Tuesday 27 March 2012

Tesco at Little Lever. The latest from the Bolton News




New road layout ‘will bring chaos’

A new one-way system is being drawn up for Little Lever as part of plans for a new supermarket.
Tesco says it is proposing to improve the road system in the centre of the village as part of plans for a new store off Lever Street.

The new road layout includes making Lever Street one-way on the approach to its junction with Church Street, introducing a section of red tarmac at the junction of Church Street, Market Street and Ainsworth Road.

Three new pedestrian crossings will also be installed on local roads. But campaigners against plans for a new Tesco warn the changes could create traffic chaos.

Tesco’s corporate affairs manager, Matthew Magee said: “We have been able to design a fantastic scheme that will create 100 new jobs and regenerate the derelict Pennine Pets Factory site.

“The local response has been extremely positive to the plans.”

“We need to make sure the local road network works as well as it can for everyone. The safety of pedestrians is always a priority and with the new puffin crossings, improved road surfacing, traffic calming measures, and wider footpaths, local residents will find it much easier to get around the centre of Little Lever.”

 There are also plans to introduce double yellow lines along Ainsworth Road and on the Sharples Court side of Lever Street, so the local roads remain clear from obstruction.

Tesco is proposing to replace its current Metro store on Market Street with a new supermarket at the derelict Pennine Pets Factory site creating around 100 new jobs.

A decision on the Tesco plans is expected in the next few months.

Little Lever resident and former councillor Sean Hornby said: “This junction is very bad as it is.
“If you suddenly put traffic lights in place, a one-way system and double yellow lines then other roads surrounding the area could become rat runs.“By making it a one-way system, it could create an even bigger problem. Custom to local shops could also be affected.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………....................


We need a logical plan

I have just read about the proposed road changes in Little Lever to accommodate a new Tesco supermarket.

I read the article twice and, at the end, I have to agree with Sean Hornby.

Apart from the chaos in the immediate area of the junctions of Ainsworth, Market Street, Lever Street and Church Street, he mentions my main concern — rat runs.
Redcar Road, during school times, along with Aintree Road, is already a rat run.

You have a junior school, St Teresa’s at the Church Street end of Redcar Road and, at the opposite end of Aintree Road, you have Mytham Road, which is very narrow and on which you have two medical centres and a junior school.

If, as this plan proposes, you create traffic snarl-up points with traffic lights and more puffin crossings, then it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that motorists are going to look for shortcuts, which means traffic using Mytham Road to gain access to Aintree Road and the Redcar Road to avoid the proposed road changes.

I will not ask Bolton Highways how they will make our roads safer, because they have no idea.

I will not even go on about how many jobs Tesco promised to create when they opened their Walkden branch, only for a number to be laid off when it was finally up and running smoothly.

Come up with a logical road plan that involves input from Little Lever residents, who will suffer from extra traffic, and then maybe something sensible can be worked out.

Mr O’Connor Bolton
……………………………………………………………………………………………...............


Don't let Tesco develop in Little Lever... says ASDA

A rival chain has submitted a formal objection to Tesco’s plans to open a supermarket in Little Lever — despite not having a store in the village.

Asda has sent a letter of objection to Bolton Council’s planning department, citing itself as an “interested party”.

The nearest Asda stores are in Farnworth, Burnden Park and Radcliffe.

In October, Ladson Commercial Ltd, acting on behalf of Tesco, submitted a plan for a superstore on the former Pennine Pets site in Lever Street.

Tesco says the store will generate 100 new jobs on top of the 49 staff already at the existing Tesco Metro in Market Street, who are guaranteed jobs at the new store.

Residents have set up a Facebook group — Say No To Little Lever Tesco, Save Our Village— because of concerns about the impact it will have on the village and potential traffic problems.

Asda’s three-page document is the latest objection to be sent to the planning department.

It claims the number of jobs the store will create is wrong, that there are too many car parking spaces and there are more preferable sites elsewhere.

An Asda spokesman said: “We have submitted an objection to the plans. “We feel as though the size of the site that Tesco is proposing will have a negative impact on the town centre.”

Little Lever resident Sean Hornby, a former councillor and former chairman of the planning committee, said he had never known of a supermarket objecting to another store’s plans when they were not directly affected.

He added: “It is very unusual, I must admit.

I was a bit shocked myself. It will kill off the village. This will be just the final nail in the coffin.”

Residents are also calling for a public consultation on the traffic proposals, which would see Lever Street made one-way.

Tesco spokesman Matthew Magee said: “We've had great feedback from the residents of Little Lever who are excited about a new store in their town, that would create new jobs and regenerate the Pennine Pets Factory site.”

………………………………………………………………………………



 

We don’t need Tesco

Why are we allowing a rich supermarket dictate what we do with our roads?

The only “logical plan” to traffic chaos in Little Lever is to say “No” to Tesco.

It is obvious we need a 20mph speed limit through the village, a thriving avenue of shops, benches, green spaces to sit and decent safe places to cross the roads.

We don’t need Tesco to tell us how to do it. Don’t privatise our village.

Name and address supplied

……………………………………………………………………………………………

One-way traffic would not solve problem of having supermarket

I read the article about the roads surrounding the proposed Tesco store in Little Lever.

It was stated that the planners (most likely Tesco’s own) had proposed a one-way system for Lever Street! This shows that these people don’t live and drive in Little Lever — this idea just won’t work.

If you look on any online map, you will find that Radcliffe Road, Hill Top and Lever Street are shown as one colour; that is because this is the main artery route from Darcy Lever and beyond into the village.

If you can’t drive down this road from where it separates from Hill Top, then your only choice is to go down Dearden Street; this has, at its end, a really bad junction with Church Street.

Avoided at all costs by most people who live here, to get around this junction people cut down Rydal Road and this used to be a noted “rat run”; to cure the council added speed bumps to put people off. The residents certainly wouldn’t be happy if it was to once again be a major route.

The other route is to stay on Radcliffe Road, then turn on to Victory Road and then Ainsworth Road; a longer distance to end up at the same junction which is not a good one. If the one-way was the other way, with you not being able to go from Market Street to Lever Street, then, if travelling from the village centre, you would turn up Ainsworth Road.

But if travelling from the other side of the village, then again you would use Dearden Street. However, turning into that street in anything bigger than a van is not easy.

I don’t see any one-way systems being workable, but the trouble is, by the time we hear about these things, they have already been rubber stamped to go ahead. There was also mention of extra crossings, which is fine. However one thing I have noted in recent times is that if a crossing isn’t in the exact spot people want to cross, then they don’t use it!

Lastly, if Tesco has offered a sweetener to the council in the form of “regeneration money”, it should be spent in Little Lever and not in any other wards.

If other places want the money spending on them, let them have Tescos built near them.

Edward Dicker Bolton

…………………………………………………………………………………………..


Village traffic misery ahead

I read (March 16) about the traffic in Little Lever. More to the point the writer was complaining about the chaos the new Tesco will create.

I was walking from the centre of the village past the Tesco extra store and noticed an articulated lorry waiting to turn right out of Lever Street on to Church Street towards Moses Gate.

Due to the size of his vehicle a car turning left into Lever Street had to mount the kerb to pass it.

Then as the lorry pulled out the entire junction was blocked whilst he turned on to Church Street. This was just one vehicle using this junction.

Can anybody imagine what it will be like when firstly we have construction traffic using it and then the delivery vehicles for Tesco? It is blatantly obvious Bolton Council's planning officers have no idea whatsoever what will happen at this junction.

Traffic going through Little Lever to Radcliffe/Bury will simply turn right at the mini roundabout on to Redcar Road.

Then at the top they will turn left into Aintree and then on to the very narrow Mytham Road before coming to the roundabout on the Radcliffe side of the village, turning right there to complete their journey.

Of course the reverse of this route will be used by traffic from Radcliffe and Bury heading towards Bolton and Farnworth. Thus proving that the planning department have obviously never left their nice warm offices to actually see what will happen to Little Lever.

Mr J O’Connor Bolton

………………………………………………………………………………………………

You are sounding like a cracked record

Following on from your article about the so called highway ‘improvements’ in Little Lever, might I comment on Mr McGee’s latest pathetic attempt at public relations. His oft repeated mantra is seriously in danger of becoming like a cracked record.

Personally, I think that with these suggestions he has done himself and his cause “a thick one”.

In his panic to fit the square peg of pedestrian safety into the round hole of junction capacity, he has with his proposals, in one fell swoop, managed to spread the traffic misery even further afield across the village and got the backs up of another couple of hundred residents who will pay the price of this completely unnecessary development.

The junction at peak times is already a nightmare. Anything, including this development, which will make it worse, is nonsensical and unacceptable.

As his own transport consultant has stated, the only configuration which works at this junction is the existing one.

Short of buying and demolishing the adjacent properties to open it out into a decent sized roundabout, no liberal application of snake oil will alter this. If Tesco are not prepared to fund the approximate £3 million cost of this, then so be it, but a lorry load of red tarmac and a couple of no entry signs won’t cut it.

The offer of £18,750 of Section 106 moneys for a development which hopefully for them will turn over some £19 million is testament to the fact that they’re trying to do this on the cheap.

Why doesn’t he come clean and admit that the only reason Tesco are doing this is to stop Aldi or the like doing it.

Stick with the Metro, Mr McGee, get it staffed up and stop dreaming that all of a sudden we’re gonna stop going to Asda.

T Mortimer Little Lever

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Commonsense ‘software’ tells us a store would make things worse

MR O’Connor, amongst others, has commented on the likely traffic disruption that would be caused by the proposed Tesco superstore in Little Lever.

This, of course, is completely denied by Tesco and its developers, Ladson’s.

In support of their view, they have submitted a transport assessment which asserts that, even with the extra generated traffic, if Lever Street was turned into a one-way street and three puffin crossings were installed in the vicinity of the junction then everything in the garden is going to be lovely and there is no reason for anyone to get concerned.

They have been seemingly assisted in this exercise by Bolton Council highways department which, one would have imagined, had some knowledge of the geography and day-to-day reality of the current peak hour chaos.

But no! The transport assessment is arrived at by using computer modelling done, in this instance, somewhere in the West Midlands.

They’ve actually had three goes at this, using three different software modelling products in order to get anywhere near proving that the junction will work within capacity.

A cynic might think that if at first you don’t get the result you want then try something else until you do.

All this, (and more), to my mind, creates suspicion about the competence of the authors of the aforementioned assessment.

We, Oop North, in the meantime, rely on our human, brain-type computers and our common-sense software to conclude that sticking a superstore with 170 car-parking spaces within 50 yards of an already nightmare junction is going to make a bad situation much worse.

I fail to understand what part of the above Tesco and the developer can’t “get”, although I do see why they would never admit to doing so.

Happily, our ward councillors can spot “trouble at t’mill” and have agreed to convene a public meeting where the views of residents and others might be gauged.

This junction problem, on a major arterial route, has existed for some considerable time.

Only a proposal which improves the situation is acceptable. Anything which makes it worse must be rejected.

Paul Richardson Ripon Close Little Lever

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Our opinions don’t count

Many thanks to Paul Richardson for putting across the problems of the traffic chaos that will definitely be created when the proposed Tesco Store is built in Little Lever.

I say when it is built because the only thing that stands in its way is public opinion.

Regarding help from our ward councillors, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

They are Labour councillors and will do exactly what the leader of the council tells them.

There are numerous traffic problems around Bolton created by the highways department ‘computer model’ way of doing things. For once, let them come down to Little Lever and see what will happen to roads, and the people who live on them, like Mytham, Aintree, Redcar, Fearnyside and Dearden. For these are the roads that will be worst affected by a new Tesco.

………………………………………………………………………………………………




Wednesday 7 March 2012

Tesco at Little Lever - Response to the Addendum to the Transport Assessment


Planning Application 86999/11

Dear Mr Allen,

As promised, my response to the Addendum to the Traffic Assessment posted on the Planning Website on 29th February.

Preamble

May I first of all state my puzzlement at the following.

There are three main documents relating to the Transport Assessment

The original Transport assessment created in November 2011 had as its primary author a Mr Ajay Patel from MVA Consultancy.

Subsequently a review of this carried out by TfGM /HFAS with recommendations.

Finally, the Addendum to the Transport Assessment created in February 2012.
This purports to come from a different company called Assured Planning. However the author of this is a  - Mr Ajay Patel.

There is no record of this company at Companies House nor is there any address given on the one page website. This is peculiar.
It would appear that Mr Patel in February is reviewing the conclusions he arrived at in November. This is fair enough in the light of recommendations from TfGM/HFAS.

He also attempts to counteract the points made principally by Mr Chris Lord in his objection as well as some made by myself.

It is these counteractions upon which I wish to comment.

I know it’s a bit tedious, but bear with me.

Chris and I are coming from the direction of the day to day physical reality of the road network and traffic in the vicinity of the junction and the wider Village and commonsense projection of what would occur with the increased traffic from the development and proposed changes to the highways.

This could, might and probably does clash with what a computer in Birmingham might say, but I am sure that the Committee members, particularly those who live in the Village will also approach it in the same way as ourselves.


The response to remarks made by Mr Lord and my comments. (one by one)


No 1

Mr Lord:-

 The investigation does not take into account any observations regarding the turning movements of rigid HGV’s and buses when negotiating the Church Street/Market Street turn. These vehicles cannot safely negotiate this junction without using lanes for on-coming traffic

Mr Patel:-

4.2 There are buses which currently undertake the turning movement from Church Street/Market Street to Ainsworth Road and vice versa.

4.3 The accident data for the Market Street/Church Street/Ainsworth Road/Lever Street junction shows that there have been no accidents involving any bus movements or HGV movements in the last 5 years. Therefore the accident data suggest there is no significant highway safety issue regarding turning movements of HGVs and buses.

4.4 Furthermore it is expected that likelihood of buses (the 544 bus route has a frequency of every 60 minutes) interacting with large delivery vehicles is minimal as it is expected that large delivery vehicles will access the store outside of peak traffic hours when the bus service will be operational.

Me:-

Mr Lord is referring to the turning of No 524 buses and HGVs from Market St into Church St. This requires them to cross the centre line of the carriageway in Church St and to do this they must wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic. This causes following vehicles to back up in Market St.

          .

This crossing of the centre line is essential to prevent the rear nearside of the vehicle from mounting the kerb adjacent to the Door Shop and depends on the judgment of the driver concerned. Thankfully these judgments so far have avoided any pedestrian injuries or collisions with oncoming traffic but this safety issue is inbuilt into the geography of the junction and still exists.

Mr Lord did not and is not referring to the No 544 bus. The frequency of the No 524 is every ten minutes in peak hours.



No 2

Mr Lord:-

a) The proposed junction from Crossley Street is too close to the junction with Ainsworth Road/Market Street/Church Street and Lever Street. Vehicles queuing to access Ainsworth Road from Market Street cannot see traffic coming from Church Street as the visibility is obscured by the adjacent shop.

 b) Traffic attempting a right turn into Church Street from Ainsworth Road will be restricted from doing so by traffic on the adjacent roads resulting in a build-up of traffic into the Tesco development.

Mr Patel:-

4.5 It is envisaged that the internal access from the proposed development onto Crossley Street provides sufficient queuing space for vehicles to egress onto Ainsworth Road.

4.6 The proposed development access from Crossley Street to Market Street is similar in distance to the current TESCO access from Jessop Forge/Foundary Street to Market Street. Furthermore Foundary Street locates another serving access upstream of the TESCO access with stationary vehicles parked opposite the access.

4.7 However from the re-assessment of the junction in LINSIG (model 1 and 2) the results shown in Appendix A show that Ainsworth Road arms results in maximum queue of 8 vehicles which is a queue length of 46 metres. This queue can be accommodated along Ainsworth Road without blocking the development access via Crossley Street as the distance from the give way line of Ainsworth Road to the exiting lane of Crossley Street is approximately 50 metres.

4.8 The visibility issues discussed above would suggest that the decreased visibility presented by the shop on the corner leads to a decrease in speed of vehicles passing by. Therefore cars coming from Church Street to Market Street do so at a low speed resulting in gaps in traffic for cars to turn right into Ainsworth Road.

4.9 Furthermore the results from the LINSIG re-assessment of the proposed junction show that there is sufficient capacity for vehicles at the junction turning right out of Ainsworth Road.

Me:- The reality of traffic flow up Church St right into Market St, particularly at evening peak hours, is a constant stream at the rate of  one every couple of seconds. The speed of this traffic is typically 20mph into and through the bend since they have priority and have no anticipation (and usually no intention) of giving way to traffic entering or leaving Ainsworth Rd.

The first point that Mr Lord is making is that a driver parked at the centre line in Market St wishing to turn right into Ainsworth Rd can only see this oncoming traffic as it enters the junction. This driver has no clue as to when a gap may occur in this stream of traffic and, should he try to anticipate a gap, has only seconds to commit to and complete his manoeuvre.

The second point he is making is that a driver wishing to exit Ainsworth Rd across Market St and into Church St has indeed a view of traffic approaching up Church St and can spot an appropriate gap. However this has to coincide with a gap in the traffic approaching the junction from Market St for him to be able to complete this manoeuvre.

This is the cause of traffic backing up Ainsworth Rd. The reality is that it can take up to five minutes to get out of Ainsworth Rd at peak times and it is completely unrealistic to suppose that with the development the queue would involve a maximum of 8 vehicles.

Comparison with the Foundry St/ Market St junction is ridiculous.

1.      There are three and a half times as many parking spaces proposed for the development as exist at Tesco Metro and proportionally more development generated traffic.
2.      Traffic wishing to turn right from Market St into Foundry St have complete visibility.
3.      There is usually room for the main flow of traffic to pass such waiting cars.
4.      Vehicles using Foundry St to access Fletcher St and the Precinct Car Parks usually exit at the Mytham Rd end.

All the above amply demonstrates the disconnection between the Computer modeling figures and the known reality on the ground.

No 3

Mr Lord:-

The Traffic Impact Assessment indicates that there will be no significant increase in traffic on the premise that the new store is for the local community. Is it not reasonable to assume that visitors from neighbouring districts will use this facility as they do not have a Tesco store nearby? Users from the neighbouring districts will undoubtedly use a car as their preferred mode of transport thereby increasing trip numbers. No account for this has been included within this assessment.

Mr Patel:-

4.10 Travel to the store from neighbouring district has been accounted for in the transport assessment. This is shown by paragraphs 3.6.6, 3.6.7 and 3.6.8 in the transport assessment.

4.11 This states that analysis of the local authority’s Retail and Leisure Study shows that many of the residents of Little Lever currently undertake shopping journeys by car to retail stores outside of the area. It is expected these people will make up a large proportion of customers at the proposed development and therefore there will be a reduction of vehicular trips on the local highway network.


4.12 It also states that it is expected that the proposed development will result in an overall reduction in travel distance for food shopping purposes as it will be in a more convenient location for the residents of Little Lever than the foodstores they currently shop at.

4.13 It further states that this implies that a lot of the primary trips to the site may already be travelling along Market St and Church St anyway. This has not been accounted for in the trip assignment calculations as they would actually result in a decrease in trip generation numbers and they are therefore considered to be very robust.


Me:-

Paragraphs 3.6.6, 3.6.7, & 3.6.8 actually state the following:-

3.6.6 Additionally from analysis of the local authority’s Retail and Leisure Study shows that many of the residents of Little Lever currently undertake shopping journeys by car to retail stores outside of the area. It is assumed these people will make up a large proportion of customers at the proposed development.

3.6.7 Therefore it is expected that the proposed development will result in an overall reduction in travel distance for food shopping purposes as it will be in a more convenient location for the residents of Little Lever than the foodstores they currently shop at.

3.6.8 Consequently this also implies that a lot of the primary trips to the site may already be travelling along Market St and Church St anyway. This has not been accounted for in the trip assignment calculations, and they are therefore considered to be very robust

1) - Mr Lord is referring to customers travelling into Little Lever to visit the development from Farnworth, Radcliffe, Great Lever, Breightmet etc etc. He is not referring to the indigenous population of Little Lever.

These are the visitors from outside Little Lever that the Transport Assessment does not take into account. The above paragraphs do not mention them.

Tesco can quote from ‘The League of Gentlemen’ – “This shop is for local people only” till they’re blue in the face but commonsense should anticipate visitors from these other areas – in fact Tesco are probably counting on them.

2) – As regards the indigenous population of Little Lever who (hopefully for Tesco) will no longer travel out for the ‘big shop’, they might indeed save a bob or two on petrol. However those who previously travelled in the Radcliffe/Bury direction will now be heading into the Junction and those who previously travelled along the priority Church St /Market St route to Bolton, Farnworth and beyond will now be trying to get into Ainsworth rd. To pretend that somehow there will be a reduction in the potential chaos at the Junction is facile.

No 4

Mr Lord:-

As a result of a potential increase in traffic along Market Street/Church Street road users may try to use Redcar Road/Aintree Road/Mytham Rad to avoid congestion. The roundabout at Redcar Road is substandard despite alterations carried out recently.

 Visibility to the right when exiting Redcar Road is severely restricted and does not comply with current visibility requirements despite recent improvements. Serious accidents have already occurred at this junction and any increase in traffic is likely to increase the possibility of future accidents.

 It should also be noted that Redcar Road and Mytham Road contain primary schools and therefore carry vulnerable users during peak times.

 Aintree Road has in the past been subject to possible traffic calming measures and it is my opinion that these should be considered again as part of a Section 106 Agreement to prevent the use of these roads as a rat run.

Mr Patel:-

4.22 A SATURN model assessment is currently being undertaken. The SATURN model will assess the impact of the one way Lever Street and envisaged rat running upon the wider extent of the local highway network which includes the roundabout at Redcar Road, Aintree Road and Mytham Road route.


Me:-

I assume that this exercise will be completed, the results posted on the Planning Website and sufficient time given for public comment before this Application goes before the Committee. The concerns of the residents of the above mentioned roads, whether or not they are generally in favour of or against this development, should not be underestimated.






No 5

Mr Lord:-

Furthermore in recent years Market Street, High Street and Church Street have undergone a major resurfacing scheme carried out by the Council. During the preparation of this scheme the junction at Market Street, Church Street and Ainsworth Road underwent a detailed review. At the time I understand that the only option which was viable was to place signals on this junction. This option was not taken any further due to the cost implications.

Mr Patel:-

The junction has been re-assessed with as stated in paragraphs 3.30 and 3.42.

Me:- The only thing we are all agreed on. Traffic lights are out of the question.

No 6

Mr Lord:-

The preferred option would have been a roundabout but the lack of available space without a Compulsory Purchase Order ruled this option out. At no time was a give way junction considered with markings on Market Street and Church Street as this would not have been deemed safe.

Mr Patel:-

4.23 A roundabout option was for the junction was discussed with BCC. This was assessed by TfGM and considered not to be feasible due to the safety and capacity implications.

Me:-

Mr Patel is obviously referring to the ‘Double Mini Roundabout’ option which had been examined in preparation of the original Transport Assessment and then discounted.

Mr Lord is not referring to this. He is referring to the purchase and demolition of the former Berrys Electrical Shop complex, the Baileys Newsagents complex and the Millington’s/ LA Diner complex to open out the junction for a proper roundabout into which the site access could be brought. This, together with the difficulty of moving the British Gas control unit would at a rough estimate cost the thick end of £3million.

I do know that approaches have been made to the owners of some of these properties.



No 7

Mr Lord:-

A staged safety audit should be carried out by the Council and not the developer if this scheme is to be given further consideration.

Mr Patel:-

4.24 It was always the intention that an independent staged safety audit should be carried out to assess the safety implication of the proposed junction.

Me:-

Perhaps this would be better worded – “ It has always been and still is the intention …….etc.”

The response to remarks made by Myself and my comments.

The majority of the remarks I made in my original objection to the Transport Assessment are covered by and co-incidental with Mr Lord’s remarks and the seven points made above.

1)My comments subsequent to the One Way proposal for Lever St suggested that the 100 vehicles per hour that currently enter Lever St from the Junction would have to take one of two (or possibly three) alternative routes.

Mr Patel suggests that these have been re-distributed but it is not clear to me how many have been allocated to the Ainsworth/ Victory Rd option, the Dearden St option (or the Fearneyside/Rydal option).

2) Mr Patel states:-

4.34 Furthermore the SAT IP peak period for the 2013 Design Year flows has been modelled only. This has been agreed with BCC. This period produces the highest trip generation from the proposed development and therefore represents a worst case scenario and the most robust assessment of the proposed access.

This is in relation to the modeling of the Crossley St/ Ainsworth junction.

This may be the worst case scenario for the access, but the worst case scenario for the interaction of the store generated traffic and the Junction is the evening peak period and the constant stream of traffic up Church St and right into Market St as previously mentioned.


Conclusion:-

In spite of his best efforts, Mr Patel has obviously misunderstood the points made by Mr Lord and so his responses fail to answer these satisfactorily.

The entire premise of the various versions of the Transport Assessment is that the computer modeling produces a realistic projection of the traffic impact of this development in 2013.

The very fact that three different methodologies have been used, using three different programmes makes one wonder how realistic the results are.

A cynic would say that if one methodology does not produce the desired or necessary result, then try a different one until that result is obtained.

Even after this, the gap between those results and the application of commonsense and logic to the knowledge and observations of local people who live and use this junction and the surrounding roads on a day to day basis, is so wide as to cast doubt on their validity for the purposes of this Application.

Paul Richardson





























Monday 5 March 2012

Tesco at Little Lever - More hurdles to overcome (for them)

E-mail sent to Planning Department 5th March 2012

Planning Application 86999/11

Dear Mr Allen,

May I comment on the Transport Assessment covering letter from Mr Harris posted on the Council Planning website on the 29th February.

Point No 1

In relation to recent changes to the Highways plan, Mr Harris maintains that a further period of consultation is not required for the reasons he lays out.

Firstly, might I point out that changing part of Lever St into a one way street can only be brought about by a Traffic Regulation Order.

Bolton Council’s own website informs us of the following:-
...............................................................................................................................................................

What must a local authority do prior to implementing a TRO?

The authority must:
  • publish a notice of the proposals in a local newspaper;
  • allow potential objectors 21 days to make representations;
  • take other steps the authority may consider appropriate for ensuring adequate publicity is given to persons likely to be affected by any provision in the order, which may include roadside notices and delivery of letters to premises; and
  • hold a public consultation if the TRO would prohibit loading or unloading of vehicles (i) at all times, (ii) before 07.00 hours, (iii) between 10.00 and 16.00; or (iv) after 19.00, or if the passage of public service vehicles would be restricted. (The authority may opt to hold a public inquiry in other circumstances). 
...............................................................................................................................................................
I note from the Plan also posted on 29th February and from correspondence from Mr McCreesh posted on the 17th February that is  proposed to widen the footpath on the south side of Lever St for presumably the whole length of the one-way section, thus resulting in the narrowing of the carriageway for that length.

At the moment, the loading/unloading restrictions are partial – presumably 8.00am- 9.00am and 4.30pm – 6.00 pm (although there are no signs on the posts)

The restricted width of the carriageway due to widening of the pavement would logically then require a 24hr restriction on loading/unloading – otherwise nobody could get past a parked vehicle that was doing this.

So, as per the above, not only would 21 days of representations be required but indeed a Public Consultation.

I assume that Mr Harris is suggesting that you give him planning permission and then worry about the TRO afterwards. This I suggest would be illogical and perverse. If this were to happen there is no guarantee that a TRO would subsequently be granted and it should not be assumed that it would.

If, as I previously suggested, a consultation on this matter were to be carried out within this Planning Application and prior to a Committee decision, then the Committee would have an indication at least of the likelihood of success of a subsequent TRO.

I have tabled a question for the Little Lever & Darcy Lever Area Forum of 6th March on this matter for the consideration of the Ward Councillors.


Secondly, on the matter of Puffin Crossing locations, both bus stops on either side of Ainsworth Rd would need to be moved upwards beyond Crossley St towards Victory Rd. In itself this wouldn’t appear to be problematic.

The location of the Puffin on Market St would seem to be directly opposite the bus shelter outside the Council Offices. Moving this and the one on the graveyard side further towards the Village Centre could be problematic since due to entrances and exits there are very few places for them to be re-located.

The Puffin Crossing across Church St would need to be in the same location as the current Zebra otherwise it could not be seen by traffic approaching from Market St.

Point No 2

I note that Bolton Council has posted a legal notice in the Bolton News at long last confirming that it intends to dispose of the land to the south of Crossley St. (The Tree Plot). I note from looking at the plan at the Town Hall, that this does not include the half of the carriageway of Crossley St that Bolton Council own. This is presumably because Crossley St is to remain an adopted highway.

However, Tesco informed me at their presentation that the intention was to aquire a two metre strip of the Tree Plot adjacent to the carriageway in order to widen the entrance. Furthermore they have introduced into the plan the turn around where Crossley St meets the site boundary.

This necessarily encroaches more into the tree plot.

I now must point out to you that not only are the trees on that plot subject to a Tree Preservation Order but I am informed by the former Chairman of the Planning Committee that the TPO’s were put on these trees specifically to prevent development on this piece of land.

I must now refer you to the response to a FOI request which I submitted to Bolton Council
...................................................................................................................................................

From: Charlton, LauraBolton Metropolitan Borough Council24 March 2011

Dear Mr. Richardson,

Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

In response to your request for information we have contacted the relevant
department and Bolton Council are happy to supply the information below.

1.Where trees situated on land owned by Bolton Council are subject to
existing Tree Preservation Orders, what are the circumstances and by what
procedures and on whose authority can those Tree Preservation Orders be
rescinded?

Response.

Once a tree is protected by an order confirmed by the Council (via the
Planning Committee) trees may only be removed as a result of the
submission and approval of an application to undertake such work. This
process is set down by the regulations in respect of trees covered by
TPO's. The decision on such applications would be taken by the Director of
Development and Regeneration under the powers conferred on him by the
scheme of delegation from the Council. Permission may also be granted via
an application to develop the land on which the trees stand but consent
would only apply to the trees that are required to be removed to allow
development to take place.

2.Where Tree Preservation Orders are made specifically in order to ensure
that there is no development of the land on which they are situated, under
what circumstances and by what procedures and on whose authority can those
TPO’s be rescinded and development be allowed to proceed?

Response.

This process would normally result in a developer Appealing a decision and
under such circumstances the final decision as to weather (sic) development
proceeds would be taken by a Planning Inspector on behalf of the Secretary
of State.
3.If such land owned by Bolton Council upon which are situated are trees
covered by TPO’s should be disposed of by sale, under what circumstances
and by what procedures and on whose authority could the TPO’s be
rescinded.?

Response.

The subsequent owner would be responsible for submitting an application to
develop the said site (ie – the Tree Plot  - not Pennine Pets)and the Council would decide whether to approve or refuse the development. Approval to remove trees as part of an application
would be granted pursuant to an approval of a detail/full application.Should the Council refuse consent then the process would follow that set down in the answer to the second query.


(End of response)
................................................................................................................................................................

It’s pretty obvious why the developer would wish to spend a lot of money purchasing the whole of the tree plot. Widening of Crossley St by two metres  could be carried out by Bolton Council (at the developer’s expense) without the need of selling any of the plot.

However, Tesco will no doubt need to have signage at the junction of Crossley St and Ainsworth Rd and the Tree Plot is the only place it can be.

Although we have yet to discover the Crossley St entrance design, it can be assumed that the increased radius required for the entrance of HGV’s would also encroach on the Tree Plot. 

It’s difficult to see that these, or indeed the turn around, could be done without interfering with the trees. This would require one or more of the above procedures to be followed.

Conclusion.
In relation to the One Way System, the narrowing of the carriageway in Lever St resulting in the need for 24 loading restrictions and the status and purpose of the Tree Preservation Orders, Bolton Council has in place rules and regulations for TRO’s and TPO’s which I have copied above from the Council Website and a FOI reply.
The developer, I suggest, must adhere to these.

                                    The Tree Plot – Crossley St




PS:- I will be responding to the Addendum to the Transport Assessment under separate cover.

Regards

Paul Richardson