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,


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



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



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



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



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.




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.




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.




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.




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:




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.




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.




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;




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.




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.




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.




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




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.




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.




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




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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.




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




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




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.




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.




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





2021 AM Peak





2021 PM Peak





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.




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




2021 AM Peak




2021 PM Peak





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.




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



2021 AM Peak

Mellor 0.18 0 0.18 0



2021 PM Peak

Mellor 0.67 2 0.7 2






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.




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 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:




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


2016 PM Peak








2021 AM Peak








2021 PM Peak














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.




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.




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




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.




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.




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.

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

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

Documents

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