that provides access to the site for the land owner.

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road

    The A59 is a key arterial route which borders the site to the south. It extends on an east/west

    alignment and provides a connection between Liverpool city centre to the west and York city centre to

    the east. This road links the site to the strategic road network via the M6 junction 31 to the west and

    A1 (M) junction 47 to the east. There is a shared footway/cycleway located on both the north and

    south side of the road, which are approximately 2.5m in width.

    It is a two-way single lane road which flares into multiple lanes at key intersections along its length. In

    the vicinity of the site the road has a speed limit of 50mph and has street lightning along the length on

    both the north and south sides of its carriageway.

    Branch Road

    Branch Road runs north/south between Myerscough Smithy Road and Preston New Road. It is

    predominantly a residential road with properties located on either side of the road for much of its

    length. On street parking is also present with parking on both sides of the carriageway occurring at

    certain places. It provides access to further residential roads located off Branch Road.

    The road is a two-way single carriageway road that is approximately 750m in length and circa 7m in

    width. There are footpaths located along either side for much of its length which are approximately

    2.5m wide. There is also street lighting present for the majority of the road.

    Mellor Brow

    Mellor Brow is approximately 1700m in length and runs on an east/west alignment between

    Myerscough Smithy Road and Mellor Lane. It runs through Mellor Brook Village where there are

    residential properties and commercial properties located on either side. On street parking and street

    lighting is present along the length of the road.

    Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data for the highway network adjacent to the site has been obtained

    from Lancashire Police Constabulary for the most recent five years, the period being between 2011

    and 2015. A breakdown of the information is contained in Table 2.1:

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 6

    Junction/Link Slight Serious Fatal Totals

    Preston New Road/Branch Road 7 1 0 8

    Myerscough Road/BAE Systems Entrance 2 0 0 2

    Myerscough Smithy Road/Bowfields Lane 2 0 0 2

    Myerscough Smithy Road 1 0 0 1

    Longsight Road/Mellor Brook 1 0 0 1

    Totals 14 1 0 14

    Table 2.1 Personal Injury Accident Data Summary

    There have been a total of 15 accidents in the latest five-year period available, comprising 14 slight

    and 1 serious. No fatal accidents have been recorded in the study area.

    The 1 serious accident occurred at Preston New Road/Branch Road and involved two vehicles. The

    collision happened when the driver of one of the cars who initially indicated to turn right into Branch

    Road changed their mind and carried straight on. The driver of the other car failed to see this and

    turned into Branch Road where the collision occurred.

    The 7 slight accidents that occurred at the Preston New Road/Branch Road junction were spread out

    over the 5-year period between 2011-2015, with 2 occurring in 2015 and 2012, and 1 in 2014, 2013

    and 2011. The accidents were attributed to driver errors or weather conditions.

    The slight accidents that occurred at the junction of Myerscough Road and BAE Systems Entrance

    were attributed to driver errors.

    The accidents that occurred at Myerscough Smithy Road and Bowfields Lane were both slight as well

    as the accident that occurred at Myerscough Smithy Road and Longsight/Mellor Brook junction, these

    were again attributed to driver error.

    Following a thorough review of the records, it is not considered that there is an existing safety issue

    that is likely to be exacerbated by the proposed development.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 7

    3.0 Development Proposals

    This Transport Assessment has been prepared in order to support a planning application for the

    relocation of Daniel Thwaites PLC operations from Blackburn town centre to Sykes Holt, Mellor. It is

    envisaged that all current employees would be relocated to this site following completion. The

    development would comprise the following:

    Office Building;

    Craft Brewery;

    Stables;

    Heritage Centre; and

    Staff Gym.

    The heritage centre would comprise archived brewery machinery, equipment and paraphernalia. This

    centre would be operated on invitational basis and all visiting would be undertaken outside of the peak

    hours.

    A pedestrian footbridge is proposed to connect the brewery with the office building due to the level

    difference between the two uses. A copy of the site layout is provided in Appendix A at the rear of

    this report.

    Vehicular Access

    Access to the proposed development is envisaged via the A59 Myerscough Smithy Road/Longsight

    Road Roundabout. It is intended to incorporate a fourth arm at this junction to provide access to the

    site. Discussions with LCC Highways have suggested that the provision of a fourth arm would be

    supported.

    As part of the site access proposals, minor modifications have also been proposed at the existing

    roundabout. Drawing TPMA1282_100A details the proposed site access arm as well the minor

    modifications. A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit will be completed following consultation comments from

    LCC Highways or as part of the detailed design process.

    Drawing TPMA1282_102 illustrates the swept path for an 11m refuse vehicle. It can be seen that this

    vehicle can ingress and egress the site in a safe manner. Drawing TPMA1282_103 shows the swept

    path for the Horse Box which will be used to transport the Thwaites Shire Horses. It can be seen that

    this vehicle can ingress and egress the site in a safe manner in forward gear.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 8

    There will be no vehicular access to the site via the existing access point opposite the EZ signalised

    junction.

    Pedestrian and cycle access would be provided from the western end of the site at the intersection

    with the EZ access. There is an existing signalised pedestrian crossing facility at this location which

    provides access to the EZ and the old Myerscough Smythy Road to the south of the A59. This in turn

    provides a connection to Mellor in the east, via existing pedestrian routes that are well lit.

    At the eastern end of the site, the existing cycle/footway on the northern side of the A59 will be

    extended into the site via the roundabout as part of the site access proposals.

    In addition, it is proposed that the existing refuge island on the western arm of the A59 roundabout

    would be upgraded to provide formal dropped kerbs with tactile paving. This would enable pedestrians

    to utilise this uncontrolled crossing to access Mellor, should they wish to do so.

    As the vast majority of pedestrian movements between the site and Mellor will be Thwaites

    employees, located at the western part of the site, it is considered that the route via Myerscough

    Smythy Road would be the most attractive. This route could also be encouraged via signage and

    information within the Travel Plan.

    It is proposed to provide 100 car parking spaces including 10 disabled spaces as part of the

    development proposals.

    RVBC parking requirements are not clearly set out in any publicly available document. Following

    consultations with highways officers at LCC the following car parking requirements were provided:

    Car: 1 parking space per 30 sq. m of Gross floor area;

    Disabled: 1 per 10 car parking spaces;

    Cycle: 1 space per 10 car parking spaces; and

    Motorcycle: 1 per 25 car parking spaces.

    It is Curtins understanding that the above parking requirements are based on the Joint Lancashire

    Structure Plan (JSLP) which was adopted in 2005 for the 15-year period 2001-2016.

    Based on this and the total floor area of circa 1,670 sq.m, the maximum number of parking spaces

    permitted would be as follows:

    56 car parking spaces including 6 disabled spaces;

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 9

    6 cycle parking spaces (Covered and secured); and

    2 motorcycle parking spaces.

    Whilst the level car parking provision proposed exceeds the RVBC parking guidance, it is worth noting

    that the parking guidance contained within the JSLP predates NPPF and current Government

    guidance on abolishing maximum car parking standards. Maximum parking standards were abolished

    by the Government in 2011 and the Government considers that the market is best placed to decide if

    additional parking spaces should be provided.

    Current National Guidance on Car Parking Provision

    Paragraph 39 of the NPPF provides current national guidance on car parking provision: This states

    that If setting local parking standards for residential and non-residential development, local planning

    authorities should take into account:

    the accessibility of the development;

    the type, mix and use of development;

    the availability of and opportunities for public transport;

    local car ownership levels; and

    an overall need to reduce the use of high-emission vehicles.

    The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government also issued further text in March 2015

    to be read alongside the above paragraph on parking provision which states that Local planning

    authorities should only impose local parking standards for residential and non-residential development

    where there is clear and compelling justification that it is necessary to manage their local road

    network.

    It is important to note that this development would be the head office for the company and therefore

    there are likely to be days where extra parking may be needed for staff from other offices or on

    training days for instance. As there are no offsite parking facilities within reasonable walking distance

    of the site, it is considered that any overspill car parking could end up in Mellor Brook Village, which

    would not be desirable.

    It is therefore considered that this level of parking is necessary to accommodate all the parking needs

    associated with the development and to avoid any potential overspill parking ending up in undesirable

    locations.

    The car parking spaces would be managed as part of the travel plan process.

    It is intended to provide 12 cycle parking spaces as part of the development. To further encourage

    employees to cycle, shower and locker facilities would be provided, which can be utilised by cyclist.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 10

    4.0 Accessibility by Sustainable Modes of Travel

    A key element of national, regional and local policy is to ensure that new developments are located in

    areas where alternative modes of travel are available. It is important to ensure that developments are

    not isolated but are located close to complementary land uses. This supports the aims of integrating

    planning and transport, providing more sustainable transport choices, and reducing overall travel and

    car use.

    Accessibility has been assessed through the use of TRACC Software. TRACC is the leading

    multimodal transport accessibility tool which was developed in conjunction with the Department for

    Transport (DfT), local authorities and transport planners.

    It is designed to accurately calculate travel time using a multitude of public transport and road travel

    modes to give accurate journey times.

    TRACC analysis has been undertaken to establish the pedestrian, public transport and cycle

    accessibility of the site, and demonstrate the connectivity of the site to adjacent areas through the use

    of these modes of transport.

    Research has indicated that acceptable walking distances depend on a number of factors, including

    the quality of the development, the type of amenity offered, the surrounding area, and other local

    facilities. The Chartered Institution for Highways and Transportation (CIHT) document entitled

    Providing for Journeys on Foot suggests walking distances which are relevant to this planning

    application. These are reproduced in Table 4.1.

    Town Centres

    (m) Commuting/School/

    Sightseeing (m) Elsewhere/Local

    Services (m)

    Desirable 200 500 400

    Acceptable 400 1,000 800

    Preferred Maximum 800 2,000 1,200

    Table 4.1 CIHT Suggested Acceptable Walking Distances

    To assist in summarising the accessibility of the site by foot, an indicative pedestrian catchment plan

    has been produced. Figure 4.1 shows distances of 500m, 1,000m and 2,000m which are termed

    Desirable, Acceptable and the Preferred Maximum by the CIHT for commuting trips. Distances

    have been taken from the midpoint of the site.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 11

    Figure 4.1 - 500m, 1,000m and 2,000m Pedestrian Catchment Plan

    Figure 4.1 shows that the whole of Mellor Brook, as well as Osbaldeston can be reached on foot

    within 2,000m maximum walking distance of the site.

    Approximately 380m west of the site access there is a signalised junction with pedestrian crossing

    features. This provides a safe crossing point to access the SEZ and Mellor Brook.

    Within 500m desirable walking distance south east of the site there is a residential area located within

    Mellor Brook, from which employees could commute. There is also a public house located 500m south

    east of the proposed development.

    Within the 1,000m acceptable walking distance of the site, there are residential areas within Mellor

    Brook where employees could commute from, as well as a petrol station with convenience store and a

    hotel/restaurant.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 12

    There is also a hotel/restaurant located approximately 2,000m south of the site, in addition to a

    hotel/restaurant, healthcare provision, pharmacy and other facilities such as a school and library

    situated within Mellor approximately 2,000m south east of the site.

    In order to assist in assessing the accessibility of the site by cycle, Figure 4.2 presents an 8km cycle

    catchment for the site. The 8km cycling distance refers to a recommendation by Cycling England in

    the document Integrating Cycling into Development Proposals (2009).

    The catchment extends as far as Ribchester in the north, Wilpshire to the east, Blackburn in the south

    and Preston to the west.

    Figure 4.2 - 8km Cycle Catchment Plan

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 13

    Along the A59 Myerscough Smithy Road there is a shared footway/cycleway on both sides of the

    carriageway. In addition, there are cycle crossing facilities provided at the SEZ signalised junction to

    enable cyclists to cross the road safely. The development proposals are to extend this shared

    footway/cycleway on the northern edge of the carriageway into the site to encourage staff to cycle to

    work.

    This cycleway links the site by cycle to the cycle lane on Woods Brow which connects to National

    Route 622 via Bezza Lane, Dean Lane and Potter Lane. Route 622 is a 21 mile cycle route that

    encompasses Preston and surrounding towns where employees are likely to live. This network of

    routes therefore provides opportunity for employees living in this area to cycle to work.

    Regional Route 91 is accessible from the site via Mellor Brow or Branch Road/Preston New Road.

    This route links the site by cycle to towns like Billington, Whalley and Pendleton to the north east and

    to Samlesbury, Brindle and Buckshaw Village to the south west.

    National Route 68 can be accessed via the local route 91 in Trawden, and this provides access to

    many locations between Etwall and Norham such as: the Peak District to the south of the site and the

    Yorkshire Dales to the north.

    National Cycle Route 6 can be accessed via regional route 91 in Hawkshaw and provides access to

    locations such as Blackburn, Preston, Manchester and Lancaster.

    Figure 4.3 is a snapshot of cycle route mapping off the Sustrans website; www.sustrans.org.uk.

    Figure 4.3 - Sustrans cycle routes surrounding site.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 14

    Figure 4.4 demonstrates those areas accessible via public transport within 10, 20 and 30 minute

    journey from the site. Accessibility by bus and rail are considered in further detail within the

    subsections below.

    Figure 4.4 shows that Whalley and Preston can be accessed via Public Transport within 30 minutes.

    Figure 4.4 - 10, 20 and 30 minute Public Transport Catchments

    Bus Accessibility

    Guidance from the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) document Guidelines

    for Planning for Public Transport in Development indicates that ideally, a bus stop should be located

    within 400m from a new development.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 15

    The nearest bus stop to the site is located adjacent to the site along the A59 Myerscough Smithy

    Road, approximately 100m from the centre of the site where employees can access to the 280 bus

    service. There is also a hail and ride service along the A59 approximately 150m from the centre of the

    site, where employees can access the bus service 15.

    Table 4.2 details the frequencies and key destinations associated with these services :

    Bus Service

    Route Peak Hourly Frequency

    Mon Fri Sat Sun/Hols

    15 Blackburn - Pleckgate - Ramsgreave - Mellor - Mellor Brook

    Hourly Hourly -

    280 Skipton - Clitheroe - Whalley - Preston Hourly Hourly 4 Services

    Table 4.2 Summary of Bus Service Frequencies from Myerscough Smithy Road

    As Table 4.2 demonstrates, there are 2 buses that stop within 400m of the site. The two buses

    provide two buses per hour during the week and similar on Saturdays. Destinations that the buses

    provide access to and from are Blackburn, Whalley and Preston.

    Rail Accessibility

    Although the railway station in Blackburn is located just over 5km south east of the site, it may be

    considered a viable method of transport for some employees and visitors of the site as part of a

    multimodal journey involving cycle or bus.

    The most frequent services from this station are outlined in Table 4.3.

    Service Frequency

    Manchester Victoria Hourly

    Blackpool 2 per Hour

    Colne Hourly

    Clitheroe 2 per Hour

    Table 4.3 Summary of most Frequent Train Services from Blackburn

    It can be seen from Table 4.3 that Blackburn station provides frequent services to key destinations in

    the North West and therefore the possibility of a rail travel as part of multimodal trip to the site cannot

    be discounted.

    It is considered that the site is accessible by sustainable modes of transport. The surrounding area

    exhibits good levels of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, and there are two bus services within

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 16

    100m walk of the site which provide hourly services to key surrounding towns where majority of the

    employees are likely to live. In addition, rail travel as part of a multimodal journey to the site is also a

    viable alternative to private car use.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 17

    5.0 Traffic Forecasting

    This section of the report details the methodology used to predict the traffic demand associated with

    the proposed development, and derives future year traffic flows in order to test the impact of the

    proposed development on the surrounding highway network.

    Scoping studies have been undertaken with Highways Development Control Officers at LCC and it

    was agreed that the following junctions should be assessed to determine the impact of the proposed

    development traffic:

    Junction 1 A677 Preston New Road / Branch Road;

    Junction 2 Branch Road/ Myerscough Smithy Road / Mellor Brow/Whalley Road;

    Junction 3 Myerscough Smithy mini Roundabout;

    Junction 4 A59 Myerscough Smithy Road/Mellor roundabout; and

    Junction 5 A59/ Enterprise zone signal junction.

    Traffic Surveys

    Curtins commissioned the independent survey company Nationwide Data Collection (NDC) Traffic to

    undertake traffic and pedestrian surveys at the above junctions during the weekday AM and PM peak.

    The surveys were undertaken at junctions 1-4 listed above on 25th February 2016 and Junction 5 on

    8th March 2016, between the hours of 06:30 09:30 and 15:00 18:00. Counts are provided at 15

    minute intervals.

    Peak Hour Calculations

    Following analysis of the traffic survey data, it was determined that the AM peak period on the

    highway network occurred between 07:30 and 08:30, whilst the PM peak occurred between 16:30 and

    17:30. These peak hours have therefore been used as the basis for this assessment.

    Traffic Figure 001 and Traffic Figure 002 at the rear of the report show the observed traffic count

    data for the AM and PM peak periods.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 18

    In order to undertake a robust assessment of the development impact taking into account background

    traffic growth, this report considers the application year plus five (2021) and any associated

    development traffic.

    In order to calculate baseline flows for these scenarios, the observed traffic flows have been factored

    to the 2021 assessment year using local growth factors derived using the National Traffic Model

    (NTM) and Trip End Model Presentation Program (TEMPRO). TEMPRO is the industry standard tool

    for estimating future local traffic growth factors, which is required when assessing the traffic impact of

    a development on the local highway network.

    The growth factors have been derived using NTM/TEMPRO datasets 6.2. The resultant growth factors

    derived are provided in Table 5.1.

    Data Source Peak Area Year Factor

    TEMPRO AM Ribble Valley 2016-2021 1.0791

    TEMPRO PM Ribble Valley 2016-2021 1.0811

    Table 5.1 Traffic Growth Factors

    The factors listed have been applied to the 2016 survey traffic to obtain the 2021 AM and 2021 PM

    Background traffic (Traffic Figure 003 and Traffic Figure 004).

    It was agreed during scoping discussions that traffic associated with the Samlesbury Enterprise Zone

    (SEZ) should be considered as committed development. SEZ is a 72 hectare site located to the south

    of the proposed development site.

    Jacobs Babtie prepared a Transport Statement in September 2013 on behalf of LCC. The purpose of

    this TA was to consider the proposed signalisation of the site access junction. It is understood that the

    SEZ development would be undertaken in two phases with the first phase assumed to be completed

    by 2016 and the second phase completed by 2021.

    Based on the draft masterplan produced by Wilson Mason in October 2013 and adopted by RVBC; a

    public link road would be constructed between the A59 access and A677 Preston New Road, with a

    new junction to be created as part of Phase 2 delivery. It is understood that this road could be

    completed in the next 2 years.

    The traffic generation associated with both phase 1 and phase 2 SEZ is presented in Table 5.2.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 19

    Peak A59 Access A67 Access

    Arrive Depart Total Arrive Depart Total

    Phase 1 Traffic

    PM Peak 66 374 440 0 0 0

    AM Peak 377 97 474 0 0 0

    Phase 1 & 2 Traffic

    AM Peak 425 91 516 862 184 1046

    PM Peak 46 336 382 93 683 776

    Table 5.2 SEZ Committed Development Traffic

    It can be seen from Table 5.2 that phase 1 of SEZ would generate 440 two way traffic movements in

    the AM peak and 474 two-way traffic movements in the PM peak. Table 5.2 also shows that

    enterprise zone would generate a combined 516 two-way movements in the AM peak at the A59

    access when phase 2 is completed with the PM peak generating 382. At the A677 access the

    enterprise zone would generate a total of 1,046 two-way movements in the AM peak and 776 in the

    PM peak when phase 2 is completed.

    The distribution used to assign the above traffic to the local highway network has been taken from the

    TA for the A59 access and is as follows:

    A59 Access (West 70%, East 30%),

    A677 Access (West 70%, East 30%),

    Mellor Brook Roundabout (East 100%)

    The above distribution has been used to assign the SEZ traffic to the local highway network. Traffic

    Figures 005 and 006 shows the phase 1 SEZ traffic for the AM and PM peaks respectively. Traffic

    Figures 007 and 008 shows the combined phase 1 and 2 SEZ traffic for the AM and PM peak

    respectively.

    The Phase 1 traffic has been added to the 2016 surveys to obtain the 2016 base traffic. This is

    presented in Traffic Figures 009 and 010 for the AM and PM peak respectively.

    The phase 1 and 2 traffic has been added to the 2021 background traffic to obtain the 2021 base

    traffic. Traffic Figure 011 presents the 2021 AM peak base traffic with Traffic Figure 012 showing

    the 2021 PM base traffic.

    In order to generate trip rates for the proposed development, staff surveys were undertaken for those

    based in the Thwaites Blackburn Office. It is anticipated that following the completion of the

    development, all the staff would be relocated to this site.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 20

    Full Time equivalent

    The surveys were undertaken in February 2016. The survey questionnaires were issued to all 102

    employees working on the site with a 100% response rate. It is understood that it is very rare for all

    102 employees to be on site on a given day and that for a normal working day approximately 50-60

    staff members may work from the office.

    The survey results showing the number of days staff worked on site per week has been summarised

    in Table 5.3. A copy of the survey results is provided in Appendix B at the rear of this report.

    Staff Working Days Per Week

    Number of Staff Total Working Days per

    Week Percentage

    5 Days 67 335 77%

    4 Days 11 44 10%

    3 Days 13 39 9%

    2 Days 7 14 3%

    1 Days 4 4 1%

    Total 102 436 100%

    Table 5.3 Summary of Staff Working Days based on Staff Survey

    For the purposes of this Transport Assessment, it has been assumed that all staff members working

    more than four days per week in the office can be classified as full time staff. On this basis it is clear

    that approximately 87% of staff work full time, which equates to 78 staff members.

    It can be derived from Table 5.3 that approximately 13% of staff work 3 or fewer days in the office. All

    staff in this category are considered as part time staff for the purpose of this assessment. The total

    part time days equate to 57 working days for the week with a total of 24 staff. For a robust

    assessment, the total part time days has been divided by 4 to obtain 14 full time equivalent staff

    members.

    Based on the above, there are approximately 92 full time equivalent staff members employed at the

    current site. Curtins understands that the staff numbers are likely to remain the same and therefore

    the vehicular trips associated with the proposed office development has been based on this number.

    Heritage Centre

    It is understood that the heritage centre associated with the office development would be strictly on

    invitation basis and would be limited to small events. It is envisaged that visitors would be attending

    the site outside of the peak periods. On this basis it is considered that visitors to this centre would not

    have any impact on the local highway network during the peak periods assessed.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 21

    Mode Share

    To establish the mode share for staff members at the proposed site, staff were asked the question,

    how will you travel to Sykes Holt, as part of the staff survey. The mode share obtained from the

    survey is summarised in Table 5.4. The mode share has also been applied to the FTE staff to obtain

    the number of staff travelling by each mode.

    Mode Percentage Mode

    Share Number of FTE Staff

    Car Driver 83% 77

    Car Passenger 4% 4

    Car Driver + Passenger 3% 3

    Bus 3% 3

    Train 0% 0

    Bicycle 4% 4

    Taxi 1% 1

    Foot 2% 2

    Total 100% 92

    Table 5.4 Staff Modal Share based on Staff Survey

    The above mode share has been further summarised into sustainable modes and car journeys in

    Table 5.5.

    Mode Classification Percentage Mode

    Share Number of FTE Staff

    Car 90% 83

    Sustainable 10% 9

    Total 100% 92

    Table 5.5 Staff Modal Share based on Staff Survey

    It can be seen from Table 5.5 that 90% (83 FTE) of staff journeys to work are car based with 10% (9

    FTE) based on sustainable travel. Table 5.4 shows that 4% of staff travel to work as car passengers

    and 3% are car drivers with passengers. For the purposes of this assessment it has been assumed

    that all staff members classified as Car Drivers + Passengers would always drive to work. This

    means that approximately 79 FTE staff members would travel to work by car daily.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 22

    Vehicle Trips

    It has been assumed that all 79 vehicle trips would arrive at the site in the morning peak and depart in

    the evening peak. This scenario is unlikely to occur due to the fact that some staff would arrive before

    and after the peak, this provides the worst case scenario for assessing the impact of the development

    traffic on the local highway network.

    Table 5.6 provides the vehicle trips associated with the development in the AM and PM peak.

    Proposed Vehicle Trips

    AM Peak PM Peak

    Arrive Depart Total Arrive Depart Total

    Vehicle Trips 79 0 79 0 79 79

    Table 5.6 Proposed Development Vehicular Trips

    Table 5.6 demonstrates that the proposed development is anticipated to generate in the region of 79

    two-way vehicle trips in both the AM and PM Peak hours.

    As previously stated, the above assessment is based on a worst case scenario of 102 employees

    arriving departing the site in the AM and PM peaks, however it is our understanding that on a normal

    day only 50-60 employees may work from the office.

    On the above basis, it is considered that above provides a robust assessment of the vehicle trips

    arriving and departing the site in the AM and PM peaks.

    A trip distribution pattern for the proposed development has been derived. This was based on staff

    travel surveys where staff were asked how they would travel the last mile to the site if they travelled

    by car. A summary of the survey results is provided in Table 5.7.

    Route Surveyed Adjusted Distribution

    A59 M6 40% 41%

    A59 Clitheroe 25% 26%

    Branch Road 21% 22%

    Mellor Road 9% 10%

    N/A 5% 0

    Total 100% 100%

    Table 5.7 Proposed Development Distribution

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 23

    The surveyed distribution has been adjusted to account for the 5% who did not identify any route. This

    has been allocated equally over all the 4 possible routes. The above distribution is presented in

    Traffic Figure 013.

    These turning proportions have been applied to the trip generation values shown above in Table 5.5

    and the resultant AM and PM Proposed Development flows are subsequently illustrated in Traffic

    Figure 014 and Traffic Figure 015.

    The development traffic has been added to the base traffic to derive the base with development traffic

    for both 2016 and 2021. Traffic Figures 016 presents the 2016 AM with development traffic with

    Traffic Figure 017 showing the 2016 PM with development traffic.

    The 2021 AM with development traffic is illustrated in Traffic Figure 018 with the 2021 PM with

    development traffic shown in Traffic Figure 019.

    The percentage impact of the proposed development traffic on the local highway network is set out

    below in Table 5.8.

    Road

    AM Peak PM Peak

    2016 Base Development

    Traffic Percentage

    Impact 2016 Base

    Development Traffic

    Percentage Impact

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road

    2075 37 2% 1888 41 2%

    A59 Longsight Road 1820 29 2% 1672 29 2%

    Mellor Brook 543 26 5% 594 26 4%

    Myerscough Smithy Road

    577 26 4% 626 26 4%

    Mellor Brow 164 8 5% 163 8 5%

    Branch Road 466 18 4% 544 18 3%

    Preston New Road (E) 2307 18 1% 2041 18 1%

    Preston New Road (W) 1943 0 0% 1705 0 0%

    Table 5.8 Proposed Development Distribution

    It can be seen from Table 5.8 that the impact of the development traffic is minimal, with the maximum

    percentage impact being 5% which occurs on Mellor Brow. This level of additional traffic is considered

    minimal as it is within the daily variation for traffic flows.

    It can be seen from Table 5.8 that based on worst scenario assessment; there could be an additional

    18 cars on Branch Road in both the AM and PM peak hour. This level of additional traffic is

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 24

    considered to be minimal and within the range for daily variations in traffic and therefore likely to be

    imperceptible to existing residents and road users.

    It is important to note that this is the worst case scenario in the unlikely event that all 102 employees

    arrive at the site in the AM peak and depart the site in the PM peak.

    It is understood that the EZ access between the A677 and A59 is due to start construction soon. It is

    anticipated that this will be completed in the near future and may be completed before occupation of

    the proposed development. It is expected that all the development traffic on Branch Road would be

    transferred to this link.

    In the event that this link is not completed before occupation, staff would be encouraged to use

    alternative routes where possible as part the Travel Plan process. Once the link road is completed

    staff would be discouraged from using Branch Road for their daily commute.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 25

    6.0 Highway Capacity Assessment

    This section sets out the impact of the development proposals upon the surrounding highway network.

    All junctions have been assessed using junction modelling packages as indicated below:

    Junction 1 A677 Preston New Road / Branch Road - PICADY;

    Junction 2 Branch Road/ Myerscough Smithy Road / Mellor Brow/Whalley Road - ARCADY;

    Junction 3 Myerscough Smithy mini Roundabout - ARCADY;

    Junction 4 A59 Myerscough Smithy Road/Mellor roundabout - ARCADY; and

    Junction 5 A59/ Enterprise zone signal junction - LINSIG.

    Models have been run using traffic flows from the following scenarios:

    2016 Base;

    2021 Base;

    2016 Base + Development; and

    2021 Base + Development scenarios.

    All modelling outputs are included within Appendix C at the rear of the report.

    ARCADY and PICADY

    All ARCADYs and PICADYs have been undertaken using Junctions 8 modelling package. Results

    refer to the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) and queue length predicted on each arm of the junction.

    An RFC of 1.00 indicates that the arm in question is operating at its theoretical capacity, whilst an

    RFC of 0.85 or less indicates that the arm is operating within its practical capacity.

    LINSIG

    The signal controlled junction under consideration has been assessed using LinSig. LinSig results

    refer to the Degree of Saturation (DoS) and Mean Maximum Queue (MMQ) predicted in each lane of

    the junction. A DoS of 100% indicates that the lane in question is operating at its theoretical capacity

    (point of saturation), whilst a DoS of 90% or less indicates that the lane is operating within its Practical

    Reserve Capacity.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 26

    Analysis of the junction has been undertaken using PICADY, and the results are summarised in Table

    6.1:

    Arm Base Base + Dev

    RFC Queue RFC Queue

    2016 AM Peak

    Branch Road Left 0.35 1 0.35 1

    Branch Road Right 0.16 0 0.18 0

    Preston New Road East 0.54 1 0.58 1

    Preston New Road West 0.47 1 0.47 1

    2016 PM Peak

    Branch Road Left 0.78 4 0.83 5

    Branch Road Right 0.53 1 0.58 1

    Preston New Road East 0.24 0 0.24 0

    Preston New Road West 0.48 1 0.48 1

    2021 AM Peak

    Branch Road Left 0.42 1 0.43 1

    Branch Road Right 0.35 1 0.42 1

    Preston New Road East 0.61 2 0.65 2

    Preston New Road West 0.5 1 0.5 1

    2021 PM Peak

    Branch Road Left 1.01 22 1.06 36

    Branch Road Right 0.99 6 0.99 8

    Preston New Road East 0.27 0 0.27 0

    Preston New Road West 0.52 1 0.52 1

    Table 6.1 Junction 1 Capacity Assessment Results

    Table 6.1 demonstrates that the junction operates with spare capacity in both the AM and PM for the

    base year 2016. The results also show that the junction would continue to operate with spare capacity

    in the AM peak and can accommodate the development traffic in 2021. However for the future year

    2021 the junction would be operating at capacity with the RFC exceeding 1.00 for both the base and

    with development PM peak scenario.

    It is important to note that there would be 18 additional trips in the whole hour at this junction as a

    result of the proposed development.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 27

    As can be seen from Table 5.8, the maximum percentage impact of the development traffic on any

    arm of this junction in the PM peak is 3%. This is considered to be minimal and within the daily

    variation of traffic flows.

    On the above basis it is considered that the impact of the development traffic would not result in a

    severe impact in NPPF terms. As discussed the SEZ improvements are also likely to alleviate this

    situation.

    Analysis of the junction has been undertaken using ARCADY, and the results are summarised in

    Table 6.2:

    Arm Base Base + Dev

    RFC Queue RFC Queue

    2016 AM Peak

    Mellor Brow 0.29 0 0.3 0

    Branch Road 0.37 1 0.39 1

    Myerscough Smithy Road 0.13 0 0.13 0

    2016 PM Peak

    Mellor Brow 0.15 0 0.16 0

    Branch Road 0.16 0 0.16 0

    Myerscough Smithy Road 0.46 1 0.49 1

    2021 AM Peak

    Mellor Brow 0.32 1 0.33 1

    Branch Road 0.4 1 0.43 1

    Myerscough Smithy Road 0.14 0 0.14 0

    2021 PM Peak

    Mellor Brow 0.17 0 0.17 0

    Branch Road 0.17 0 0.17 0

    Myerscough Smithy Road 0.5 1 0.53 1

    Table 6.2 Junction 2 Capacity Assessment Results

    The results demonstrate that this junction operates with spare capacity in both the AM and PM peak

    base scenario for the year of registration and the future year. Table 6.2 also shows that with the

    addition of the development traffic this junction would continue to operate with spare capacity for all

    the scenarios under consideration with minimal increases in delay.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 28

    Analysis of the junction has been undertaken using ARCADY, and the results are summarised in

    Table 6.3:

    Arm Base Base + Dev

    RFC Queue RFC Queue

    2016 AM Peak

    Mellor 0.16 0 0.16 0

    Myerscough Smithy Road East 0.67 2 0.71 2

    Myerscough Smithy Road West 0.05 0 0.05 0

    2016 PM Peak

    Mellor 0.62 2 0.65 2

    Myerscough Smithy Road East 0.21 0 0.21 0

    Myerscough Smithy Road West 0.09 0 0.09 0

    2021 AM Peak

    Mellor 0.18 0 0.18 0

    Myerscough Smithy Road East 0.72 3 0.76 3

    Myerscough Smithy Road West 0.06 0 0.06 0

    2021 PM Peak

    Mellor 0.67 2 0.7 2

    Myerscough Smithy Road East 0.23 0 0.23 0

    Myerscough Smithy Road West 0.1 0 0.1 0

    Table 6.3 Junction 3 Capacity Assessment Results

    The results demonstrate that this junction operates with spare capacity in both the AM and PM peak

    base scenario for the year of registration and the future year. Table 6.3 also shows that with the

    addition of the development traffic, this junction would continue to operate with spare capacity for all

    the scenarios under consideration with minimal increases in delay.

    It is proposed to provide access to the site from this junction. As part of the site access proposals,

    minor amendments have been provided on all the existing arms of the roundabout.

    It is anticipated that this improvement would be delivered as part of the access and therefore existing

    roundabout has not been assessed for capacity.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 29

    Analysis of the amended roundabout has been undertaken using ARCADY, and the results are

    summarised in Table 6.4:

    Arm 2016 Base + Dev 2021 Base + Dev

    RFC Queue RFC Queue

    AM Peak

    Site Access 0.01 0 0.01 0

    A59 Longsight Road 0.59 2 0.64 2

    Mellor 0.36 1 0.4 1

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road 0.39 1 0.42 1

    PM Peak

    Site Access 0.13 0 0.14 0

    A59 Longsight Road 0.37 1 0.4 1

    Mellor 0.08 0 0.09 0

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road 0.73 3 0.79 4

    Table 6.4 Junction 3 Capacity Assessment Results

    Table 6.4 demonstrates that the amended site access roundabout junction would operate with spare

    capacity when the site is operational. It also shows that there would be minimal increase in queuing

    from the year of registration to the future year 2021.

    It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the proposed site access has sufficient capacity to

    accommodate all the traffic associated with the development.

    Analysis of this junction has been undertaken using LinSig, and the results are summarised in Table

    6.5:

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 30

    Arm Base Base + Dev

    DoS MMQ DoS MMQ

    2016 AM Peak

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Left 27.0% 4 27.0% 4

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Ahead 70.0% 13 70.0% 13

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Right 69.9% 13 69.9% 13

    SEZ Site Access Left 16.1% 2 16.1% 2

    SEZ Site Access Right 14.2% 1 14.2% 1

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Ahead Left 41.1% 5 41.1% 5

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Right 71.9% 11 71.9% 11

    2016 PM Peak

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Left 2.3% 0 2.3% 0

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Ahead 42.5% 6 43.9% 6

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Right 42.6% 6 44.0% 6

    SEZ Site Access Left 61.0% 9 62.8% 10

    SEZ Site Access Right 73.0% 5 73.0% 5

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Ahead Left 73.3% 16 73.5% 16

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Right 7.9% 1 8.2% 1

    2021 AM Peak

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Left 29.7% 4 29.7% 4

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Ahead 77.5% 15 77.5% 15

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Right 77.7% 15 77.7% 15

    SEZ Site Access Left 15.1% 2 15.1% 2

    SEZ Site Access Right 14.2% 1 14.2% 1

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Ahead Left 41.8% 5 44.2% 6

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Right 77.2% 13 77.2% 13

    2021 PM Peak

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Left 1.6% 0 1.6% 0

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Ahead 40.4% 6 43.0% 6

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Right 40.4% 6 43.0% 6

    SEZ Site Access Left 63.8% 9 63.8% 9

    SEZ Site Access Right 77.0% 6 77.0% 6

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Ahead Left 78.1% 18 78.3% 18

    A59 Myerscough Smithy Road Right 6.9% 1 6.9% 1

    Table 6.5 Junction 5 Capacity Assessment Results

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 31

    The results demonstrate that this junction operates with spare capacity in both the AM and PM peak

    base scenario for the year of registration and the future year. Table 6.5 also shows that with the

    addition of the development traffic, this junction would continue to operate with spare capacity for all

    the scenarios under consideration with no material increase in the queues on all arms of the junction.

    In summary, the results indicate that all junctions would operate with spare capacity for both the year

    of registration and the future year for all the scenarios under consideration with the exception of

    Junction 1 (Preston New Road/Branch Road) which operates at capacity in both scenarios of the PM

    peak in the future year 2021.

    It has also been demonstrated that the impact of the development traffic in the PM peak at Junction 1

    is 3% on Branch Road, which is considered to be within the daily variation in traffic and therefore

    unlikely to be perceived by existing road users.

    On the above basis it is considered that the development traffic would not have a severe residual

    impact on the local highway network.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 32

    7.0 Transport Planning Policy

    When developing the scheme proposals it is important to understand the national and local transport

    related planning policies. This section aims to outline the key policies throughout relevant policy and

    guidance documents.

    Paragraph 14 states that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a:

    presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread

    running through both plan making and decision making.

    For decision making this means granting permission unless:

    any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when

    assessed against the policies.

    Section 4 of the NPPF is entitled Promoting Sustainable Transport, and outlines the important role

    that transport policies have to play in facilitating sustainable development. The section states that:

    The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a

    real choice about how they travel.

    The document and the accompanying Travel Plan emphasises the need for developments to offer a

    choice of sustainable modes of transport which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and

    reduce congestion and provide safe and suitable access for all.

    Paragraph 35 of the NPPF states that plans for new development should:

    protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of

    goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to:

    give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public

    transport facilities;

    create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or

    pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones; and

    consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

    This Transport Assessment includes Section 4, Accessibility by Sustainable Modes of Travel, which

    highlights the sustainable methods of travel available to users of the site and the locations from which

    the site is accessible on foot, by bicycle or on public transport.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 33

    In addition to the NPPF, a National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) document has also been

    developed by the government. Within this document there is a specific section that clarifies the over-

    arching principles on Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Transport Statements.

    The guidance on Transport Assessments and Statements re-iterates the circumstances in which

    either document would usually be required. It is appropriate that a Transport Assessment is provided

    for a development of this scale, and that a Travel Plan would also be necessary. The NPPG has

    been considered in the production of this Transport Assessment.

    Lancashire County Council, the highway authority for Preston produced the local transport plan in

    order to address and improve upon issues of transport within Lancashire. The below bullet points are

    the main objectives within the report and are the goals to be reached by 2021.

    To help to secure a strong economic future by making transport and travel into and between our

    major economic centres more effective and efficient and by improving links to neighbouring

    major economic areas and beyond.

    To provide all sections of the community with safe and convenient access to the services, jobs,

    health, leisure and educational opportunities that they need.

    To improve the accessibility, availability and affordability of transport as a contribution to the

    development of strong and cohesive communities.

    To create more attractive neighbourhoods by reducing the impact of transport on our quality of

    life and by improving our public realm.

    To reduce the carbon impact of Lancashire's transport requirements, whilst delivering

    sustainable value for money transport options to those who need them.

    To make walking and cycling more safe, convenient and attractive, particularly in the more

    disadvantaged areas of Lancashire, bringing improvements in the health of Lancashire's

    residents.

    In all that we do, to provide value for money by prioritising the maintenance and improvement of

    Lancashire's existing transport infrastructure where it can help to deliver our transport goals.

    This report highlights that the development is consistent with the relevant local transport plan aims

    and objectives set out above by Lancashire County Council.

    The Core Strategy was adopted on 16 December 2014 and forms the central document of the Local

    Development Framework (LDF). It sets out the strategic planning policy framework to guide

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 34

    development in the borough up to 2028 and also includes development management policies to assist

    in the determination of individual planning applications.

    From a traffic and transport perspective the Core Strategy includes two key statements. Key

    Statement DMI2: Transport Considerations states that:

    New development should be located to minimise the need to travel. Also it should incorporate good

    access by foot and cycle and have convenient links to public transport to reduce the need for travel by

    private car. In general, schemes offering opportunities for more sustainable means of transport and

    sustainable travel improvements will be supported. Sites for potential future railway stations at

    Chatburn and Gisburn will be protected from inappropriate development. Major applications should

    always be accompanied by a comprehensive travel plan.

    Key Statement DMG3: Transport and Mobility states that:

    In making decisions on development proposals the Local Planning Authority will, in addition to

    assessing proposals within the context of the development strategy, attach considerable weight to:

    The availability and adequacy of public transport and associated infrastructure to serve those moving

    to and from the development

    The relationship of the site to the primary route network and the strategic road network;

    The provision made for access to the development by pedestrians, cyclists and those with

    reduced mobility;

    Proposals which promote development in existing developed areas or extensions to them at

    locations which are highly accessible by means other than the private car;

    Proposals which strengthen existing town and village centres which offer a range of everyday

    community shopping and employment opportunities by protecting and enhancing their vitality

    and viability; and

    Proposals which locate development in areas which maintain and improve choice for people to

    walk, cycle or catch public transport rather than drive between homes and facilities which they

    need to visit regularly..

    In summary, the development proposals are considered to be consistent with local and national

    transport planning policy. The key theme of sustainability has been considered in detail in Section 4 of

    this report. With regard to highway impact the results contained in Sections 5-6 demonstrate that the

    impact could not be classed as severe.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 35

    8.0 Summary and Conclusions

    Curtins has been appointed on behalf of Daniel Thwaites PLC to provide traffic and transportation

    advice in relation to the proposed relocation of their operations from the centre of Blackburn to Sykes

    Holt, Mellor Brook.

    The proposed development site is located off the A59 Myerscough Smithy Road in Mellor Brook to the

    northwest of Blackburn, approximately 7km way from the existing site.

    It is envisaged that all current employees at the existing site would be relocated to this site following

    completion.

    The development would comprise an office building, a craft brewery, a horse stable and a visitor

    center as well as a gym for staff use.

    Vehicular access to the proposed development would be provided by incorporating a fourth arm at the

    existing A59 Myerscough Smith Road/Longsight Road roundabout. Minor amendments to the existing

    arms of the roundabout would be delivered as part of the site access proposals.

    Cycle and pedestrian access would be provided via the A59/SEZ signalised access. To encourage

    cycling to the site, the existing shared footway/cycleway along the northern boundary of the A59

    Myerscough Smithy Road would be extended into the site. The pedestrian crossing at the roundabout

    would also be formalised with dropped kerbs and tactile paving.

    The proposals include the provision of 100 car parking spaces including 10disabled spaces. Whilst

    this parking provision exceeds the available RVBC parking guidance, this guidance predates NPPF

    and current Government guidance on abolishing maximum car parking standards. It is considered that

    this level of parking provision is necessary to avoid any overspill parking onto the public highways or

    Mellor Brook on days where employees from other offices visit the site.

    It has been demonstrated in Section 4 that the surrounding area exhibits good levels of pedestrian

    and cycling infrastructure. This would be further improved when the development comes forward by

    extending the shared footway/cycle into the site. There are two bus services within 100m walk of the

    site which provide hourly services to key surrounding towns where the majority of staff live. In addition

    rail travel as part of a multimodal journey to the site is also a viable alternative to private car use. On

    this basis the site is considered to be accessible by sustainable modes of transport.

    It has been demonstrated in Section 5 that the development would generate 79 two-way vehicle

    movements on the local highway network in both the AM and PM peak.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 36

    Results from the capacity assessments indicate that all junctions would operate with spare capacity

    for both the year of registration and the future year for all the scenarios with the exception of Junction

    1 (Preston New Road/Branch Road) which operates over capacity in both scenarios of the PM peak in

    the future year 2021.

    It has also been demonstrated that the impact of the development traffic in the PM peak at Junction 1

    is 3% on Branch Road, which is considered to be within the daily variation in traffic and therefore

    unlikely to be perceived by existing road users. It is therefore considered that the development traffic

    would not have a severe residual impact on the local highway network.

    It has been shown through this document that the development proposals are consistent with local

    and national transport planning policy.

    This TA demonstrates that the site is located in a sustainable area in accordance with national and

    local policy. The TA also demonstrates that the highway impact associated with the proposals is not

    severe and therefore in accordance with national policy.

    From a traffic and transportation perspective there are no reasons why the development proposals

    should not be granted planning approval.

  • TPMA1282 Daniel Thwaites Relocation, Sykes Holt,

    Transport Assessment

    Rev Final | Copyright 2016 Curtins Consulting Ltd

    Drawings

  • 8

    7

    .8

    1

    8

    8

    .5

    4

    88.1

    8

    8

    7

    .6

    6

    8

    7

    .7

    6

    8

    7

    .8

    4

    P

    o

    s

    t &

    R

    a

    il F

    e

    n

    c

    e

    8

    8

    .

    8

    4

    88.1

    4

    8

    8

    .

    8

    58

    8

    .

    9

    4

    8

    8

    .

    5

    5

    8

    8

    .

    6

    5

    8

    8

    .2

    6

    8

    8

    .1

    8

    8

    7

    .

    8

    0

    8

    7

    .

    8

    7

    8

    9

    .

    5

    2

    8

    8

    .2

    5

    8

    8

    .5

    1

    8

    8

    .8

    6

    8

    8

    .1

    4

    8

    8

    .5

    8

    LP

    8

    9

    .

    8

    6

    8

    9

    .

    6

    0

    8

    9

    .

    3

    0

    8

    9

    .

    1

    2

    89.6

    3

    8

    9

    .

    0

    1

    8

    9

    .

    0

    4

    8

    9

    .

    3

    6

    8

    9

    .

    2

    7

    8

    9

    .

    4

    2

    8

    9

    .

    5

    1

    8

    9

    .

    7

    3

    8

    9

    .

    6

    4

    T

    A

    R

    M

    A

    C

    GRASS

    8

    9

    .

    5

    7

    8

    9

    .4

    3

    8

    9

    .

    3

    6

    8

    9

    .

    2

    3

    8

    9

    .2

    4

    5

    SP

    LP

    SP

    LP

    89.10

    89.19

    8

    9

    .

    1

    8

    8

    9

    .

    1

    0

    8

    9

    .

    3

    18

    9

    .

    3

    0

    8

    9

    .

    6

    3

    8

    9

    .6

    8

    8

    9

    .6

    8

    8

    9

    .5

    9

    9

    0

    .

    1

    4

    8

    9

    .6

    1

    89.5

    5

    89.35

    89.33

    88.96

    SP

    8

    9

    .

    6

    4

    8

    9

    .

    7

    2

    8

    9

    .

    4

    58

    9

    .

    4

    8

    89.43

    89.46

    8

    9

    .

    5

    98

    9

    .

    6

    5

    8

    9

    .

    8

    7

    8

    9

    .

    8

    9

    90.11

    90.1

    6

    SP

    9

    0

    .

    7

    6

    9

    0

    .

    7

    6

    9

    0

    .

    5

    5

    9

    0

    .

    3

    6

    90.42

    90.53

    90.58

    90.45

    90.31

    90.39

    9

    0

    .

    3

    4

    9

    0

    .

    1

    3

    9

    0

    .

    0

    3

    8

    9

    .

    9

    2

    8

    9

    .

    8

    2

    9

    0

    .

    1

    4

    9

    0

    .

    2

    1

    9

    0

    .

    0

    5

    9

    0

    .

    0

    8

    8

    9

    .

    9

    7

    9

    0

    .

    0

    1

    9

    0

    .

    7

    7

    9

    0

    .

    6

    5

    GRASS

    90.4

    4

    90.3

    6

    90.43

    90.34

    90

    .51

    90

    .42

    9

    0

    .

    4

    2

    9

    0

    .

    5

    1

    9

    0

    .

    4

    7

    9

    0

    .

    3

    8

    SP

    LP

    SP

    9

    0

    .

    3

    6

    9

    0

    .

    3

    6

    9

    0

    .

    4

    0

    9

    0

    .

    4

    9

    90.47

    90.35

    9

    0

    .2

    6

    9

    0

    .

    4

    2

    9

    0

    .

    4

    7

    9

    0

    .

    3

    9

    9

    0

    .

    6

    6

    9

    0

    .

    3

    29

    0

    .

    3

    9

    9

    0

    .

    6

    79

    0

    .

    2

    4

    9

    0

    .

    3

    0

    9

    0

    .

    6

    2

    9

    0

    .

    5

    1

    9

    0

    .

    1

    7

    9

    0

    .

    2

    3

    9

    0

    .

    3

    4

    9

    0

    .

    2

    0

    9

    0

    .

    0

    9

    9

    0

    .

    1

    7

    9

    0

    .

    5

    0

    9

    0

    .

    4

    2

    9

    0

    .

    0

    4

    9

    0

    .

    0

    9

    89.9

    7

    90.0

    5

    LP

    9

    0

    .

    1

    1

    SP

    P

    o

    s

    t

    &

    R

    a

    i

    l

    F

    e

    n

    c

    e

    GU

    GU

    DK

    MH

    CL90.12

    GU

    GU

    GU

    MH

    CL90.17

    GU

    GU

    GU

    GU

    MH

    CL90.16

    GRASS

    GRASS

    GRASS

    SP

    DK

    DK

    LP

    LP

    LP

    LP

    LP

    SP

    LP

    LP

    LP

    8

    8

    .4

    4

    88.6

    9

    89.09

    8

    9

    .3

    4

    8

    9

    .

    6

    3

    8

    9

    .4

    0

    89.20

    88.7

    7

    8

    8

    .4

    6

    89.09

    89.4

    9

    8

    8

    .8

    1

    89.18

    89.36

    89.4

    5

    8

    9

    .

    6

    9

    8

    9

    .

    8

    6

    9

    0

    .

    0

    3

    9

    0

    .1

    4

    90.2

    3

    9

    0

    .

    2

    9

    9

    0

    .

    3

    4

    9

    0

    .

    3

    1

    9

    0

    .

    2

    9

    9

    0

    .

    1

    2

    9

    0

    .

    2

    1

    9

    0

    .

    3

    4

    9

    0

    .

    3

    8

    9

    0

    .

    4

    1

    9

    0

    .

    4

    1

    9

    0

    .

    3

    1

    90.33

    9

    0

    .2

    3

    9

    0

    .

    1

    4

    8

    9

    .

    9

    7

    8

    9

    .

    6

    9

    8

    9

    .7

    7

    9

    0

    .

    0

    5

    9

    0

    .

    1

    8

    9

    0

    .

    4

    7

    90.5

    1

    90.6

    3

    9

    0

    .

    6

    5

    9

    0

    .

    7

    2

    8

    9

    .

    8

    4

    89.94

    9

    0

    .0

    2

    9

    0

    .

    0

    5

    9

    0

    .

    0

    7

    8

    9

    .

    9

    8

    89.92

    8

    9

    .

    9

    3

    8

    9

    .

    9

    9

    90.02

    9

    0

    .

    0

    7

    9

    0

    .

    1

    7

    9

    0

    .

    1

    7

    9

    0

    .1

    4

    90.03

    8

    9

    .

    9

    2

    9

    0

    .

    5

    6

    90.7

    2

    9

    0

    .8

    8

    9

    0

    .7

    0

    9

    0

    .

    5

    1

    9

    0

    .

    1

    4

    9

    0

    .

    1

    0

    90.10

    90.1

    4

    9

    0

    .

    2

    2

    9

    0

    .

    1

    9

    90.20

    90.2

    4

    9

    0

    .

    4

    4

    9

    0

    .

    4

    3

    9

    0

    .

    3

    3

    9

    0

    .

    3

    4

    9

    0

    .

    3

    1

    9

    0

    .

    3

    0

    9

    0

    .

    0

    8

    8

    9

    .9

    6

    9

    0

    .

    2

    4

    9

    0

    .

    0

    0

    8

    9

    .

    9

    3

    8

    9

    .8

    7

    8

    9

    .8

    6

    8

    9

    .8

    0

    8

    9

    .9

    1

    8

    9

    .9

    5

    8

    9

    .9

    6

    9

    0

    .

    0

    3

    9

    0

    .

    1

    0

    9

    0

    .

    3

    5

    9

    0

    .

    3

    9

    9

    0

    .

    5

    7

    9

    0

    .

    5

    2

    9

    0

    .

    4

    0

    9

    0

    .0

    6

    8

    9

    .9

    7

    8

    9

    .9

    5

    89.9

    3

    89.92

    90.00

    90.11

    90.26

    90.36

    90.2

    0

    90.09

    9

    0

    .

    3

    8

    90.2

    6

    9

    0

    .2

    6

    90.20

    90.22

    9

    0

    .1

    5

    90.27

    90.0

    8

    90.0

    3

    9

    0

    .0

    3

    9

    0

    .

    0

    4

    9

    0

    .

    1

    8

    90.05

    90.10

    GU

    GU

    Vegetation

    Vegetation

    Vegetation

    GRASS

    GU

    GU

    MH

    CL89.70

    MH

    CL90.19

    A

    r

    m

    c

    o

    B

    a

    r

    r

    i

    e

    r

    A

    r

    m

    c

    o

    B

    a

    r

    r

    i

    e

    r

    A

    rm

    c

    o

    B

    a

    rrie

    r

    CONCRETE

    DK

    DK

    GU

    MH

    CL90.19

    GRASS

    GRASS

    GRASS

    GRASS

    GRASS

    GRASS

    GRASS

    P

    o

    s

    t

    &

    R

    a

    i

    l

    F

    e

    n

    c

    e

    P

    ost &

    R

    ail F

    ence

    P

    o