TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT VOLUME 1

TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT VOLUME 1

Moneystone Park Leisure

Development, Staffordshire

Client: Laver Leisure (Oakamoor) Limited

Reference: INFRA-PB1608-RP001-F0.1

Revision: 01/Final

Date: 16 June 2016

16 June 2016 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT, VOLUME 1 INFRA-PB1608-RP001-F0.1 i

HASKONINGDHV UK LTD.

Manchester One

Portland Street

Manchester

M1 3LF

Transport & Planning

VAT registration number: 792428892

+44 161 2361018

royalhaskoningdhv.com

T

W

Document title: Moneystone Park Leisure Development, Staffordshire

Document short title: Transport Assessment, Volume 1 Reference: INFRA-PB1608-RP001-F0.1

Revision: 01/Final Date: 16 June 2016

Project name: Moneystone Park - TA Volume 1 Project number: PB1608

Author(s): 304507

Drafted by: Kateryna Kryshkevych

Checked by: Brian Laird

Date / initials: 16.06.2016 / BL

Approved by: Brian Laird

Date / initials: 16.06.2016 / BL

Disclaimer No part of these specifications/printed matter may be reproduced and/or published by print, photocopy, microfilm or by any other means, without the prior written permission of HaskoningDHV UK Ltd.; nor may they be used, without such permission, for any purposes other than that for which they were produced. HaskoningDHV UK Ltd. accepts no responsibility or liability for these specifications/printed matter to any party other than the persons by whom it was commissioned and as concluded under that Appointment. The quality management system of HaskoningDHV UK Ltd. has been certified in accordance with ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001.

16 June 2016 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT, VOLUME 1 INFRA-PB1608-RP001-F0.1 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (VOLUME 1)

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Summary of Proposals 1

1.2 Site History 3

1.3 Purpose of Transport Assessment 3

2 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS 5

2.1 Introduction 5

2.2 Concept 5

2.3 Proposed Means of Access and Highway Infrastructure 5

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 8

3.1 Site Description 8

3.2 Local Highway Network Study Area 8

3.3 Pedestrian Accessibility and Infrastructure Audit 11

3.4 Cycle Accessibility and Infrastructure Audit 18

3.5 Equestrian Accessibility and Infrastructure Audit 19

3.6 Public Transport Accessibility and Infrastructure Audit 20

3.7 Conclusion 20

4 TRANSPORTATION RELATED POLICIES & GUIDANCE 21

4.1 Background 21

4.2 National Planning Policy Framework 21

4.3 Staffordshire Local Transport Plan 2011 22

4.4 Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy (March 2014) 24

4.5 Churnet Valley Masterplan – Supplementary Planning Document 26

5 TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS 28

5.1 Development Scenarios 28

5.2 Assessment Time Periods 28

5.3 Baseline Data 28

5.4 Future Background Traffic Growth 30

5.5 Committed Development 31

5.6 Base Traffic Flows 35

5.7 Proposed Moneystone Park Forecast Daily Trip Generation 35

5.8 Forecast Peak Hour Trip Generation 37

5.9 Trip Distribution & Traffic Assignment 38

5.10 Assessment Traffic Flows 39

16 June 2016 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT, VOLUME 1 INFRA-PB1608-RP001-F0.1 iii

6 HIGHWAY CAPACITY ASSESSMENT 40

6.1 Background 40

6.2 Scope of Assessment 40

6.3 Scale of Traffic Impact 41

6.4 Highway Operational Capacity Assessment 43

7 HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSESSMENT 45

7.1 Background 45

7.2 Scope of Assessment 45

7.3 Baseline Data 46

7.4 Analysis Methodology 47

7.5 Development Impact and Conclusions 47

8 CONSTRUCTION TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT 48

8.1 Background Information 48

8.2 Periods of Construction Activity 49

8.3 Forecast Construction Traffic Movements 49

8.4 Construction Traffic Management Plan 50

9 OPERATIONAL TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT 53

9.1 Summary of Approach 53

9.2 Travel Plan Framework 53

9.3 Highways and Access Design Notes 54

9.4 Residual Traffic Impacts 56

9.5 Road Safety Audit/Quality Audit 56

9.6 Car Parking Provision and Management 57

10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 59

10.1 Summary of the Transport Assessment 59

10.2 Summary of the Proposed Transport Strategy 60

10.3 Conclusions 60

TABLE OF TABLES (VOLUME 1)

Page Table 1: Pedestrian Review Criteria – Assessing Existing Conditions .................................. 12

Table 2: Summary of Existing Bus Services in the Vicinity of the Site .................................. 20

Table 3: Baseline Traffic Flow Data Variation ...................................................................... 29

Table 4: Residential Trip Generation ................................................................................... 32

Table 5: Employment Park Trip Generation ......................................................................... 32

16 June 2016 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT, VOLUME 1 INFRA-PB1608-RP001-F0.1 iv

Table 6: Visitor Centre Trip Generation ............................................................................... 33

Table 7: Hotel Trip Generation ............................................................................................. 33

Table 8: Outdoor Activity Centre Trip Generation ................................................................ 34

Table 9: Bolton Copperworks Trip Generation ..................................................................... 34

Table 10: Daily Vehicle Trip Generation of Day Visitors ......................................................... 36

Table 11: Daily Vehicle Trip Generation of Proposed 250 Lodges ......................................... 36

Table 12: Daily Total Vehicle Generation of Proposed Moneystone Park .............................. 37

Table 13: Peak Hour Total Vehicle Trip Generation of Proposed Moneystone Park .............. 38

Table 14: Peak Hour Total Vehicle Trip Generation of Proposed Moneystone Park (inc. 20% Contingency Trips) .................................................................................................................... 38

Table 15: Traffic Assignment ................................................................................................. 39

Table 16: Two-Way Link Flow Changes ................................................................................ 42

INSERTS (VOLUME 1) Page Insert 1: Aerial Photograph of the Application Site ...................................................................... 8

Insert 2: Public Rights of Way (Source: SCC) ........................................................................... 14

Insert 3: Rights of Way Improvement Plan Area (Source: ROWIP of SCC) ............................... 15

Insert 4: Strategic Pedestrian Routes and Demand (ROWIP of SCC) ....................................... 16

Insert 5: Locally Promoted Routes and Demand (ROWIP of SCC) ............................................ 17

Insert 6 Strategic Cycling Routes and Demand (ROWIP of SCC) ............................................. 18

Insert 7: Strategic Equestrian Routes and Demand (ROWIP of SCC) ....................................... 19

Insert 8: Seasonal Visitor Variation (% of Annual Average) ....................................................... 35

PLANS (VOLUME 2: BOUND SEPERATELY) Plan 1 Site Location Plan 2 Local Highway Network Study Area Plan 3 Existing Site Area Plan 4 Indicative Masterplan Plan 5 Existing Whiston Eaves Lane Site Access Plan 6 Proposed Improved Whiston Eaves Lane Site Access Plan 7 Proposed Footpath Connections Plan Plan 8 Proposed Layout of A52 / Whiston Eaves Lane Junction Plan 9 Existing Layout of A52 / Whiston Eaves Lane Junction Plan 10 1km and 2km Walking Catchment Plan 11 3km and 5km Cycling Catchment Plan 12 Traffic Survey Data Collection Plan 13 Personal Injury Accident Data

16 June 2016 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT, VOLUME 1 INFRA-PB1608-RP001-F0.1 v

FIGURES (VOLUME 2: BOUND SEPERATELY) Figure 1 2016 Weekday AM Peak Hour Surveyed Flows (08:30-09:30) Figure 2 2016 Weekday PM Peak Hour Surveyed Flows (16:45-17:45) Figure 3 2016 Saturday Peak Hour Surveyed Flows (09:45-10:45) Figure 4 2016 Weekday AM Peak Hour Factored Flows (08:30-09:30) Figure 5 2016 Weekday PM Peak Hour Factored Flows (16:45-17:45) Figure 6 2016 Saturday Peak Hour Factored Flows (09:45-10:45) Figure 7 2020 Weekday AM Peak Hour Growthed Surveyed Flows (08:30-09:30) Figure 8 2020 Weekday PM Peak Hour Surveyed Flows (16:45-17:45) Figure 9 2020 Saturday Peak Hour Surveyed Flows (09:45-10:45) Figure 10 2025 Weekday AM Peak Hour Growthed Surveyed Flows (08:30-09:30) Figure 11 2025 Weekday PM Peak Hour Surveyed Flows (16:45-17:45) Figure 12 2025 Saturday Peak Hour Surveyed Flows (09:45-10:45) Figure 13 Bolton Copperworks Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Distribution (08:30-09:30) Figure 14 Bolton Copperworks Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution (16:45-17:45) Figure 15 Bolton Copperworks Saturday Peak Hour Trip Distribution (09:45-10:45) Figure 16 Bolton Copperworks Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Generation (08:30-09:30) Figure 17 Bolton Copperworks Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation (16:45-17:45) Figure 18 Bolton Copperworks Saturday Peak Hour Trip Generation (09:45-10:45) Figure 19 2020 Weekday AM Peak Hour Base Flows (08:30-09:30) Figure 20 2020 Weekday PM Peak Hour Base Flows (16:45-17:45) Figure 21 2020 Saturday Peak Hour Base Flows (09:45-10:45) Figure 22 2025 Weekday AM Peak Hour Base Flows (08:30-09:30) Figure 23 2025 Weekday PM Peak Hour Base Flows (16:45-17:45) Figure 24 2025 Saturday Peak Hour Base Flows (09:45-10:45) Figure 25 Proposed Development Trip Distribution Figure 26 Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Figure 27 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Figure 28 Saturday Peak Hour Trip Generation Figure 29 2020 Weekday AM Peak Hour with Development Flows Figure 30 2020 Weekday PM Peak Hour with Development Flows Figure 31 2020 Saturday Peak Hour with Development Flows Figure 32 2025 Weekday AM Peak Hour with Development Flows Figure 33 2025 Weekday PM Peak Hour with Development Flows Figure 34 2025 Saturday Peak Hour with Development Flows Figure 35 2016 Saturday Daily Surveyed Traffic Flows Figure 36 2016 Saturday Daily Factored Traffic Flows Figure 37 2020 Saturday Daily Background Traffic Flows Figure 38 Bolton Copperworks Development Saturday Daily Trip Generation Figure 39 2020 Base Saturday Daily Traffic Flows Figure 40 Proposed Development Saturday Daily Traffic Flows Figure 41 2020 Assessment Saturday Daily Traffic Flows Figure 42 Percentage Traffic Impact

16 June 2016 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT, VOLUME 1 INFRA-PB1608-RP001-F0.1 vi

APPENDICES (VOLUME 2: BOUND SEPERATELY) Appendix A Minutes of Meeting with Staffordshire County Council (30 April 2014) Appendix B 2016 Traffic Surveys Appendix C Bolton Copperworks TRICS Output Appendix D Data from Christie & Co. Appendix E Highway Capacity Assessments Appendix F Accident Data Appendix G Road Safety Audit Appendix H Quality Audit

16 June 2016 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT, VOLUME 1 INFRA-PB1608-RP001-F0.1 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Summary of Proposals

1.1.1 Royal HaskoningDHV (RHDHV) has been commissioned by Laver Leisure (Oakamoor) Limited to advise on the highway and transportation issues arising from the proposed redevelopment and regeneration of the former Moneystone Quarry site located off Whiston Eaves Lane, between Whiston and Oakamoor in Staffordshire. The site location is illustrated on Plan 1 .

1.1.2 On behalf of Laver Leisure, HOW Planning submitted an outline planning application for a high quality leisure development at the above site to SMDC on 20 October 2014. Despite the Council’s Planning Officers recommending the application for approval, the Planning Committee resolved to refuse the planning application at its meeting on 26 November 2015. The application was formally refused by the Council on 2 December 2015. There were four reasons for refusal which relate to:

I. Landscape – relating to the height of the hub building and the principle of the proposed lodges at Black Plantation;

II. Highways – relating to an increase in the amount of traffic using Carr Bank and also the reliance of visitors staying at Black Plantation to use private cars to access all facilities within the hub area;

III. Heritage – relating to the adverse impact the multi-activity hub area would have on the setting of Little Eaves Farm, a Grade II listed building; and

IV. Planning Balance – stating that the benefits of the leisure scheme when considered together would not be sufficient to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm identified above.

1.1.3 Paul Tucker QC advised Laver Leisure throughout the preparation of the original planning application. Leading Counsel undertook a detailed review of the application prior to its submission as well as a review of the Planning Committee report following its publication. Laver Leisure has sought further advice from Leading Counsel following the refusal of the original planning application and an appeal was lodged to the Planning Inspectorate on 18 February 2016. It is the position of Laver Leisure, as supported by Counsel, that the original proposals are in accordance with the development plan and therefore represent sustainable development. In light of this, and the recommendation by the Council’s Planning Officers, Laver Leisure has been advised that is has a strong case for the planning appeal.

1.1.4 Nevertheless, Laver Leisure have sought to accommodate the concerns of the Planning Committee. Accordingly, without prejudice to the ongoing appeal by Laver Leisure, HOW Planning has been instructed to submit this revised planning application which directly addresses all the issues raised within the reasons for refusal. The planning application is re-submitted in outline with all matters reserved except for means of access and proposes:

“The erection of a high quality leisure development comprising holiday lodges; a new central hub building (providing swimming pool, restaurant, bowling alley, spa, gym, informal screen/cinema room, children’s soft play area, café, shop and sports hall); café; visitor centre with farm shop; administration building; maintenance building; archery centre; watersports centre; equipped play and adventure play areas; multi-sports area; ropewalks; car parking; and managed footpaths, cycleways and bridleways set in attractive landscaping and ecological enhancements (re-submission of Planning Application SMD/2014/0682)”.


The Proposed Changes to the Leisure Scheme

1.1.5 This planning application re-submission has made the following changes to the proposed development:

I. The height of the proposed hub building has been reduced from 12 metres to 6 metres and the proposed climbing wall has been removed and does not form part of this planning application;

II. The Parameter Plan provides more certainty on the future location of the hub buildings. The area in which the hub buildings can be located at the detailed design stage have been significantly reduced as shown on the Parameter Plan which accompanies this application re-submission;

III. Additional landscaping is proposed within the hub area which further screens the hub development from the listed building and the surrounding footpaths. The additional landscaping is shown on the Illustrative Landscape Detailed Plan for The Hub which also accompanies this application re-submission;

IV. The 14 lodges proposed at Black Plantation and the proposed vehicular access from Blackley Lane have been removed as part of this application re-submission. Whilst both the land at Black Plantation and Blakeley Lane remain within the site edged red, permission for this work is not sought as part of the re-submitted application. Black Plantation is shown as “retained existing woodland” on the Parameter Plan;

V. The total number of lodges for which planning permission is sought as part of this application re-submission remains at up to 250 lodges. The 14 lodges removed from Black Plantation have been re-distributed within Quarry 2 – The Upper Lakes. The re-distributed lodges are within the existing development areas as shown on the Parameter Plan and the Illustrative Masterplan for the Upper Lakes;

VI. A “no right turn” vehicular access arrangement is proposed onto Eaves Lane. The revised vehicular access design is shown on the Eaves Lane Access Plan which accompanies this application re-submission;

VII. A Tunnel Stability Report has been prepared and submitted with this application resubmission. The report demonstrates that in its current state the overall stability of the tunnel is considered acceptable with no significant failures or displacements observed; and

VIII. Further detail has been provided to clarify the alignment of the proposed footpaths, cycleways and bridleways at the site. This detail is provided on the Detailed Footpath Connection Plans and the Overall Footpath Connection Plan which accompany the application re-submission.


1.2 Site History

1.2.1 The site’s former use as a quarry ceased in September 2011. When in operation, the active quarry use generated 130 heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements per day and 170 car movements, giving a total of 469 passenger car units (pcus) using standard ‘RR67’1 conversion factors. SCC previously accepted that an additional 30 HGV movements would be satisfactory, resulting in a total accepted traffic generation of 538 pcus. The movements quoted above are two-way movements (i.e. arrivals and departures).

1.2.2 Traffic generation associated with the former use of the site however has not been taken account of in this TA, as the site no longer has permission to operate as a quarry.

1.3 Purpose of Transport Assessment

1.3.1 The purpose of this TA is to provide information on the traffic, highway and accessibility aspects of the resubmission application. The TA produced for the larger 2012 proposals was discussed as a basis to agree a scope for the 2014 proposals with SCC during a meeting on 30 April 2014 and minutes of that meeting are included as Appendix A . This TA provides an update of the 2014 report to reflect the resubmission application.

1.3.2 An assessment is provided of the likely transportation changes on the existing highway network as a result of the development along with the access requirements of the development.

1.3.3 The aim of the assessment is to identify, as far as reasonably practicable, the nature of the transport changes within the area of the proposed development, to assess significance and to make appropriate recommendations. The assessment includes consideration of traffic impacts during construction as well as impacts during the operation of the proposed development.

1.3.4 The TA examines the transport implications and transport strategy requirements of the development in relation to relevant current policy and guidance.

1.3.5 An assessment of the following key issues have been considered:

• An assessment of the baseline traffic and transport conditions, including the accessibility of the site by alternative modes of travel;

• Effects due to construction vehicles;

• Effects on highway operations during construction;

• Conflicts between construction vehicles and other traffic/pedestrians;

• Pedestrian and cycle requirements;

• Effects on the local highway network;

• Effects upon public transport operation; and

• Parking management and control.

1 Department of Transport, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Report RR67 (1986).


1.3.6 The assessments indicate the likely impact of the development on the local highway network. The report outlines appropriate impact mitigation measures, which include a TPF for the proposed development.

1.3.7 The transport strategy for this development seeks in the first instance to mitigate transport requirements through appropriate Travel Plan measures, as recommended by the ‘Good Practice Guidelines on Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning System’ published by the Department for Transport (DfT) in April 2009.

1.3.8 In brief, the ‘Good Practice Guidelines’ provide detailed advice on how to mitigate the traffic impact of major new developments in the first instance by reducing the number of trips to/from a site.

1.3.9 This Transport Assessment should be read in conjunction with the Travel Plan Framework, which has also been prepared to support a planning application resubmission for the proposals.


2 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The Application Site is located off Whiston Eaves Lanes, between the villages of Whiston and Oakamoor. Plan 1 illustrates the location of the Application Site in relation to these settlements and the surrounding area. Plan 2 shows the site location in context with the immediate highway network surrounding the site, whilst Plan 3 illustrates the existing layout and extent of the Application Site, which covers a total area of approximately 51.58 hectares, and Moneystone Quarry and its landholding which covers approximately 168 hectares.

2.2 Concept

2.2.1 The vision for Moneystone Park is to create a high quality visitor destination combined with high quality holiday accommodation, focusing on outdoor activities, wildlife and the local environment. It would be an attraction with outdoor sport and recreation opportunities at its core.

2.2.2 The proposed development resubmission is illustrated on Plan 4 , and comprises:

• 250 lodges;

• Visitor Centre;

• Leisure Hub Building;

• Lake Café;

• Water sports centre;

• Outdoor Activities; and

• Maintenance/Housekeeping and Administration Buildings.

2.3 Proposed Means of Access and Highway Infrastruc ture

Proposed Means of Vehicular Access

2.3.1 The proposed site access would be located at the existing priority junction site access from Whiston Eaves Lane. In order to address concerns raised both by local residents and the planning authority, it is proposed to amend the existing site access to physically, by the introduction of a traffic island on the site access road, prevent visitors and staff turning right out of the site to travel south towards Carr Bank and Alton Towers.

2.3.2 The existing Whiston Eaves Lane site access is shown on Plan 5 and the proposed improvements to the existing site access is shown on Plan 6 .

2.3.3 Laver Leisure (Oakamoor) Limited’s website for Moneystone Park would provide directions to the site for visitors from the A52/Whiston Eaves Lane junction. In addition all marketing material would show access available from the A52/Whiston Eaves Lane junction. The marketing material would seek to discourage the use of other routes wherever possible. It should also be noted, further to numerous tests that RHDHV has carried out, that Satelite Navigation Systems currently direct traffic to the site via the A52/Whiston Eaves Lane junction from most locations in the UK.


2.3.4 Alternative routes to enter the site are physically available via Carr Bank from the B5417 through Oakamoor and Blakely Lane from the A52 (refer to Plan 2 ). However, use of these routes would be discouraged by the proposed transport strategy for the development which would include marketing material, directional signage and access route instructions as set out in the Travel Plan strategy for the site.

2.3.5 The detail of access routes within the site would be considered as reserved matters submissions along with the detail of the internal site layout, building footprints, main building access points, internal access routes and car parking layouts.

Proposed Means of Pedestrian/Cycle Access

2.3.6 Pedestrian and cycle access would be available from Whiston Eaves Lane and Blakely Lane, with connections to the surrounding network of cycle paths and public rights of way around the site as illustrated on Plan 7 .

2.3.7 Additionally, existing access points into each plot within the application area would be retained until reserved matters submission comes forward.

Proposed Means of Construction Access

2.3.8 The proposed means of access for construction traffic would also be from the existing main entrance to the site off Whiston Eaves Lane, with traffic arriving from and departing to the A52.

2.3.9 As part of a Construction Traffic Management Plan, all construction traffic would be restricted to entering and exiting the site from the A52/Whiston Eaves Lane junction.

Highway Infrastructure Improvements

2.3.10 It is proposed to implement improvements at the existing junction of Whiston Eaves Lane and the A52. Two options were initially considered:

Option 1 - The provision of gateway traffic calming features on the A52 approaches to Whiston in either direction to slow traffic down and to raise awareness of drivers to the presence of the village and traffic turning into and out of Whiston Eaves Lane; The provision of a ‘ghost island’ layout at the junction of Whiston Eaves Lane and the A52, in order to provide a right-turn waiting area for inbound vehicles from the west.

Option 2 - Introduce local narrowing along the A52 in the vicinity of the junction in order to improve lateral visibility.

2.3.11 Further to discussions with SCC it was agreed that the option to provide a ghost island right turn facility on the A52 was preferable. The ghost island right turn facility option therefore forms part of the development proposals for the current planning application. Plan 8 shows the proposed improvements to the existing A52/Whiston Eaves Lane junction.

Design, Implementation and Management of Future Int ernal Site Infrastructure

2.3.12 The internal layout of each subsequent reserved matters application at the site layout would require detailed assessment for swept path requirements, as appropriate for the respective proposed uses.


2.3.13 Where appropriate, internal access roads would be designed using the guidance provided by the ‘Manual for Streets’ (Department for Transport, March 2007) and ‘Manual for Streets 2’ (Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, October 2010).


3 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Description

3.1.1 The Application Site is located off Whiston Eaves Lanes, between the villages of Whiston and Oakamoor. Plan 1 illustrates the location of the Application Site in relation to these settlements and the surrounding area. Plan 2 shows the site location in context with the immediate highway network surrounding the site, whilst Plan 3 illustrates the existing layout and extent of the Application Site.

3.1.2 The Application Site area is illustrated in red superimposed onto an aerial photograph of the existing area in Insert 1.

Insert 1: Aerial Photograph of the Application Site

3.2 Local Highway Network Study Area

3.2.1 The local highway network in the vicinity of the site is illustrated on Plan 2 . The existing highways shown on Plan 2 are described in further detail below.


A52 through Whiston

3.2.2 The A52 through Whiston connects to the A521 to the east and the A523 to the west. The road is an all-purpose standard road of variable alignment (due to topography and historic alignment constraints) carrying mixed traffic with some direct frontage access, side roads, bus stops and potential for some at-grade pedestrian crossing activity.

3.2.3 Pedestrian activity is very low along the A52 in Whiston. At present there are only a few residential properties located in the vicinity, with a Dog Academy located locally on the north side of the A52. Pedestrian movements crossing the A52 are therefore currently light.

3.2.4 In the vicinity of Whiston, the A52 is currently subject to a 40mph speed limit and has a typical width of around 6.7m. There is a footway provided along the south side of the A52 from the junction with Whiston Eaves Lane, west through Whiston, with no footway provided on the north side or to the east of the junction with Whiston Eaves Lane. No street lighting or provision for cyclists is provided on the A52, in the vicinity of Whiston.

Whiston Eaves Lane

3.2.5 Whiston Eaves Lane leads from the A52 in Whiston to the existing Moneystone Quarry site entrance, where it also connects to Eaves Lane leading south through to Oakamoor village via Carr Bank.

3.2.6 Whiston Eaves Lane is a single carriageway road with a typical width of 7m to 8m and is subject to a 30mph speed limit from the junction with the A52 for the first 300m through Whiston village to a point just south of the village hall. The remainder of Whiston Eaves Lane through to the Moneystone Quarry site is subject to the National speed limit.

3.2.7 Footways and street lighting are generally not provided with the exception of some limited provision in the urban area of Whiston village itself, although many properties have neither lighting nor footway outside the houses.

3.2.8 The junction of Whiston Eaves Lane and the A52 is currently in the form of a simple priority junction. The existing layout of the junction is illustrated on Plan 9 , which demonstrates that the available lateral visibility splays at this junction are limited as follow:

• 30m looking to the left of the junction from a distance of 2.4m back from the running edge of the carriageway to the nearside kerb, as restricted by the boundary wall and adjacent trees; and

• 34m looking to the right from the junction from a distance of 2.4m back from the running edge of the carriageway to the nearside kerb, as restricted by land that lies outside of the adopted highway, albeit that the exact extent of adopted highway is somewhat uncertain.

3.2.9 The above lateral visibility splays are departures from the standards set by Manual for Streets 2, which provides current design guidance for roads with speed limits up to 40mph. This issue is considered in greater detail later in this TA.

Blakely Lane

3.2.10 The junction of Blakely Lane with the A52 is a simple priority junction with standards-compliant lateral visibility splays for a 40mph speed limit, as measured from 2.4m back from the running edge of the carriageway. Blakely Lane leads from the A52 through to Eaves Lane.


3.2.11 The original alignment of Blakely Lane turns to the southwest towards the Moneystone Quarry site just beyond Oldfield Farm, becoming overgrown with weeds and in relatively poor condition. This section of the lane has been little used by vehicular traffic (except for access to farm fields) for a number of years, since the quarry cut through the original alignment.

3.2.12 The metalled road surface of this section of Blakeley Lane is of circa 3.5m width, with the road forming part of the public adopted highway to a width that varies between circa 6m and 10m. This section of Blakely Lane terminates in woodland at the northeast edge of the Moneystone Quarry site boundary, although the physical remains of the former road continues on through the woods almost along the physical quarry edge.

3.2.13 A public footpath right of way follows the alignment of Blakely Lane, turning to run parallel to the edge of the quarry site alongside the adjoining woodland. A new public footpath right of way has recently been created running around the edge of the quarry site, connecting in to the former alignment of Blakely Lane at this point.

Eaves Lane – Carr Bank

3.2.14 Eaves Lane commences at the existing Moneystone Quarry site entrance and leads south to Oakamoor village via Carr Bank. The existing junction to the quarry is a wide simple priority layout that has clearly been designed to accommodate the significant number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) that have historically used this access.

3.2.15 Carr Bank forms the continuation of Eaves Lane through to Oakamoor village, being relatively steep in gradient (warning signs notify drivers of gradients of up to 1 in 5) and narrow in width at circa little more than 4.5m wide. The total width of highway land along this link varies, being up to circa 10m in width and is lined with trees/hedges. Public footpaths running across the adjacent fields connect in to the public highway along its length at various locations.

3.2.16 Eaves Lane and Carr Bank are subject to the National speed limit, with a weight restriction of ‘no more than 7.5 tonnes except for access’ applicable (i.e. heavy commercial vehicles are restricted from travelling through to Eaves Lane via this route). The last 200m of Carr Bank through Oakamoor is subject to a 30mph speed limit.

3.2.17 The junction of Carr Bank with the A5417 in Oakamoor is a simple priority junction with adequate lateral visibility splays for the 30mph speed limit in force.

A5417 through Oakamoor

3.2.18 The A5417 through Oakamoor is subject to a 30mph speed limit and connects to the A521 in Cheadle to the west and the A52 to the east. The highway is a standard all-purpose road carrying mixed traffic with some direct frontage access, side roads, bus stops and potential for some at-grade pedestrian crossing activity, especially in Oakamoor village itself.

A5417 to Alton Towers

3.2.19 The A5417 also provides a signed route through Oakamoor village via Beelow Lane and Farley to Alton Towers. Alton Towers is a major tourist attraction that brings circa 2.8 million annual visitors to the local area, concentrated during the summer months. In 2010 and 2011 the theme park was open daily from late March through to early November with first admission typically at 9.30am and rides opening at 10am. The peak month of visitors to Alton Towers is during the school summer holidays in August.


3.2.20 Closing times vary throughout the season, with closure typically between 5pm and 7pm. Other attractions at the site are open throughout the year, including the hotels, spa, Water Park, ‘extraordinary golf’ and other minor attractions.

3.2.21 Traffic flows to and from Alton Towers are a significant factor in defining the characteristics of the local highway network and are therefore considered by this TA as part of the baseline planning conditions.

3.3 Pedestrian Accessibility and Infrastructure Aud it

3.3.1 The impact of the proposed development on the existing highway infrastructure can be considered in relation to changes in the following existing conditions described in this section:

• Journey Destinations;

• Journey Length;

• Journey Amenity; and

• Journey Severance.

3.3.2 The distance people are willing or able to walk to access services depends on the nature of the trip and the traveller (e.g. an elderly person carrying shopping is neither willing nor able to travel as far as a younger person walking to work).

3.3.3 The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) ‘Guidance for Providing for Journeys on Foot’ document establishes that local services should ideally be situated within 400m, 800m or 1,200m walk catchment areas, which represent desirable, acceptable and preferred maximum walking distances respectively.

3.3.4 In terms of commuting to work, the CIHT guidance also suggests that an acceptable commuting walk distance is 1,000m with the preferred maximum distance being 2,000m.

3.3.5 The CIHT guidance document ‘Planning for Public Transport in Developments’ (1999) similarly identifies that ‘people have been found to be willing to walk about twice as far to or from a station than a bus stop; up to about 800m for rail compared to about 400m for bus.

3.3.6 It therefore advises that new developments should be located so that public transport trips involve a walking distance of less than 400m from the nearest bus stop or 800m from the nearest railway station. However, the guidance also advises that it is better to provide public transport routes and connecting walks that are simple and direct rather than slavishly following limits on walking distances to bus stops.

Pedestrian Trip Demand and Journey Type

3.3.7 The Application Site extends over some considerable area; therefore in order to derive a catchment area that falls within the thresholds suggested by CIHT guidance described previously, a representative central point within the Application Site has been chosen from which to consider the walk catchment of the development area.

3.3.8 Plan 10 shows the 1km and 2km walk catchment areas from the centre of the Application Site. Actual walk distances and times from each individual location within the Application Site will clearly vary, so these areas are indicated for comparison against the CIHT guidance described above.


3.3.9 Plan 10 illustrates that the edge of the site is relatively close to the nearest bus stops; however, the centre of the site is somewhat remote from existing public transport links. The local bus services through Whiston and Oakamoor are described later in this TA.

Pedestrian Infrastructure Requirements

3.3.10 The quality of a pedestrian route is just as important as distance in influencing the desirability of walking as a mode of travel. The CIHT ‘Guidance for Providing for Journeys on Foot’ establishes a methodology for assessing the walking environment, which identifies five key assessment criteria: i.e. that the desirable walking routes should be:

• Connected, Comfortable, Convenient, Convivial and Conspicuous.

3.3.11 The guidance goes onto state that a review of key pedestrian routes is likely to be helpful as part of a major redevelopment. In addition it lists a set of criteria which can be used to subjectively assess routes to principal key land uses such as education, health and transport. It should however be note that the Moneystone Park site is a proposed as a leisure development aimed at visitors that do wish to walk and cycle and therefore standard CIHT distances are not likely to apply to visitors of the park.

3.3.12 A subjective audit is by its very nature open to interpretation based on the auditors own principals and standards.

3.3.13 The assessment approach is described further in Table 1 .

Table 1: Pedestrian Review Criteria – Assessing Exi sting Conditions

Issue Question Criteria

Directness How direct are the principal pedestrian routes between significant journey origins and destinations?

Walking distances relative to direct distances

ComprehensivenessDo pedestrian routes serve all significant destinations?

Key locations served and those not served

Width Are routes wide enough to enable pedestrians to proceed and to pass others comfortably?

Usable footway width. Pedestrian flow/density

Obstructions /misuse

Are there problems of pavement parking, pavement cycling, illegal signs, mini-motor use, or other obstructions?

Classify as negligible slight/regular/serious

Surfaces Are surfaces firm, even, non-slip, clean and well drained?

Footway maintenance survey data. Frequency of inspection and sweeping

Crossings Are footways linked by safe and convenient crossings?

Locations of known desire lines where crossing is slow or hazardous

Personal Security Are pedestrian routes well lit, within view and otherwise safe in terms of personal security?

Streets with lighting below standard. Footways not overlooked. Presence of vandalism or graffiti.


Pleasant Are levels of traffic noise and fumes excessive? Is the immediate environment attractive for pedestrians?

Traffic flows and speeds

Signing Are street names and destinations clearly signed? Are local map boards provided? Identify any missing or damaged

Suitability Are the different needs and abilities of users provided for? Dropped crossings, tactile paving etc.

3.3.14 Given that the existing site essentially contains no suitable existing pedestrian infrastructure, the criteria noted in Table 1 would be applied through the design process and incorporated into reserved matters submissions.

Pedestrian Route Severance

3.3.15 Severance may be classified according to the following four broad levels.

• None - Little or no hindrance to pedestrian movement;

• Slight - All people wishing to make pedestrian movements will be able to do so, but there will probably be some hindrance to movement;

• Moderate - Some people, particularly children and elderly people, are likely to be dissuaded from making journeys on foot. For others, pedestrian journeys will be longer or less attractive; and

• Severe - People are likely to be deterred from making pedestrian journeys to an extent sufficient to induce a reorganisation of their activities.

3.3.16 The existing character of the Application Site creates significant severance to pedestrian trips as the existing topography of the quarry itself presents a significant barrier to pedestrians.

Rights of Way Improvement Plan for Staffordshire

3.3.17 The document titled “Rights of Way Improvement Plan for Staffordshire” (ROWIP), which was produced by SCC, establishes a framework for managing the rights of way network over the next 10 years and sets out SCC priorities for improving ROW to the meet the needs of today’s users.

3.3.18 SCC’s review of public rights of way is illustrated in Insert 2 . Related extracts from the ROWIP for Staffordshire are presented as extracts in Insert 3 through to Insert 5 .


Insert 2: Public Rights of Way (Source: SCC)


Insert 3: Rights of Way Improvement Plan Area (Sour ce: ROWIP of SCC)

Site


Insert 4: Strategic Pedestrian Routes and Demand (R OWIP of SCC)

3.3.19 As well as the more strategically significant routes, there is also an extensive range of well established locally promoted walks provided by local authorities. The County Council supports the establishment of these routes through the Community Paths Initiative.


Insert 5: Locally Promoted Routes and Demand (ROWIP of SCC)

Site


3.4 Cycle Accessibility and Infrastructure Audit

3.4.1 The CIHT guidance “Cycle Friendly Infrastructure for Planning and Design” states that three quarters of journeys by all modes are less than five miles (8km) and that this distance can be cycled comfortably by a fit person. It is concluded therefore that 8km represents a maximum realistic range for cycling trips.

3.4.2 Plan 11 illustrates the areas within 3,000m and 5,000m cycle distances of the Application Site, whilst Insert 6 illustrates the site location in context with strategic cycling routes and anticipated demand.

Insert 6 Strategic Cycling Routes and Demand (ROWIP of SCC)


3.5 Equestrian Accessibility and Infrastructure Aud it

3.5.1 Insert 7 illustrates the site location in context with strategic equestrian routes and anticipated demand.

Insert 7: Strategic Equestrian Routes and Demand (R OWIP of SCC)

Site


3.6 Public Transport Accessibility and Infrastructu re Audit

Bus Services

3.6.1 There are two services accessible from bus stops in either Oakamoor or Whiston. These services are summarised in Table 2 and provide links to major local conurbations such as Stoke-on-Trent as well as the nearby Alton Towers leisure park.

Table 2: Summary of Existing Bus Services in the Vi cinity of the Site

Frequency (Buses per Day) in Each Direction

Bus Service

No Route Description Access

Point Distance from Site

(edge/hub)

Weekdays Saturday Sunday

Daily Daily Daily

31 Hanley - Meir - Cheadle - Ipstones - Leek Whiston 1.5km 3/4 3/4 No Service

32A Uttoxeter-Alton-Towers-Hanley Oakamoor 1.5km 6 6 2

3.6.2 Bus services in the vicinity of the Application Site could reasonably cater for commuting to work trips and some leisure trips. However, the key to successful integration of the site into the public transport network will be to connect services to the site hub, which acts as the main point of arrival and departure for the site.

3.6.3 Alton Towers has confirmed that they would operate a bus service between the site and the leisure park for lodge residents wishing to visit Alton Towers for the day.

3.7 Conclusion

3.7.1 In conclusion, it is considered that the Application Site is accessible by a range of alternative modes of transport to the private car, subject to measures to improve the connection of the site to those transport links.

3.7.2 In particular the site is exceptionally well located in context with the public rights of way network comprising footpaths, cycle routes and equestrian routes, along with the anticipated demand for use of those routes identified by the Rights of Way Improvement Plan for Staffordshire.

3.7.3 Additionally, the site is well located with respect to the nearby Alton Towers leisure theme park and associated tourism facilities, which further enhances the connectivity and relationship of the proposals to the local tourism industry.

3.7.4 The above features combine to provide an opportunity to create sustainable linkages to nearby destinations and facilities.


4 TRANSPORTATION RELATED POLICIES & GUIDANCE

4.1 Background

4.1.1 This section sets out relevant national and local transportation related policies against which the proposed development should be assessed, comprising the following documents identified through the scoping process for the planning application:

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

• Staffordshire Local Transport Plan 2011

• Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy (March 2014); and

• Churnet Valley Masterplan – Supplementary Planning Document (March 2014).

4.1.2 The requirements of each of these policy documents are identified in turn within this section.

4.2 National Planning Policy Framework

4.2.1 The Department for Communities and Local Government published its National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27th March 2012.

4.2.2 The NPPF incorporates sustainable transport policy as a key plan for achieving sustainable development. At the heart of the NPPF is a:

‘…presumption in favour of sustainable development…’ (paragraph 14)

4.2.3 The NPPF states at paragraph 15 that policies in Local Plans should follow the approach of the presumption in favour of sustainable development so that it is clear that development which is sustainable can be approved without delay. All plans should be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development, with clear policies that will guide how the presumption should be applied locally.

4.2.4 Local authorities will be required to grant permission, using the NPPF as guidance, where the Local Plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date. Local Plans will therefore need to be prepared to take into account the content of NPPF.

4.2.5 With regards to the integration of transport and land-use planning the overarching principle is that planning should (see paragraph 17 of the NPPF):

‘actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable”

4.2.6 In terms of promoting sustainable transport, the NPPF states at paragraph 29 that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objective.

4.2.7 At paragraph 32 the NPPF confirms that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:


• the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

• safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

• improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.

4.2.8 NPPF confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual impacts of development are severe.

4.2.9 The NPPF goes on to state at paragraph 35 that Local Plans 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.

4.2.10 In respect of car parking provision NPPF states at paragraph 39 that if setting local parking standards for residential and non-residential development, Local Planning Authorities should take into account the following:

• 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.

4.3 Staffordshire Local Transport Plan 2011

4.3.1 The Staffordshire Local Transport Plan (LTP) from April 2011 is the third LTP to be published for the County. It sets out the County Council’s proposals for transport provision in the County, including walking, cycling, public transport, car based travel and freight, together with the management and maintenance of local roads and footways.

4.3.2 The LTP identifies seven countywide objectives, around which the policies within the LTP are based. The seven objectives are:

• Supporting growth and regeneration;

• Maintaining the highway network;

• Making transport easier to use and places easier to get to;


• Improving safety and security;

• Reducing road transport emissions and their effects on the highway network;

• Improving health and quality of life; and

• Respecting the environment.

4.3.3 Some of the policies that have been developed in pursuit of the above objectives, which are relevant to the proposed development, are summarised in the remainder of this section.

Policy 1.1: “We will stimulate regeneration and sup port areas of deprivation”

4.3.4 The aims of Policy 1.1 will be supported by new development that includes or is located in areas with good transport links and well connected to walking and cycling links and facilities, and where the demands of ‘place’ and ‘movement’ are considered together.

Policy 1.3: “We will facilitate sustainable access (including public transport, walking and cycling) to tourist attractions”

4.3.5 The aims of Policy 1.3 will be supported by:

• Managing visitor traffic to tourist attractions;

• Influencing visitors’ travel choices and travel behaviour; and

• Developing a Travel Plan to increase the proportion of visitors and employees travelling by ‘smarter’ travel modes.

Policy 1.4: “We will maximise the reliable operatio n of the existing road network”

4.3.6 Among other measures, the aims of Policy 1.4 will be supported by “promoting the delivery and further development of travel plans.”

Policy 3.1: “We will support the adoption of sustai nable land-use planning polices and reduce the impact of development where it negativel y affects the highway network”

4.3.7 Among other measures, the aims of Policy 3.1 will be supported by:

• design and layout of new development that maximises access by smarter travel modes;

• planning obligations which secure highway capacity improvements, pedestrian and cycling facilities, new or improved bus services, demand management measures, public realm enhancements, and travel plans; and

• ensuring that travel plans, when required to support new development, include modal shift targets, annual performance monitoring, remedies and enforcement obligations.

Policy 3.2: “We will help to improve bus services”

4.3.8 Among other measures, the aims of Policy 3.2 will support measures that enable good accessibility to public transport from new developments and, where appropriate, secure funding from developers towards the associated costs.


Policy 4.4: “We will adopt measures designed to red uce crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour on the highway network”

4.3.9 Among other measures, the aims of Policy 4.4 will be supported by working to incorporate safety and security measures into the design and layout of new developments.

Policy 5.1: “We will promote alternatives to privat e motor vehicles”

4.3.10 Among other measures, the aims of Policy 5.1 will be supported by:

• developing and implementing an appropriate Travel Plan, as a way of managing travel to and from work in a sustainable way;

• development patterns and land use mixes that reduce the need to travel and enable the use of ‘smarter’ travel modes;

• new development that includes or is located in areas with good public transport links, well-connected to walking and cycling networks and facilities, and where the demands of ‘place’ and ‘movement’ are considered together;

• working to mitigate impacts of development in less sustainable locations, but which is essential to support regeneration and economic growth; and

• considering transport and access at an early stage in service design and delivery of new development.

Policy 6.1: “We will create a physical and cultural environment in which everyone feels confident to walk and cycle”

4.3.11 The aims of Policy 6.1 will be supported by meeting the aims and policies contained within the Staffordshire Cycling Strategy, the Staffordshire Walking Strategy and the Staffordshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

Policy 7.1: We will reduce emissions from road tran sport.

4.3.12 The aims of Policy 7.1 will be supported by promoting alternatives to the private car, in addition to promoting low emission vehicles and vehicle efficiency.

Policy 7.2: We will reduce the negative impact of ( road) traffic-related noise.

4.3.13 Among other measures, the aims of Policy 7.2 will be supported by working to minimise the impact of traffic generated by new development on noise levels.

4.4 Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy (March 20 14)

4.4.1 The Core Strategy is the key LDF document for the District. This document is a strategic District wide plan which influences how and where Staffordshire Moorlands will develop in the future. It sets out what the District Council would like to achieve in each of the main towns and the rural areas outside the Peak District National Park.

4.4.2 The Core Strategy will supersede the saved policies from the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (which are listed in Appendix H of the adopted Core Strategy). The development boundaries and Green Belt boundaries within the Local Plan are still in force until such time as they are reviewed as part of the Site Allocations work currently being undertaken.


4.4.3 Reducing the need to travel, and specifically reducing the reliance on the car (reducing vehicular emissions) is a well-established planning principle stemming from concerns relating to climate change. This principle is also aimed at addressing social equity by ensuring accessibility to all sections of society. The Staffordshire Local Transport Plan is the principal means of addressing transport issues in the District, and the proposed policy approach seeks to ensure that proposals in the LDF are helping deliver the objectives of the Local Transport Plan.

4.4.4 It is considered that there is potential to affect modal shift away from the car in Staffordshire Moorlands in two respects - by targeting public transport improvements along the main ‘work corridors’ connecting the Moorlands with the conurbation; and by promoting public transport schemes within rural areas and between rural areas and towns.

4.4.5 Policy T1 – Development and Sustainable Transport states that “The Council will promote and support development which reduces reliance on the private car for travel journeys, reduces the need to travel generally and helps deliver the priorities of the Staffordshire Local Transport Plans, where this is consistent with other policies.

• Ensuring that all new development is located where the highway network can satisfactorily accommodate traffic generated by the development or can be improved as part of the development.

• Ensuring that major development is located in areas that are accessible by sustainable travel modes or can be made accessible as part of the proposal.

• Referring to appropriate parking standards as laid out in national guidance, or any parking standards that may be produced locally.

• Where appropriate all new development shall facilitate walking and cycling within neighbourhoods and town centres, and link with or extend identified walking or cycling routes.”

4.4.6 Policy T2 – Other Sustainable Transport Measures states that “the Council will encourage and support measures which promote better accessibility, create safer roads, reduce the impact of traffic, or facilitate highway improvements”. In relation to the development proposals the policy states:

• “Continue to safeguard all existing disused railway lines within the District and support the reuse of these for public or commercial/tourism use. To this end the Council will refuse any development which would impede or truncate these routes. However proposals for recreational routes, cycleways, bridleways etc will generally be acceptable.

• Work with its partners to promote the improvement/expansion of existing bus services and the provision of innovative sustainable transport services in the District, particularly those serving rural areas;

• Support and promote the development of a network of safe walking, horse riding and cycling routes (including the National Cycle Network), connecting to transport interchanges, linking communities and recreational/tourist areas.”


4.5 Churnet Valley Masterplan – Supplementary Plann ing Document

4.5.1 Eight local character areas have been identified in Churnet Valley Masterplan (CVM), which was adopted in March 2014, that reflect the distinctiveness of areas within the Churnet Valley and the role these individual character areas will play in achieving the vision. Moneystone (Kingsley Holt, Oakamoor) is one of eight local character areas.

4.5.2 In the Concept Statement for the Moneystone Quarry opportunity site, CVM states:

“Quarrying activity recently ceased at Moneystone Quarry. Condition 35 of the quarry permission (planning permission ref: SM.96/935) requires the restoration of the site within 2 years from the completion of working and for the management and aftercare of the restored site for a period of five years from the completion of its restoration. The new owners, Laver Leisure, submitted amendments to the approved Restoration Plan. Laver Leisure withdrew their submission in January 2014 and replaced it with a Revised Restoration Plan. This was approved by Staffordshire County Council on the 13 March 2014.

The site represents an opportunity to create a high quality leisure venue to complement other recreational and leisure attractions and enhance the area but needs to be of a scale which does not undermine the tranquillity and character of this sensitivity part of the Churnet Valley and other business.”

4.5.3 In the Development Strategy for the Moneystone Quarry opportunity site, CVM states that new leisure development should be based on around restoration of the quarry. Appropriate uses includes:

• Holiday accommodation – low impact holiday lodges in Zones 1 and 2. Limited development in Zones 4 and 5, maximum of 250 holiday lodges in total.

4.5.4 The proposed development is fully in accordance with the scale of development stated in the adopted CVM.

4.5.5 In terms of accessibility and connectivity of Moneystone Quarry opportunity site, CVM states that any development needs to:

• “Utilise the opportunities the site affords for outdoor recreational activities such as cycling, walking and horse riding and water based activities;

• Ensure development does not generate unacceptable volumes of traffic on existing road network and that major highway works are avoided;

• Incorporate measures to create off road links to be used by cyclists, walkers and horse riders to reach other attractions.

• Appropriately address any significant demand for travel generated by development through complementary highway improvements of access routes;

• Promote the use of sustainable modes of transport to reach the site and once at the site to explore the surrounding area;

• Ensure that necessary road improvements associated with the expansion of the facility should be in-keeping with the character of the area and avoid creating intrusive features. Roads within the site should be of a scale and nature that are not intrusive to the landscape character and should minimise hedgerow and tree removal;


• Incorporate measures to dissuade visitors from driving to other attractions; and

• Ensure highway/junction improvements to support development subject to minimising environmental impact.”

4.5.6 Concerning Sustainable Transport, CVM states:

“All proposals should aim to support more sustainable means of transport within and into the Churnet Valley and seek to change visitor perceptions of how they can travel around the Churnet Valley by increasing transport choices for those wishing to visit attractions and facilities and, where appropriate, providing facilities to enable visitors to park up and travel from key points by more sustainable travel means, and through measures to manage access and movement and encourage off-site exploration by non-motorised means.”


5 TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS

5.1 Development Scenarios

5.1.1 It was agreed with SCC that the following 2 off-site junctions on the local highway network would be considered in terms of capacity impact:

• A52 / Whiston Eaves Lane priority junction (existing layout refer to Plan 9 ); and

• B5417 / Carr Bank (Oakamoor) priority junction.

5.1.2 It is understand that the construction phase of the development could take between 3 to 5 years. In order to provide a robust assessment, a 3 year construction period has been allowed for; i.e. 2017-2019.

5.1.3 The assessment year of the proposed leisure development on Moneysstone Quarry site would be the opening year (2020) and 5 years after opening year (i.e. 2025).

5.2 Assessment Time Periods

5.2.1 A transport analysis has been undertaken of trip generation, trip distribution, trip type, modal split and likely route choices (traffic assignment) for the following forecast time periods:

1. the average and August peak weekday morning and evening peak hours (08:00hrs-09:00hrs) and (17:00hrs-18:00hrs) that are representative of typical peak hour operating conditions;

2. the typical average and August weekend peak hour conditions (Saturday 08:00hrs or 09:00hrs and 17:00hrs-18:00hrs); and

3. the annual average daily 24-hour (00:00hrs -24:00hrs) period, relating to highway safety assessments and to inform the Environmental Statement local air quality assessments.

5.2.2 The consideration of the development traffic impact on the local highway network covers the peak periods of traffic demand relevant to the combination of development and background traffic.

5.2.3 Where a worst-case traffic impact is found to have an acceptable impact on highway operational capacity, lesser impacts need not be considered in further detail.

5.3 Baseline Data

5.3.1 For the previous 2014 TA for this site, it was agreed with SCC that the 2010 and 2011 surveys used in the 2012 Transport Assessment would still be acceptable to be used for the purpose of deriving the baseline traffic flows for the assessment years. In order to provide an assessment based on current baseline traffic flows, the same traffic surveys that were undertaken in 2010 have been carried again out in May 2016.

5.3.2 Manual Classified Count (MCC) surveys were carried out at the A52 /Whiston Eaves Lane junction and at the B5417/Car Bank Lane junction and Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) surveys were carried out at seven different locations in the vicinity of the site. Plan 12 shows the location and type of surveys.


5.3.3 The ATC classified link volume and speed traffic surveys were carried out from Wednesday 18 to Tuesday 24 May 2016. The Manual Classified Count surveys were carried out on Thursday 19 May and Saturday 21 May 2016 to cover a weekday and a Saturday. The Thursday survey was carried out from 07:30hrs – 09:30hrs to cover the weekday morning peak period and from 16:00hrs – 18:00hrs to cover the evening peak period. The Saturday surveys were undertaken between 09:00 – 12:00 to cover the Saturday peak period. The results of the surveys are provided in Appendix B .

5.3.4 Further to an interrogation of the surveys, it has been identified that the highway network weekday morning peak hour occurred between 08:30hrs – 09:30hrs, the weekday evening peak hour occurred between 16:45hrs - 17:45hrs and the Saturday peak hour occurred between 09:45hrs - 10:45hrs. Figures 1 to 3 shows the highway network traffic flows for a weekday morning and evening peak hour and Saturday peak hour respectively.

5.3.5 It is acknowledged that the May 2016 survey data represents relatively stable traffic conditions in a neutral month, i.e. a month that may be taken as representative of typical conditions throughout the year. It is acceptable however, that Alton Towers, a major leisure development located to the south of the site attracts significantly more traffic in the summer months during school holidays compared with the neutral month of May.

5.3.6 In order to calculate a suitable factor to apply to the neutral May surveys, selected May 2016 surveyed ATC Links have been compared with the same Links surveyed in August 2011 (included within the 2014 TA). The following links have been compared:

• Link 1 – A52, west of Whiston Eaves Lane;

• Link 2 – A52, east of Whiston Eaves Lane;

• Link 5 – Eaves Lane, south of Blakely Lane;

• Link 6 – B5417, west of Carr Bank; and

• Link 7 – Carr Bank, north of junction with A5417.

5.3.7 A comparison of the surveyed Links is summarised in Table 3 .

Table 3: Baseline Traffic Flow Data Variation

Link/Year 1 2 5 6 7

August 2011 Traffic Flows 2,502 2,303 257 3,313 813

May 2016 Traffic Flows 1,974 1,707 181 2,719 650

Factor 1.27 1.35 1.42 1.25 1.22

5.3.8 As it can be seen from Table 3 , the August 2011 surveyed traffic flows were higher in comparison with all Links surveyed in May 2016, ranging from a factor of 1.22 to 1.42. In order to provide a robust assessment to reflect the peak August holiday season, the May 2016 surveyed traffic flows have therefore been increased by a factor of 1.5.

5.3.9 The factored weekday morning and evening peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic flows are shown in Figures 4 to 6.


5.4 Future Background Traffic Growth

5.4.1 As previously agreed with the SCC, TEMPRO growth rates adjusted by NTM have been used to derive the growthed surveyed flows for the assessment years. The resulting derived background traffic growth rates from a base year of 2016 forwards to 2020 and 2025 for roads within the rural Staffordshire Moorlands geographic area are summarised below, using the TEMPRO 6.2 and NTM AF09 datasets:

TEMPRO Growth Factors Adjusted by NTM (2020 Assessm ent Year)

Principal roads Growth Period Time Period TEMPRO Growth Factors adjusted by NTM

2016-2020

Weekday AM Peak period (0700-0959) 1.0426

Weekday PM Peak period (1600-1859) 1.0433

Saturday (all times of the day) 1.0421

Minor roads Growth Period Time Period TEMPRO Growth Factors adjusted by NTM

2016-2020




TEMPRO Growth Factors Adjusted by NTM (2025 Assessm ent Year)

Principal roads Growth Period Time Period TEMPRO Growth Factors adjusted by NTM

2016-2025




Minor roads Growth Period Time Period TEMPRO Growth Factors adjusted by NTM

2016-2025




5.4.2 The above traffic growth rates have been applied to the 2016 factored traffic flows (Figures 4 to 6) to derive a reference case for the future years (2020 and 2025) traffic conditions. The reference case takes into account the latest planning data used by TEMPRO, which consists of demographic forecasts from national data sources of population, households and employment.

5.4.3 The 2020 and 2025 weekday and Saturday peak hour traffic flows are shown in Figures 7 to 12 respectively.


5.5 Committed Development

5.5.1 It is understood that there are no current planning applications that have been decided, but not built, should be taken account of in this assessment.

5.5.2 In order to provide a robust assessment however, the Bolton Copperwork site in Froghall has been taken account of as a committed development. The Bolton Copperworks site is located approximately 1.2km west of Whiston and is accessed directly from the A52. The Churnet Valley Masterplan identifies the Bolton Copperworks site for creation of a Rural Centre comprising of mixed use development.

5.5.3 The Bolton Copperworks site was subject to an EIA scoping request in October 2014. Although no planning application has been submitted for the site at this stage, it is envisaged that the maximum quantum of development could comprise based on the masterplan areas shown in the submitted EIA scoping report:

• 215 residential dwellings;

• Employment park, circa 2,250sqm gross floor area;

• Visitor centre, circa 2,500sqm gross floor area;

• 50 bedroom hotel; and

• Outdoor activity centre.

5.5.4 The Trip Rate Information Computer (TRICS) database has been interrogated, to calculate the potential trip generation associated with a Rural Centre as described above, during a weekday morning and evening peak hour and Saturday peak hour.

Residential Development

5.5.5 The TRICS sites for the residential development have been selected in line with best practice guidelines from the TRICS Good Practice Guide 2013. The methodology used to derive appropriate trips is as follows:

• The ‘houses privately owned’ land use category was selected from the main menu;

• Sites between 4 and 500 dwellings were included (actual range available was 92 to 104 dwellings);

• Due to the limited number of sites, all regions were selected;

• Due to the rural nature of the site, only locations “Free Standing” and “Not Known” were selected; and

• Due to the rural nature of the site, only location sub categories “Out of Town” and “No Sub Category” were selected.

5.5.6 The TRICS output is included as Appendix C and Table 4 provides a summary of the trip rates and trip generation associated with 215 houses during a weekday morning (08:30hrs to 09:30hrs) and evening (16:45hrs to 17:45hrs) peak hours and Saturday peak hour (09:45hrs to 10:45hrs).


Table 4: Residential Trip Generation

Period Arrivals Departures

Total Trips Trip Rate Trips Trip Rate Trips

Weekday AM 0.147 32 0.3465 74 106

Weekday PM 0.459 99 0.2403 52 150

Saturday 0.1763 38 0.2815 61 98

Employment Park

5.5.7 The TRICS sites for the employment park have been derived as follows:

• The ‘business park’ land use category was selected from the main menu;

• Sites between 975 to 5,000sqm gross floor area were included (actual range available was 1,574 to 4,326sqm);

• Due to the limited number of sites, all regions were selected; and

• Due to the rural nature of the site, only locations “Edge of Town” were selected.

5.5.8 The TRICS output is included as Appendix C and Table 5 provides a summary of the trip rates and trip generation associated with a Business Park comprising a gross floor area of 2,250sqm during a weekday morning (08:30hrs to 09:30hrs) and evening (16:45hrs to 17:45hrs) peak hours. No trip generation has been calculated for the Business Park on a Saturday as this facility has been assumed to be open Monday to Friday only.

Table 5: Employment Park Trip Generation



Weekday AM 2.288 51 0.415 9 61

Weekday PM 0.262 6 1.6905 38 44

Visitor Centre

5.5.9 The TRICS database does not include sites for Visitor Centres. For the purposes of this assessment, the trip generation for a retail park, excluding food, has therefore been calculated.

5.5.10 TRICS sites for retail parks have been selected in line with best practice guidelines from the TRICS Good Practice Guide 2013. The methodology used to derive appropriate trips is as follows:

• The ‘retail park’, excluding food land use category was selected from the main menu;

• Sites with 2,057 to 5,000sqm gross floor area were included;



• Due to the rural nature of the site, only location “Free Standing” was selected.

5.5.11 The TRICS output is included as Appendix C and Table 6 provides a summary of the trip rates and trip generation associated with a Visitor Centre comprising a gross floor area of 2,500sqm during a weekday morning (08:30hrs to 09:30hrs) and evening (16:45hrs to 17:45hrs) peak hours and Saturday peak hour (09:45hrs to 10:45hrs).

Table 6: Visitor Centre Trip Generation



Weekday AM 3.382 85 1.879 47 132

Weekday PM 2.139 53 2.384 60 113

Saturday 4.5813 115 2.912 73 187

Hotel

5.5.12 The TRICS sites for the hotel development have been selected in line with best practice guidelines from the TRICS Good Practice Guide 2013. The methodology used to derive appropriate trips is as follows:

• The ‘hotel’ land use category was selected from the main menu;

• Sites with 30 to 100 bedrooms were included (actual range available was 32 to 60 bedrooms);


• Due to the rural nature of the site, only location “Free Standing” was selected; and

• Due to the rural nature of the site, only location sub categories “Out of Town” and “No Sub Category” were selected.

5.5.13 The TRICS output is included as Appendix C and Table 7 provides a summary of the trip rates and trip generation associated with a 50 bedroom hotel during a weekday morning (08:30hrs to 09:30hrs) and evening (16:45hrs to 17:45hrs) peak hours and Saturday peak hour (09:45hrs to 10:45hrs).

Table 7: Hotel Trip Generation



Weekday AM 0.441 22 0.246 12 34

Weekday PM 0.4265 21 0.5205 26 47

Saturday 0.2438 12 0.2795 14 26


Outdoor Activity Centre

5.5.14 At this stage it is not known what the ‘Outdoor Activity Centre’ element of the Bolton Copperworks development might comprise of and there is no site in the TRICS database deemed suitable to provide trip rates for this type of land use. For the purposes of this assessment, the same trip generation calculated for Day Visitors to the proposed Moneystone Park site has therefore been applied to the Bolton Copperworks site to consider a worst case (trip generation associated with the proposed Moneystone Park site is detailed in Section 5.7 ).

5.5.15 Table 8 provides a summary of the trip generation associated with the Outdoor Activity Centre during a weekday morning (08:30hrs to 09:30hrs) and evening (16:45hrs to 17:45hrs) peak hours and Saturday peak hour (09:45hrs to 10:45hrs).

Table 8: Outdoor Activity Centre Trip Generation

Period Arrivals Departures Totals

Weekday AM 50 0 50

Weekday PM 0 50 50

Saturday 100 0 100

Bolton Copperworks Trip Generation

5.5.16 Table 9 provides a summary of the total trip generation associated with the Bolton Copperworks site during a weekday morning (0830 to 0930) and evening (1645 to 1745) peak hours and Saturday peak hour (0945 to 1045).

Table 9: Bolton Copperworks Trip Generation

Period Arrivals Departures Totals

Weekday AM 240 143 383

Weekday PM 179 225 405

Saturday 265 147 412

Trip Distribution

5.5.17 The Bolton Copperworks site would be accessed directly from the A52. It is also understood that any development traffic associated with the Bolton Copperworks site would be discouraged from using Whiston Eaves Lane to visit the site. On this basis the surveyed two-way traffic flow on the A52, west of the Whiston Eaves Lane junction, has been used to derive trip distribution to the proposed Bolton Copperworks site.

5.5.18 Figures 13 to 15 show the trip distribution on the A52 in the vicinity of the Whiston Eaves Lane junction during a weekday morning and evening peak hour and a Saturday peak hour respectively.

5.5.19 The trip generation summarised in Table 9 has been applied to the trip distribution shown in Figures 13 to 15 to derive the trip generation associated with the Bolton Copperworks site on the A52 in the vicinity of the junction with the Whiston Eaves Lane. Figures 16 to 18 shows the trip generation associated with the Bolton Copperworks site on the A52 during a weekday morning and evening peak hour and a Saturday peak hour respectively.


5.6 Base Traffic Flows

5.6.1 The Base Traffic Flows have been derived by adding the Bolton Copperworks site development traffic (Figures 16 to 18) to the 2020 and 2025 Background Traffic Flows (Figure 7 to 12). Figures 19 to 24 show the 2020 and 2025 Base Traffic Flows during a weekday morning and evening peak hour and Saturday peak hour respectively.

5.7 Proposed Moneystone Park Forecast Daily Trip Ge neration

5.7.1 The proposed Moneystone Park site would generate trips by Day Visitors, Lodge users and staff. Each type of trip has been calculated separately.

Daily Vehicle Generation by Day Visitors

5.7.2 Day visitors are those who travel to and from the proposed leisure park on the same day.

5.7.3 Vehicle trip generation by day visitors associated with the proposed Moneystone Park Leisure development has been provided by Christie & Co, and is the same as that derived for the 2014 TA. The calculation is based on assumptions supported by evidence of comparable parks elsewhere. The data from Christie & Co is included in Appendix D .

5.7.4 Insert 8 shows seasonal variation of vehicle generation by day visitors to the development site. This takes into account the fact that demand for the proposed leisure use of the site will vary seasonally, although the site would be operational all year round. The annual average level of demand is indicated as 100% in Insert 8 .

Insert 8: Seasonal Visitor Variation (% of Annual A verage)

5.7.5 Table 10 summarises daily vehicle trip generation of day visitors for the periods of:

• Annual average;

• August average;

• Busiest Weekday (is forecast in August); and

45%

72%

45%

125% 117% 122%

176%

231%

106%

83%

47%58%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

100%=Average Month

Vechicle No. Generated by Day-Visitors


• Busiest Weekend (is forecast on a Saturday or Sunday in August).

Table 10: Daily Vehicle Trip Generation of Day Visi tors

Period Daily Vehicle Generation (Day-Visitors)

Arrival Departure Two-way

Annual Average Day 56 56 112

August Average Day 129 129 257

Busiest Weekday (is forecast in August); 100 100 200

Busiest Weekend (is forecast on a Saturday or Sunday in August) 200 200 400

Daily Vehicle Trip Generation by Proposed 250 Lodge s

5.7.6 Vehicle Trip generation by the lodges associated with the proposed Moneystone Park Leisure development has been provided by Christie & Co (Appendix D ). It can be seen from Appendix D that the busiest weekend is forecast to be in August and the busiest weekday is forecast to be in May.

5.7.7 Table 11 summarises the daily vehicle trip generation associated with the proposed 250 lodges for the time period of:

• Busiest Weekday (in May); and

• Busiest Weekend (Saturday or Sunday in August).

Table 11: Daily Vehicle Trip Generation of Proposed 250 Lodges

Period Daily Vehicle Generation (250 Lodges)


Busiest Weekday (in May) 52 46 98

Busies Weekend (Saturday or Sunday in August) 139 139 278

Daily Vehicle Generation by Staff and Service

5.7.8 The forecast employment creation of the Moneystone proposals is around 375 jobs, with approximately 33% of these being full time (125 full time posts), with the remainder (i.e. 250 part time posts) as part-time/seasonal roles. The employee level would be stable through the year and would not fluctuate seasonally. It is envisaged that staff would be employed who are local to the development site and would be actively encouraged by means of the Travel Plan to travel by non-car modes. A key measure to ensure that employee travel by car would be kept to a minimum is proposing a limited number of parking spaces on site for employees.

5.7.9 Average daily vehicle trip generation on the site has been based on a proposed staff car parking provision of 67 spaces. On this basis, the maximum daily number will be 134 two-way employee vehicle trips accessing the site.

5.7.10 Service vehicle trip generation has been considered to be negligible and therefore is not included in the assessment.


Total Daily Vehicle Generation in Worst Scenario

5.7.11 In order to provide a robust assessment, the busiest daily weekday flows for day visitors, which occurs in August, have been combined with the busiest daily weekday flows for the lodges, which occurs in May. The weekend flows for the lodges and day visitors both occur in August. The busiest daily traffic generation that would during a weekday and weekend are summarised in Table 12 .

Table 12: Daily Total Vehicle Generation of Propose d Moneystone Park

Period Total Daily Vehicle Generation


Busiest Weekday (for day visitors in August and for Lodges in May)

Day-visitor 100 100 200

Lodge 52 46 98

Staff 67 67 134

subtotal 219 213 432

Busies Weekend (Saturday or Sunday in August)

Day-visitor 200 200 400

Lodge 139 139 278

Staff 67 67 134

subtotal 406 406 812

5.7.12 It can be seen from Table 12 that during the busiest weekday when the proposed leisure development would be fully operational the site would generate a maximum of 432 daily two-way flows and during the busiest weekend the site would generate 812 daily two-way flows.

5.7.13 In comparison with the 2014 TA, the current proposals would generate a slight increase in trip generation during the day. The increase is associated with increasing the staff parking provision from 36 parking spaces to 67 spaces. The number of staff parking spaces was increased to 67 spaces as part of the 2014 planning application further to discussions with SCC and this parking provision for staff has been retained for the resubmission application.

5.8 Forecast Peak Hour Trip Generation

5.8.1 Forecast peak hour trip generation has been derived based on the following:

• During the morning peak hour, the trip generation by the employee is 67 arrivals and for the evening peak hour is 67 departures, allowing for the maximum trip generation for employees to occur during peak hours;

• Christie & Co has advised that vehicle trips associated with the lodges are forecast to arrive at the site during the time period of 12:00-19:00 and to depart from the site during the time period of 09:00-14:00. For the purposed of this assessment the daily arrival and departures have been evenly split over the hours of arrival and departure respectively; and

• Vehicle trips associated with day-visitors is assumed to arrive at the site during the time period of 08:00-10:00 with evenly hourly flows; and to depart from the site during the time period of 17:00-19:00 with evenly hourly flows.


5.8.2 Table 13 summarises the trip generation associated with the development proposals during a weekday morning and evening peak hour and a Saturday peak hour.

Table 13: Peak Hour Total Vehicle Trip Generation o f Proposed Moneystone Park

Day Time

Period Direction Day Visitor Lodges Staff Total

Weekday 0830-0930 Arrivals 50 (=100/2) 0 67 117

Departures 0 7 (=46/7) 0 7

Weekday 1645-1745 Arrivals 0 7 (=52/7) 0 7

Departures 50 (=100/2) 0 67 117

Saturday 0945-1045 Arrivals 0 20 (=139/7) 67 167

Departures 100 (=200/2) 0 0 20

5.8.3 Additionally, in order to provide a very robust assessment, a contingency of 20% has been added to the trip generation for the purposes of this assessment. The resulting peak hour vehicle generation is summarised in Table 14 .

Table 14: Peak Hour Total Vehicle Trip Generation o f Proposed Moneystone Park (inc. 20% Contingency Trips)

Day Time

Period Direction Day-visitor Lodges Staff Total

Weekday 0830-0930 Arrivals 60 0 80 140

Departures 0 8 0 8

Weekday 1645-1745 Arrivals 0 8 0 8

Departures 60 0 80 140

Saturday 0945-1045 Arrivals 120 0 80 200

Departures 0 24 0 24

5.9 Trip Distribution & Traffic Assignment

5.9.1 As agreed with SCC, the trip distribution methodology in the 2014 TA has been relied upon for this assessment, but updated to reflect the current proposals. As part of the current proposals, the right turn out of the site would be physically prohibited by the introduction of a traffic island at the site access junction to prevent visitors and staff to travel south towards Carr Bank and Alton Towers. The revised trip distribution is summarised in Table 15 .


Table 15: Traffic Assignment

Location Route Arrivals Departures

Whiston A52 (E) 24.5% 37.6%

Whiston A52 (W) 61.5% 62.4%

Oakamoor B5417 (E) 13.2% 0

Oakamoor B5417 (W) 0.9% 0

Total 100% 100%

5.9.2 The trip distribution for the proposed development is shown on Figure 25 and the trip generation during a weekday morning, the evening peak hour and Saturday peak hour are shown on Figures 26 to 28 respectively.

5.10 Assessment Traffic Flows

5.10.1 The forecast total trip generation of the proposed development (as shown in Figures 26 , 27 and 28 for the weekday AM peak, weekday PM peak and Saturday peak hours respectively) have been added to Figures 19 to 24 to derive the 2020 and 2025 weekday AM peak, PM peak and Saturday peak hour ‘with’ development traffic flows respectively, which are shown in Figures 29 to 34.


6 HIGHWAY CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

6.1 Background

6.1.1 This section of the report quantifies the likely traffic impact of the development proposals on highway operational capacity during a busiest weekday morning and evening, and a busiest Saturday peak hour period. The calculation of traffic impact identifies the potential need for mitigation works and informs the design of any such works.

6.1.2 It should be noted that in undertaking traffic impact assessment it is only the busiest peak hours that have been assessed. For all other hours of the day, development traffic volumes will be lower, as will background network traffic flows.

6.1.3 The Transport Strategy aims to mitigate the transport impact of the development by focussing on highway safety and by promoting sustainable travel, in order to manage transport demand, rather than adopting a ‘predict and provide’ approach to highway capacity. This avoids creating an incentive for greater reliance on vehicular travel.

6.2 Scope of Assessment

6.2.1 The assessment has been undertaken in two stages. In the first stage, the Local Highway Network Study Area has been assessed to establish the areas where a material traffic impact may occur as a result of the development.

6.2.2 For consistency with the Environmental Statement, the following thresholds have been established to identify the significance of the development traffic:

Level Scale of Change

High > 10% net increase in traffic flows on Local Roads

> 10% net increase in traffic flows on Strategic Roads

Medium Between 5% and 10% net increase in traffic flows on Local Roads

Between 1% and 10% net increase in traffic flows on Strategic Roads

Low Between 1% and 5% net increase in traffic flows on Local Roads

Between 0.5% and 1% net increase in traffic flows on Strategic Roads

Negligible < 1% net increase in traffic flows on Local Roads

< 0.5% net increase in traffic flows on Strategic Roads

Beneficial Any decrease in traffic flows

6.2.3 It can been seen from Table 14 that the total vehicle flows generated by the proposed leisure park on a busiest weekend day peak hour (i.e. a Saturday in August) is significantly higher than the generated flows on a busiest weekday morning and evening peak hour.


6.2.4 Where the percentage impacts exceed the threshold of Low to Medium traffic impact (depending on the sensitivity of the junction to operational problems), then the junction needs to be assessed further to consider the highway operational capacity in detail. This is the second stage of assessment required to establish the forecast level of operational performance under the With-Development flow scenario.

6.2.5 This section of the report describes the assessment of traffic impact at the junctions which experience a material impact. This assessment of highway operational capacity can be broken down into two processes. In the first instance, an assessment is undertaken to determine the forecast “with development” traffic scenario for each junction, to establish whether or not the junctions will operate within their existing available capacity.

6.2.6 In brief, the assessment tests whether the junctions will operate adequately under the development scenario flows. If the junctions are capable of operating adequately, then the assessment need progress no further.

6.2.7 If on the other hand it is found that traffic congestion, safety or operational conditions go beyond acceptable limits, then a second stage of assessment needs to be undertaken. In such cases, the “without development” scenario were also tested under the 2020 Background traffic flows to establish whether the forecast future level of operation also transpires as a result of existing and future committed network issues, or solely as a result of the development proposals.

6.3 Scale of Traffic Impact

6.3.1 The traffic assignment onto the local highway network identifies the key location for highway capacity analysis as the access route from the A52 via Whiston Eaves Lane junction. The background traffic and development Saturday daily traffic flows are summarised in Table 16 , which include:

• 2016 surveyed flows factored by 1.5 to reflect an August peak holiday Saturday in 2016 (Figures 36 and 37). Traffic flows shown in Table 16 are the factored 2016 daily flows;

• 2020 Base Traffic Flows (Figure 38 shows daily the committed development traffic flows for the Bolton Copperworks site and Figure 39 shows the 2020 Base Traffic Flows);

• Daily trip generation traffic flows, including 20% contingency, for the proposed Moneystone Park site;

• 2020 Assessment Traffic Flows (Figure 40 ); and

• Figure 42 shows the Saturday daily percentage traffic impact.


Table 16: Two-Way Link Flow Changes

Link 2016 Factored

Surveyed Flows

2020 Base Traffic Flows

Moneystone Park

Traffic

2020 Assessment Traffic Flows

Development Traffic Impact

A52 (West of Eaves Lane) 2961 5656 604 6260 11%

A52 (East of Eaves Lane) 2561 5239 303 5541 6%

B5417 (West of Carr Bank) 4079 4263 4 4268 0%

B5417 (East of Carr Bank) 3879 4055 64 4119 2%

Whiston Eaves Lane / A52 893 934 906 1840 97%

Eaves Lane 272 284 68 352 24%

Carr Bank (in Oakamoor) 975 1019 68 1087 7%

Blakely Lane 71 74 0 74 0%

6.3.2 The traffic impacts for the total flow on each arm are classified for each junction in turn below, in relation to the thresholds identified previously for ‘Negligible ’, ‘Low ’, ‘Medium ’ and ‘High ’ traffic impact respectively.

Junction 1: A52 / Whiston Eaves Lane

6.3.3 The With-Development scenario results in a significant increase on the total flow at the junction, from Whiston Eaves Lane in particular in the opening year assessment scenario. The arms of the junction experience the following scale of traffic impact in 2020.

• Whiston Eaves Lane = 97% increase = a high increase; however, this is from a low baseline traffic flow.

• A52 West of Whiston Eaves Lane = 11% increase = a relatively high increase; however, this is from a relatively low baseline traffic flow for an A-class road.

• A52 East of Whiston Eaves Lane = 6% increase = a medium increase; although again this is from a relatively low baseline traffic flow for an A-class road.

Junction 2: B5417 / Carr Bank

6.3.4 The With-Development scenario results in a significant increase on the total inflow into the junction, from Whiston Eaves Lane in particular in the opening year assessment scenario. The arms of the junction experience the following scale of traffic impact in 2020.

• Carr Bank = 7% increase = a medium increase; however, this is from a very low baseline traffic flow.

• B5417 West of Carr Bank = 0% = a negligible change.

• B5417 East of Carr Bank = 2% = a negligible change.


Summary

6.3.5 The above thresholds of traffic impact indicate where the development may have a material traffic impact during the maximum Saturday peak hour period that requires the implementation of transport mitigation measures.

6.3.6 In this regard, the relevant transport planning policy and guidance overwhelmingly supports the implementation of sustainable travel measures through a Travel Plan Framework in the first instance.

6.3.7 Only where this strategy is deemed to be unsuccessful should physical highway capacity improvement be sought as a matter of last resort. For this reason, the highway operational capacity assessments presented in the following section first consider the mitigation to be delivered by the proposed Travel Plan Framework on the basis of the development traffic forecasts.

6.4 Highway Operational Capacity Assessment

Introduction

6.4.1 Highway operational capacity constraints are considered in relation to the capacity of the road junctions serving the site. As traffic dissipates across the wider highway network the level of impact experienced at any given location diminishes. Only those links and junctions experiencing a material traffic impact are considered.

Highway Link Capacity

6.4.2 The local highway network will experience a material traffic increase in traffic demands above the very low baseline levels during peak periods as a result of the development proposals.

6.4.3 DMRB Volume 5 Section 1 Part 3 TA 46/97 Annex D establishes Congestion Reference Flows for rural roads. The Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) of a link is an estimate of the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow at which the carriageway is likely to be ‘congested’ in the peak periods on an average day. For the purposes of calculating the CRF, ‘congestion’ is defined as the situation when the hourly traffic demand exceeds the maximum sustainable hourly throughput of the link.

6.4.4 This critical flow level can vary significantly from day to day and from site to site and must be considered as an average. The CRF is a measure of the performance of a road link between junctions. The effect of junctions must be considered separately.

6.4.5 The recommended flow ranges for rural roads are given as follows:

• Standard 7.3m Single Carriageways = up to 13,000 AADT

• Wide Single Carriageways = up to 21,000 AADT

6.4.6 The 2020 peak Saturday forecast with-development traffic flows on the A52 and Whiston Eaves Lane (Figure 40 ) compare to these link capacities as follows:

• Whiston Eaves Lane = 1,840 Saturday two-way daily traffic (i.e. operating with 85% spare link capacity)


• A52, west of Eaves Lane = 6,260 Saturday two-way daily traffic (i.e. operating with up to 70% spare link capacity); and

• A52, east of Eaves Lane = 5,541 Saturday two-way daily traffic (i.e. operating with up to 74% spare link capacity)

6.4.7 The above analysis confirms that highway link capacity is not a constraint on the proposed development.

Highway Junction Capacity

6.4.8 Appendix E provides the modelling output for the A52/Whiston Eaves Lane junction and the B5417/Carr Bank junction during a busiest weekday AM and PM peak hour, and a busiest Saturday peak hour. The output provides results for the operation of a junction, based on:

• the maximum ratio of flow to capacity;

• forecast traffic queues; and

• delay per vehicle.

6.4.9 These terms are used to illustrate the forecast level of operation of each junction.

6.4.10 A ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) of 1.00 or above, indicates a junction which will become overloaded above its absolute capacity during the period of assessment, i.e. during the peak hours.

6.4.11 The forecast queue lengths indicate where queue length may become problematic, e.g. if a queue was to stretch back to create a danger on the highway, or near a bend in the road etc. then this issue should also be assessed and considered.

6.4.12 The results are described for each junction in turn below within the local highway network study area.

Junction 1: A52 / Whiston Eaves Lane (Whiston)

6.4.13 The operational impact of the proposed development at Junction 1 is Low . The existing layout of the junction (Plan 9 ) has been assessed for both the Base and the With-Development scenarios. The proposed layout shown on Plan 8 has been assessed in the With-Development scenario only.

6.4.14 The analysis confirms that highway capacity of Junction 1 is not a constraint on the proposed development.

Junction 2: B5417 / Carr Bank (Oakamoor)

6.4.15 The operational impact of the proposed development at Junction 2 is Low . This is the case during both the peak periods of demand and hence, also at all other times, with all arms of the junction experiencing no material delays or traffic queues.

6.4.16 The analysis confirms that highway capacity of Junction 2 is not a constraint on the proposed development.


7 HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSESSMENT

7.1 Background

7.1.1 Road traffic accidents impose a range of impacts relating to either the numeric frequency with which Personal Injury Accidents (PIA) occur, or the number of casualties arising as a result of each PIA, including:

• medical and healthcare costs;

• lost economic output;

• pain, grief and suffering;

• material damage;

• police and fire service costs;

• insurance administration; and

• legal and court costs.

7.1.2 The frequency of PIA is therefore a key quantitative indicator along with the number and severity of casualties for the assessment of the highway safety implications of a development proposal. Three classifications of PIA are usually defined in PIA reporting, as follows:

• fatality = death within 30 days from causes arising out of the accident;

• serious injury = casualties who require hospital treatment and have lasting injuries, but who do not die within the recording period for a fatality; and

• slight injury = casualties whose injuries do not require hospital treatment, or, if they do, the effects of the injuries quickly subside.

7.1.3 Standard processes exist for forecasting the numbers of PIA and casualties and the accident reduction benefits arising from changes to the road network. Standard practice for highway safety assessment is provided by the methodology contained in the COBA Manual (DMRB Volume 13, Section 1).

7.2 Scope of Assessment

7.2.1 The DMRB technique uses a measure of the change in the number of accidents (with differing degrees of severity) per million vehicle-kms on different types of road. As the number of vehicle-kms on the network changes as a result of a development proposal, the number of PIA also alters. These changes can be used to forecast and assess the impact of proposed development on highway safety against the High traffic forecast provided by the methodology.

7.2.2 The analysis can also be validated against actual records of PIA that have occurred on the local highway network study area within a relevant time period, which is usually considered to be the most recent 36 to 60 month period.


7.2.3 An analysis of the frequency and severity of PIA on the local highway network surrounding the Application Site has been carried out in order to determine both the adequacy of the highway network to accommodate development traffic in safety terms, and to quantify the potential impact of the development on highway safety.

7.2.4 The PIA analysis identifies any areas that are often prone to incidents and enables future accident rates to be forecasted. Forecasted rates determine whether or not a given development compromises the safety of road users on the existing highway network and in turn can prompt the need for initiatives that mitigate any detrimental impacts.

7.2.5 The PIA analysis for the development has been undertaken in two main sections, PIA on links and PIA at junctions. The methodology follows the principles of the DMRB, Volume 13, Section 1(2004), which states that:

‘The extent of the safety issue considerations and accident analysis will depend on the scale of the proposed development and its location. The need to minimise conflicts between vehicles and other road user groups should be adequately addressed.’

7.2.6 The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows, counted as all vehicles rather than passenger car units (pcus), have been calculated from the sum of peak hour morning and evening traffic flows that are multiplied by a factor calculated from local automated traffic count data.

7.2.7 The Saturday two-way daily traffic has been calculated for 2016 factored traffic flows (Figure 36), 2020 Base traffic flows (Figure 39 ), and 2020 With-Development traffic flows (Figure 41 ). The traffic flows have been calculated for the links surrounding and in the vicinity of the Application Site.

7.2.8 The difference between the 2020 Base traffic flows and 2020 With-Development traffic flows determines whether PIA analysis is required. Links and junctions that will experience an increase in traffic greater than 1,000 vehicles AADT have been assessed, as the formulae detailed in the DMRB (2004) are only sensitive to flows that are greater than 1,000 AADT.

7.2.9 The impact of the proposals on the rate of accidents, which are commonly expressed in terms of PIA per million vehicle kilometres, can be considered in terms of the total exposure of visitors to the area to the risk of accidents. This measure is the most relevant because the exposure to the hazard of accidents increases in proportion to the total vehicle mileage travelled.

7.3 Baseline Data

7.3.1 For the 2014 TA, PIA data for the local highway network surrounding the Application Site was obtained from Staffordshire County Council for the latest five-year period in 2014, which was between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2014.

7.3.2 Plan 13 illustrates the locations of the recorded accidents and Appendix F provides the details of the accidents.

7.3.3 In total, eight accidents occurred on the local highway network surrounding the Application site; one on Eaves Lane, one on Blakeley Lane, two at the A52/Blakeley Lane junction, one on Carr Bank and one on Farley Road. Of the eight accidents, six resulted in slight injury and two resulted in a serious injury. Although it should be noted for the serious accidents, the contributory factors noted were “Impaired by alcohol” and “Travelling too fast for conditions”.


7.3.4 The Crashmap website has been interrogated (includes all PIAs occurring on all roads in Great Britain up to the end of 2014), has identified that no further accidents have occurred within the study area in 2014.

7.3.5 In terms of reviewing accidents on the local highway network a comparison has also been undertaken of the historical data with the predicted number of PIA which is calculated using the formulae contained in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Section 13 ‘The COBA Manual’ Part 2 ‘The Valuation of Costs and Benefits,’ DfT (May 2004).

7.4 Analysis Methodology

7.4.1 The DMRB Volume 13 sets out a predictive formula for estimating PIAs at various types of junctions. The accompanying text to the predictive formula notes that it is only sensitive to changes in Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows of 1,000 vehicles.

7.4.2 This threshold has therefore been applied in undertaking the highway safety impact assessments, with the changes in daily traffic flows. Assessment year daily traffic flows have been obtained by applying growth rates to the background traffic. The scale of change from the existing conditions arising on each link can be assessed in relation to the following thresholds:

Level Potential Impacts on Highway Safety

High Greater than +3,000 AADT change in traffic flows (All Vehicles)

Medium Greater than +1,000 AADT change in traffic flows (All Vehicles)

Low Less than +1,000 AADT change in traffic flows (All Vehicles)

7.4.3 Table 16 summarises the increase in traffic associated with the proposed development on the links surrounding and in the vicinity of the Application site for the 2020 opening year.

7.5 Development Impact and Conclusions

7.5.1 The additional traffic will result in additional PIA on the local highway network, as the total traffic flows increase. However, the analysis in Table 16 illustrates that no part of the Local Highway Network Study Area will experience medium two-way traffic flow changes of greater than 1,000 AADT in comparison to the Planning Baseline.

7.5.2 In comparison to the 2020 Base traffic flows, none of the links or junctions within the highway network study area will experience a change classified greater than a ‘Low ’ (i.e. less than 1,000 AADT) in the With-Development conditions.

7.5.3 Given that the links and junctions assessed have been found to have PIA records that are consistent with expectations, it is considered that the proposed additional development traffic is unlikely to exacerbate any existing highway safety problems.

7.5.4 It should however be noted, that although the existing A52/Whiston Eaves Lane junction could cater for the additional traffic demand in capacity terms, highway works are proposed at the junction to accommodate a right turn facility and increase the visibility splay to the west. The highway works are aimed at improving the existing sub-standard layout in highway safety terms.


8 CONSTRUCTION TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT

8.1 Background Information

8.1.1 The construction phase of the proposed development would generate a relatively small number of vehicle movements in comparison to the long-term operational traffic generated by the development. However, whilst only a temporary phase in the lifespan of a site, construction traffic includes the movement of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). Therefore, it is important that all potential traffic impacts, but particularly HGVs, be identified and measures implemented to manage their effects wherever practicable.

8.1.2 In estimating the number of construction-related vehicle movements, consideration must be given to the following vehicle trips:

• Workforce movements to/from the site;

• Deliveries made to the site;

• Removal of material from the site; and

• Trips made by associated trades.

8.1.3 The first principles approach is the best where the necessary information is available; the main benefit being the site-specific nature of the data generated. However, at outline application stage, the degree of certainty required for such calculations is frequently not available, as the construction methods and programme may not be finalised and contractors not appointed.

8.1.4 The construction activities at Moneystone Park are likely to take place over a period of 3 years and will involve certain activities taking place and structures being installed as part of the construction period, which will influence the number and type of vehicles used. The construction value of the proposed development is circa £18M.

8.1.5 Full construction logistics and the associated method statements are usually prepared by the main contractor as part of the detailed programming for the operation of the Application Site. This will encompass all activities including site security, staff, transport management, materials handling, transportation, plant, stores, deliveries etc. Of all these activities, the delivery of construction materials is usually the biggest, although the removal of demolition and other spoil will also be required. The construction activities taking place could include:

• Implementation of secure site fencing & temporary site facilities

• Disconnection of services, demolition of structures, breaking out foundations and ground slabs

• Archaeological/ecological surveys and investigation

• Excavation of foundations

• Piling and ground slab construction

• Structure erection and roof / wall cladding

• Installation of internal mechanical and electrical services


• Fitting out and facilities work

• External works and landscaping

8.1.6 The varieties of activities that will take place during construction require the use of a wide range of vehicle types. These may be identified and grouped according to their size:

• Cars/pick-up trucks/3.5-ton vans (Light Vehicles)

• 7.5-ton box van/panel vans (Light Goods Vehicles)

• Low loader and articulated trucks (Heavy Goods Vehicles)

• Ready mix concrete truck (Heavy Goods Vehicles)

• Mobile crane (Heavy / Special Vehicles)

• Skip lorry / 32-ton tipper trucks (Heavy Goods Vehicles)

8.1.7 The traffic flows generated from both development and construction will vary throughout the various phases of construction for the Application Site. The likely number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and construction staff movements associated with the overall construction phase of the development will be confirmed once a Contractor has been appointed. It is not anticipated that any spoil material will require import as part of the development as the material already on site will be utilised to create development platforms required.

8.2 Periods of Construction Activity

8.2.1 The peak traffic generation for a construction site generally occurs outside the traditional weekday morning and evening peak hours, frequently starting at 07:00 and finishing as late as 19:00. Specific site activities may spread trips across the construction site’s operating period.

8.2.2 The development will be constructed in phases, although the details of the phasing are not known at this stage. Nevertheless, the earlier stages will require greater use of HGVs for site clearance and bulk delivery of construction materials.

8.3 Forecast Construction Traffic Movements

8.3.1 In estimating the number of construction-related vehicle movements, consideration has been given to the following vehicle trips:

• Workforce movements to/from the site;

• Deliveries made to the site;

• Removal of material from the site; and

• Trips made by associated trades.

8.3.2 Construction programme managers will be able to calculate vehicle movements based upon the site construction programme, once this is known. Movement calculations require simple, but fundamental data which will have implications for the quantity and type of vehicle movements:

• materials (quantity and bulk);


• construction programme (construction process, timescale, phases and occupations); and

• site logistics (access, on-site storage capacity, load consolidation etc.).

8.3.3 From these, the nature and number of vehicles required can be calculated. Trips calculated will relate to optimised vehicle loadings; in reality consideration should be given to calculating trips based on an average 80 percent vehicle loading to reflect part loads, missed orders/deliveries etc, which will result in an increase in trips.

8.3.4 At the outline application stage, the degree of certainty required for such calculations is frequently not available as the construction methods and programme may not be finalised and contractors not appointed.

8.3.5 It is planned that the spoil would be kept on site throughout the construction process in order to minimize the off-site disposal and transport of waste. At this stage it is not proposed that any HGV movements associated with the spoil movement will be required.

8.3.6 A simple ‘Ready Reckoner’ was devised by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the 2003 report ‘Construction Site Transport. This provided a summary of indicators for construction site transport, using the M4I environmental performance indicator (www.m4i.org.uk) on transport as a starting point to construct two calculations, both of which relate to project value.

8.3.7 The calculations relate to the generation of vehicle movements to a site, per £100,000 project value. Factors considered include workforce movements, delivery of materials and plant to site and movement of waste off-site. This alternative methodology has been used to validate the first principle calculations obtained from considering the likely bulk material transport requirements.

8.3.8 Constructing Excellence recorded ‘Commercial Vehicle Movement KPI’ as part of the UK Construction Industry Key Performance Indicators. This uses a measure of the total number of commercial vehicle one-way movements onto a site (collected from security or other gate records, contractor notes and waste transfer notes) against the total project value. For inclusion, sites used in the assessment were entirely non-operational, i.e. being constructed without any elements of the site being occupied which would skew the data.

8.3.9 Based on data collected in 2012, the total recorded movements onto a site per £100,000 of project value was 49.5 one-way trips (www.kpizone.com), or 99 two-way trips assuming all trips arrive and depart the site. For deliveries of materials, the indicator simply considers the final delivery journey to site, therefore not accounting for off-site storage, consolidation of loads or other factors.

8.3.10 Based on 3-years of construction activity, to provide a robust assessment, with an average of 250 working days per year, the construction activities at Moneystone Park would generate around 17,820 trips, equating to 24 two-way total vehicle movements per day using the BRE formula and an indicative scheme value of £18M.

8.3.11 The construction traffic will therefore have minimal impact on existing traffic movements, except where temporary road closures or re-routing is required. In addition it should be noted that the previous use of the site was a quarry, which generated HGV movements per day.

8.4 Construction Traffic Management Plan

8.4.1 To facilitate site access and construction activities, a range of traffic management measures would be used to maintain access and servicing where reasonably possible within the constraints of the works and the need to ensure the safety of the public.


8.4.2 These would include provision of temporary roads/footpaths/access points as appropriate to serve each development plot, temporary parking restrictions, creation of special signing and/or temporary parking provision. Some traffic management proposals may require temporary Traffic Regulation Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1988, for which a minimum of 28 days notice is usually required by the relevant local authorities.

8.4.3 The detailed construction proposals to be submitted would include information identifying the potential, where practicable, for the transport of large, bulky and heavy materials by rail or barge in order to mitigate heavy construction traffic generation. A range of measures would be employed through the detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP).

Supply Chain Optimisation

8.4.4 The logistics industry has developed a range of techniques to maximise efficiencies within the supply chain. The CTMP would include details in this regard, such as the detail of any relevant ‘Just in Time’ delivery processes and the procurement strategy, along with details of storage, distribution and back loading activities to maximise load optimisation.

Delivery logistics

8.4.5 Delivery booking (deliveries by pre-arranged time slots), will be used where practicable so that materials only arrive on site when needed (scheduled), or as part of a ‘smoothing’ operation, to enable the peaks and troughs in demand to be evened out over a period of time, or to avoid certain time periods such as morning and evening peaks, or school start and finish times.

Route mapping

8.4.6 Routing and scheduling arrivals may make it possible to reduce trips to a site, by providing a more organised, logistical style method of operation. Routes would be confirmed as suitable prior to the commencement of development. No heavy construction traffic would be routed along Carr Bank. Therefore, all such traffic would be required to approach the site from the A52.

Construction Travel Plan

8.4.7 Where practicable, employees that walk, cycle and/or use public transport reduce the number of car trips to a site. A minibus may be used by the main contractor to transport workers in bulk to the site. This has the advantage of restricting traffic generation to the daily arrival and departure of staff employed on site, as well as removing the need for car parking facilities on site. Details of the Construction Travel Plan will be provided prior to the commencement of development.

Programme Compression

8.4.8 The CTMP would consider the opportunities to compress the programme of works wherever practicable, thereby causing greater disruption over a shorter time period, or overlapping certain activities, to reduce the timeframe over which disruption occurs.

Management of Bulk Transport Movements

8.4.9 Wheel washing facilities would be used where necessary to mitigate the transfer of material from the wheels of transport vehicles onto the public highway. Similarly, loads of loose bulk materials would be covered where practicable to minimise loss of material during transport.


Construction Methodology and Safe Methods of Work

8.4.10 Construction methods would be considered to minimise the disruption caused be the construction process. This may involve the use of off-site prefabrication and on-site concrete mixing to minimise external site trips. The main contractor for each phase of the works would be required to prepare Safe Methods of Work statement for all major activities involving the transport of materials and construction traffic.


9 OPERATIONAL TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT

9.1 Summary of Approach

9.1.1 The primary mechanism for the delivery of transport mitigation measures for the Moneystone Park proposals is the Travel Plan Framework, which would deliver ‘at source’ traffic impact mitigation through the implementation of sustainable transport measures. These measures are described in more detail within the Travel Plan Framework.

9.1.2 The Travel Plan Framework seeks to mitigate traffic impact ‘at source’ through a coordinated strategy of reduced car parking provision to restrain vehicular traffic generation, supported by sustainable transport measures to encourage car sharing and alternative modes of transport.

9.1.3 The Travel Plan Framework contains specific targets for modal split and proposed car parking provision and management. Similarly, the monitoring regime will also measure and act to constrain the total traffic generation of the proposals in relation to the total traffic forecasts.

9.1.4 This strategy will be supported by a robust monitoring regime to record the actual performance of the Travel Plan Framework against the outcomes required to mitigate the transport impact of the proposals. The Travel Plan Framework and the associated management mechanisms will be secured by planning obligations set out in a Section 106 agreement.

9.1.5 The responsibility for the approval and provision of traffic management and infrastructure within the adopted highway for public transport services, pedestrians and cyclists rests with the local highway authority. This Transport Assessment considers the highway infrastructure and means of access requirements of the proposals and identifies improvements where they are necessitated by and reasonably related to the development.

9.2 Travel Plan Framework

9.2.1 As part of the development proposals for the employment land use a Travel Plan will be implemented to support the development. That document includes mechanism to monitor future vehicular trip generation rates, traffic flows on local roads and traveller modal choice influences.

9.2.2 This monitoring will be linked directly to the traffic generation forecasts presented within this Transport Assessment. Any ‘breach’ of the Travel Plan targets in this regard will be managed by S106 planning obligations to establish an appropriate monitoring and enforcement mechanism in line with the ‘Good Practice Guidelines: Delivering Travel Plans through the Planning Process’, published by the Department for Transport (April 2009).

9.2.3 The proposed monitoring and enforcement mechanism would establish a default payment of financial obligations to mitigate the off-site traffic impact that would arise due to any additional traffic generation over and above the traffic generation forecast presented in this Transport Assessment.

9.2.4 The Travel Plan Framework is supported by measures not only to restrict and discourage private car use (through appropriate car parking restraint for instance), but also to actively encourage and enable less reliance on private cars. This latter objective would be achieved through a combination of measures to encourage non-car modes of transport.

9.2.5 Furthermore, some of these measures will also have ‘spin-off’ benefits that may influence travel patterns in adjacent communities, thereby delivering benefits.


9.3 Highways and Access Design Notes

Proposed Means of Access

9.3.1 The extent of the means of access that it is appropriate to apply for has been discussed with the local planning authority. Prior to the identification of building footprints it is not possible to fully define the detailed access requirements to each area within the Application Site.

9.3.2 The proposed means of access seeks to make efficient use of the existing physical access infrastructure illustrated on Plans 6 and 7 where appropriate and in order to optimise the use of the developable land.

9.3.3 The outcome of this process is that the proposed means of access seeks to minimise the traffic impact on rural roads south of the development and to balance the needs of accommodating an increase in the vehicular traffic flows, with the needs of other more vulnerable road users (as the priority) and the redevelopment of the Application Site through the Masterplan design process.

9.3.4 All aspects of the proposed means of access and associated highway infrastructure improvements have adopted the approach recommended by current transport planning policy and best practice of only developing additional highway capacity when all other measures have been considered.

Pedestrian and Cycle Infrastructure

9.3.5 The design and provision of pedestrian facilities within the site will provide linkages to the surrounding network of public rights of way, predominantly to encourage and enable walking for leisure, but also to create connections to nearby communities, such as Whiston and Oakamoor.

9.3.6 The road network is the most basic (and important) cycling facility available, and the preferred way of providing for cyclists is to create conditions on the carriageway where cyclists are content to use it. There is seldom the opportunity to provide an off carriageway route within the highway boundary that does not compromise pedestrian facilities or create potential hazards for cyclists, particularly at side roads.

9.3.7 New-build infrastructure within the Application Site will provide good opportunities for creating attractive high quality infrastructure for cyclists, either in the form of quieter routes, or direct cycle routes away from motor traffic.

9.3.8 There are five core principles which summarise the desirable design requirements for pedestrians and cyclists. They are contained in the relevant DfT Local Transport Notes on Cycle Infrastructure Design and are supported by the Manual for Streets, having originally been established by the ‘Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot’ (IHT et al., 2000) and advice included in ‘Cycle Friendly Infrastructure’ (IHT, 1996). These five core principles are summarised below.

9.3.9 Convenience : Networks should serve all the main destinations, and new facilities should offer an advantage in terms of directness and/or reduced delay compared with existing provision. Routes and key destinations should be properly signed, and street names should be clearly visible. Route maps should be made available, and on-street maps can be helpful.


9.3.10 Routes should be unimpeded by street furniture, pavement parking and other obstructions which can also be hazardous to visually impaired pedestrians. Trip-end destinations should be clearly marked, conveniently located and appropriate for the likely length of stay. Designers should consider the future ease of maintenance, including access to vehicles for sweeping, trimming grass verges and surface and lighting repairs along off-road routes.

9.3.11 Accessibility : Cycling networks should link trip origins and key destinations, including public transport access points. The routes should be continuous and coherent (type and colour of surfacing may be used to stress route continuity as appropriate). There should be provision for crossing busy roads and other barriers, and in some areas there should be a positive advantage over private motor traffic. Routes should be provided into and through areas normally inaccessible to motor vehicles, such as parks.

9.3.12 Safety : kerb lines and street furniture, providing right-turn refuges for cyclists or separating conflicting movements. The potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists should be minimised. Surface defects should not be allowed to develop to the extent that they become a hazard, and vegetation should be regularly cut back to preserve available width and sight lines.

9.3.13 The risk of crime can be reduced through the removal of hiding places along the route, provision of lighting and the presence of passive surveillance from neighbouring premises or other users. Cycle parking should be sited where people using the facilities can feel safe.

9.3.14 Comfort : Infrastructure should meet design standards for width, gradient and surface quality, and cater for all types of user, including children and disabled people. Pedestrians and cyclists benefit from even, well maintained and regularly swept surfaces with gentle gradients. Dropped kerbs are particularly beneficial to users of wheelchairs, pushchairs and cycles, and tactile paving needs to be provided to assist visually impaired people. Dropped kerbs should ideally be flush with the road surface. Even a very small step can be uncomfortable and irritating for users, especially if there are several to be negotiated along a route.

9.3.15 Attractiveness : Aesthetics, noise reduction and integration with surrounding areas are important. The environment should be attractive, interesting and free from litter and broken glass. Public spaces need to be well designed, finished in attractive materials and be such that people want to use the area.

9.3.16 These principles have been balanced against other objectives when designing for the differing priorities assigned to various aspects of the highways and access routes serving the Moneystone Park scheme. The resulting infrastructure design should take appropriate account of the needs of different highway users.

9.3.17 Some cyclists are more able and willing to mix with vehicular traffic than others. In order to accommodate the sometimes conflicting needs of various user types and functions, it may be necessary to combine measures or to create dual networks offering different levels of provision. The different categories of cyclists that may wish to use these different levels of provision include:

• fast cyclists – confident in most on-road situations and will use a route with significant traffic volumes if it is more direct than a quieter route;

• utility cyclists – may seek some segregation at busy junctions and on links carrying high speed traffic;

• inexperienced and/or leisure cyclists – may be willing to sacrifice directness, in terms of both distance and time, for a route with less traffic and more places to stop and rest;


• children – may require segregated, direct largely off-road routes from residential areas to schools, even where an on-road solution is available. Designers need to take account of personal security issues. Child cyclists should be anticipated in all residential areas and on most leisure cycling routes; and

• users of specialised equipment – includes users of trailers, trailer-cycles, tandems and tricycles, as well as disabled people using hand-cranked machines. This group requires wide facilities free of sharp bends and an absence of pinch-points or any other features that force cyclists to dismount.

9.3.18 Pedestrians and cyclists will use high quality, well maintained, traffic free routes away from the carriageway if they are more direct than the equivalent on-road alternative and there are no personal security issues. The Moneystone Park scheme would deliver such alternative routes for many local journeys.

9.4 Residual Traffic Impacts

9.4.1 The traffic impact analysis, highway safety and operational assessments have identified that the proposed development will result in a significant increase in traffic levels on the local roads providing immediate access to the development. As distance from the development increases, the traffic impact of the scheme dissipates as development traffic distributes across the wider highway network.

9.4.2 The travel behaviour influences of the proposed Transport Strategy and Travel Plan Framework will act as a beneficial influence on transport impact, in that they support and encourage travellers to change their mode of travel away from the private car to other forms of transport that are more sustainable in the long-term.

9.4.3 As vehicle mileage increases on any fixed study area, so does the exposure to the risk of road traffic accidents that may result in personal injuries being sustained. However, given that the local highway network has been assessed as having a ‘better than expected’ highway safety record, it can be concluded that the development proposals are well located in this regard.

9.4.4 In addition to the works associated with the proposed means of access, a ‘ghost island’ facility would be provided at the existing A52/Whiston Eaves Lane junction. The improvements are not required to mitigate the traffic impact of the development, but rather to improve the layout of the junction, which is sub-standard at present.

9.4.5 The improvements to the A52 junction have previously been agreed with SCC and the improvements to the existing site access junction are proposed to address concerns raised by local residents.

9.5 Road Safety Audit/Quality Audit

9.5.1 As agreed with SCC, a Stage 1 Road Safety and a Quality Audit has been undertaken for the improvements to the A52 junction and are included along with Designer’s Responses in Appendix G and H respectively.

9.5.2 The Road Safety Audit raised a number of issues, relating to drainage, service boxes, signage, lining and lighting.


9.5.3 Both lateral and forward visibility splays were raised as issues. As is evident from Plan 9 and as highlighted previously in this TA, the existing junction layout has a visibility splay of 2.4m x 30m to the left and 2.4m x 34m to the right. In comparison, the proposed layout would improve the existing situation. Plan 8 shows increased visibility splays from an x-distance of 2.4m back from the carriageway to 49m to the left with a 34m splay retained to the right. In addition to providing a right turn ghost island facility, the proposed layout would also provide a significant improvement to the visibility splay in comparison with the existing situation.

9.5.4 In terms of forward visibility, the Road Safety Audit highlights that an existing wall on the south side of the A52, east of the junction with Whiston Eaves Lane, restricts visibility for drivers travelling westbound along the A52. Although the proposed layout would not increase the forward visibility, the improvements to the junction would not make the existing situation any worse.

9.6 Car Parking Provision and Management

Background

9.6.1 The proposals would provide a total provision of 418 parking spaces, as shown on Plan 4 , split as follows:

• P1 – Short stay parking for day visitors and visitors to lodges – 170 car parking spaces;

• P2 – Staff car park – 67 car parking spaces;

• P3 – Secure long stay parking for holiday makers staying in lodges/lodge owners. Vehicular access to rental lodges restricted to drop off only to promote rural, unspoilt character 150 car parking spaces;

• P4 – Water sports car park on quarry ridge – 26 car parking spaces; and

• P5 – Coach drop off – 5 coach bays.

9.6.2 In addition a parking provision of 1 space per lodge would be provided, although rental lodges would only park at the lodge to unload and load, and then they would park for the duration of their stay in the secure long stay car park (P3).

9.6.3 The current Outline Application does not seek detailed approval for the layout and provision of parking spaces. The proposed car parking provision that is identified is therefore for illustrative purposes and to provide a framework with which the level of car parking provision and hence the major influence on the means of transport can be considered.

9.6.4 The actual level of car parking to be provided at the reserved matters application would therefore be based on a holistic approach to the whole Application Site and can be further monitored through the mechanisms established by the Travel Plan Framework. In this regard, the Travel Plan Framework and Car Parking Provision and Management Plan are intrinsically linked, not only because the availability of car parking has a major influence on travel patterns.

9.6.5 The TPF and Car Parking Provision and Management Plan will reduce the need for a high car parking provision, reduce reliance on the private car and encourage people to consider the alternatives when choosing the means of transport for any given journey.


Proposed Car Parking Management

9.6.6 A detailed Car Park Management Plan would be operated by the Management Company and implemented by the Travel Plan Coordinator. The scope of the Car Park Management Plan will include:

• Allocating staff parking using a permit system based on travel needs;

• Designated parking spaces will be assigned to car-sharers;

• Financial incentives (i.e. discounts) for guests not to drive to the development;

• Financial incentives for staff not to drive to work; and

• Measures to deal with overspill and on-street car parking.

9.6.7 The allocation of parking spaces to each land use will restrict each occupier to a basic number of standard car parking spaces that are in proportion to the modal splits for the +10 year Travel Plan Targets relating to the maximum level of sole occupancy private car use within the Outline Travel Plan.

Monitoring and Review

9.6.8 Where practicable, the car movements and car parking demand generated by the Application Site could be surveyed and analysed on a regular basis to identify the realistic progress in taking the Travel Plan forward and for purpose of monitoring the Travel Plan performance.

9.6.9 The Car Park Management Plan and schedule of charges would be subject to monitoring, review and revision in agreement with the Council.


10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

10.1 Summary of the Transport Assessment

10.1.1 This Transport Assessment provides information on the traffic, transport and highway aspects of the Moneystone Park scheme, and is submitted in support of an outline planning application for the site.

10.1.2 The vision for Moneystone Park is to create a high quality visitor destination, focusing on outdoor activities, wildlife and the local environment. It will be an attraction with outdoor sport and recreation opportunities at its core, in line with the development strategy stated in the Churnet Valley Masterplan.

10.1.3 This Transport Assessment report presents a full description of the existing conditions relating to the Moneystone Park Application Site, providing a:

• full description of the site and location of the development

• pedestrian accessibility and infrastructure audit

• cycle accessibility and infrastructure audit; and

• public transport accessibility and infrastructure audit.

10.1.4 The requirements of the relevant transportation planning policies have been identified and considered along with the recommendations of current best practice and design guidance.

10.1.5 The detailed requirements of the above guidance have been applied to the preparation of the Travel Plan Framework that accompanies the planning application and that have been drawn up alongside the proposals for Moneystone Park.

10.1.6 The transport and traffic impact analysis presented for the proposals considers:

• background traffic growth rates;

• the likely future trip generation for the development, which have been provided for an Annual Average and August Average forecast;

• the total vehicular traffic generation of the proposals;

• the distribution of trips and traffic assignment, and

• the corresponding level of car parking demand and how this will be managed.

10.1.7 The highway safety assessments presented have used 5-years baseline data; with an analysis provided for both the existing/historic conditions, along with an assessment of the likely impact of the development proposals.

10.1.8 The scale of traffic impact arising from the proposals has been identified across the relevant local highway network study area, with detailed highway capacity and highway safety assessments undertaken for all junctions experiencing a material traffic impact.


10.1.9 The transport strategy for the proposals sets out the detail of the staged implementation of the necessary means of access and highway infrastructure serving the Application Site. This infrastructure will mitigate the traffic impact of the Moneystone Park proposals in coordination with the Travel Plan Framework.

10.1.10 The extent of the proposed means of access applied for has been set out along with the access strategy envisaged for future development, the detail for which will come forward through subsequent reserved matters applications.

10.1.11 This Transport Assessment therefore provides an over-arching transport strategy that considers the full long-term implications of the development. The transport strategy also identifies appropriate physical highway works, where necessary, to mitigate the traffic impact of the scheme and enable the development to be accommodated by the local highway network.

10.1.12 The transport strategy also identifies how any residual traffic impact will be mitigated through the proposed Travel Plan Framework and through appropriate Car Parking Provision and Management.

10.1.13 An essential element of both of these measures is the establishment of a long-term management company with a presence on-site, secured funding and a commitment to appropriately manage both the on-site infrastructure and travel demands of the scheme in a sustainable manner.

10.2 Summary of the Proposed Transport Strategy

10.2.1 The primary mechanism for the delivery of transport mitigation measures for the Moneystone Park proposals is the Travel Plan Framework, which will deliver ‘at source’ traffic impact mitigation through the implementation of sustainable transport measures. These measures are described in more detail within the Travel Plan Framework.

10.2.2 However, in brief, the Travel Plan Framework seeks to mitigate traffic impact through a coordinated strategy of reduced car parking provision to restrain vehicular traffic generation, supported by sustainable transport measures to encourage car sharing and alternative modes of transport.

10.2.3 This strategy will be supported by a robust monitoring regime to record the actual performance of the Travel Plan Framework against the outcomes required to mitigate the transport impact of the proposals.

10.2.4 The Travel Plan Framework and the associated management mechanisms will be secured by planning obligations set out in a Section 106 agreement between the key stakeholders (i.e. the developer, the local planning authority and the local highway authority in this case).

10.3 Conclusions

10.3.1 The transport and traffic impact analysis presented in this Transport Assessment demonstrates that the Outline Application proposals will be capable of being accommodated safely by the local highway network.

10.3.2 Furthermore, the location of the Application Site provides a very high potential level of accessibility by sustainable modes of travel, subject to the provision of measures set out in this Transport Assessment. In particular, the proposed development is supported by:


• A Travel Plan Framework that will provide the primary transport mitigation strategy to manage and control the traffic generated by the development;

• Off-site highway improvement measures, which have also been identified where appropriate to mitigate the impact of the development; and

• Improved connectivity to public rights of way and cycle routes through the Application Site.

10.3.3 The site access proposals have been robustly tested to ensure that an appropriate means of access will be provided for the development.

10.3.4 The Moneystone Park scheme includes significant measures to promote more sustainable transport choices for people visiting and working within the development, as well as those who are visiting the area.

10.3.5 The proposed transport strategy focuses on delivering further reductions in car usage (particularly single occupancy journeys) and increased use of non-car modes, through an effective Travel Plan. The measures delivered through this strategy will benefit the local community not only during peak periods of travel demand, but also throughout the day. This is particularly significant for those visitors to the development, members of the community and workforce who may not have access to a private car.

10.3.6 The scheme also promotes reduced traffic speeds both within the Application Site (through the future application of Manual for Streets design guidance to the design of internal infrastructure) and incorporates proposals to improve road safety on the A52.

10.3.7 The identification of an appropriate level of car parking provision for the Moneystone Park scheme has adopted a design-led approach to balance the forecast transport demand with an efficient and effective use of land.

10.3.8 In this way, the proposals seek to reduce the amount of parking as part of a combined package of physical highway works and other transport measures contained within the Travel Plan Framework, to promote more sustainable travel choices.

10.3.9 The impact of the development does not even closely reach ‘severe’ as identified in NPPF paragraph 32 and thus there can be no legitimate reason for refusing consent on the grounds of highway impact. Moreover, the harm identified in respect to highways issues has been mitigated as best as possible and the impact is, at worst, moderately adverse prior to these mitigation measures. In conclusion the proposed development should be considered acceptable in transportation and highway terms.

TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT VOLUME 1

Documents

Transcript of TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT VOLUME 1