Tesco at Little Lever - Objections to Planning Application 86999/11 - Covering Letter

My objections fall under four headings.

1. In response to the Transport Assessment

a) In relation to inadequate provision for Pedestrian Safety in the area of the Junction.

b) In relation to the complete failure of the proposal to address the inevitable increase in congestion, delays and tailbacks caused by development generated traffic on top of existing problems with the same, or to suggest a realistic way of mitigating this.

c) In relation to the inevitable creation of rat runs along residential streets.

2. In response to the Planning & Retail Statement

a) In relation to the selective assertion that the proposal complies with the requirements of the Bolton Core Strategy whilst completely ignoring the time frame set out in that document and the Bolton Retail and Leisure Survey, as well as, in terms of additional floorspace required, failing to take into account the effect of retail convenience provision built since that survey was done.

b) In relation to the bold assertion that this proposal could and would easily and substantially increase the retention rate within Zone 6 and or Little Lever itself without the development actually offering the range of comparison goods alongside convenience goods, lack of which comparison goods is a major cause of the ‘Weekly Shop’ being done at outlets outside of the Village.

c) In relation to the statements that the development would create ‘clawback’ and linked trips which would enhance the vitality and viability of the Village Centre – this in the face of ‘Independent’ studies (ie not commissioned and paid for by Tesco) which demonstrate exactly the opposite.

d) In relation to the assertion that linked trips would increase to the benefit of existing businesses in the Village Centre without admitting that the geographical remoteness of the development from the existing businesses and the lack of provision for easy crossing of the Junction by the Application (see above) as well as the loss of the linked trips from the existing Tesco Metro would in fact produce a reduction in the existing linked trips to the detriment of the viability of the existing businesses.

e) In relation to my firm belief that the true purposes behind this development are the substantial increase in Tesco market share which would result from the development as well as the prevention of any other competitor building on the site.

3. In response to the Ground Investigation Report submitted

a) In relation to the fact that this report which was produced in 2006 for a residential development and carried out when the Pennine Pets building were still standing, repeatedly insists that further investigation would be required when the buildings and hard standings were removed. Ignoring this qualification in the report renders the whole report unsuitable and inadequate for this Application.

b) In relation to the fact that this Survey was carried out in ignorance of the historical presence of an electroplating plant on the site with the accompanying contaminants, in an area that was not surveyed by the report.

c) In relation to the fact that the burning down of this 19th century building most probably produced asbestos contamination spread across the site 3 yrs after the survey was carried out.

4. In response to the design of the Crossley St Access

a) In relation to the fact that no design or details and dimensions thereof
have been submitted with the application, making it impossible to comment or object on the grounds of pedestrian or road safety issues caused by the limited access which would be used by pedestrians, cycles, cars and HGV’s.

b) In relation to the lack of information, methodology or calculations that
Demonstrate that an HGV of maximum permitted size could manoeuvre into this access without interfering with the freeflow of traffic either up and down Ainsworth Rd or exiting the development.

c) In relation to the fact the absence of such information before the expiry
of the consultation period places potential objectors at a disadvantage to the applicants and requires that when the information is provided, the consultation period must be re-opened for a sufficient length of time for objectors to respond.

The details, facts and figures and information backing up the above points are contained in the following pages.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tesco at Little Lever - I have a theory

Something has been niggling me about this Tesco proposal, particularly from when I saw the plans for the development which were shown to Public in July.

From the fact that they won’t be selling Comparison Goods to the fact that the new store is only 2.83 times the size of the existing one made me think that it was a hell of a lot of money to spend and disruption to be had for what seems to me to be insufficient gain.

I thought that surely Tesco have a bit more savvy than this.

Many people I have spoken to have come up with the same phrase ie – “What’s the point?”

Then the following scenario occurred to me.



1 - Ladson’s the developer or their agent search around for suitable development sites that they can develop and make money out of.

2 - They come across the Pennine Pets site and think “Ideal for a Supermarket”

3 - We could build a Supermarket here and then lease it to a Supermarket Chain – Income from say a 25 year lease minus cost of build etc equals profit.

4 - They knock together a rough plan but before going further they have to gain the interest of a Supermarket Chain who would be willing to occupy it.

5 - Approaches made to Asda, Morrisson’s Sainsbury’s, Lidl, Aldi etc to see if anybody is interested.

6 - Mr Tesco isn’t particularly interested but immediately realises that if one of the others moves onto the site then the existing Metro is well and truly screwed.

7 - By agreeing to lease the development from Ladson’s Tesco ensures that none of its competitors can move onto the site.

8 - Tesco can’t just buy the land and sit on it ‘cos that’s now not allowed.

Whaddya think so far?

If this is Tesco’s main motivation it would explain why the less than convincing commercial prospects for the store are not the main priority.

Trouble is that neither Ladson’s nor Tesco have thought through the costs of sorting the junction out.

I am told that Tesco are in no particular hurry to put in this application – maybe they’re just happy to have prevented anyone else from doing so.

I hope Mr Seddon is prepared to wait quite a long while for his money – unless he’s already done a borrow against it.

Tesco at Little Lever - Some more contributions in the Bolton News

Cost of appeal should not be a factor in giving permission

Monday 1st August 2011

A little while ago, in reply to a letter about the Market Hall development, your correspondent Mr Hornby, the former chairman of the planning committee, said that the committee’s hands had been tied.

This needs clarification for future applications.

Let us make it clear — the hands of the planning committee are tied by planning policy and nothing else.

This planning policy is embedded in the Bolton Core Strategy — devised and developed by Bolton Council, consulted upon, examined by the Government Inspector and adopted at the beginning of this year.

If a planning application meets planning policy then it should usually be approved. If it contravenes planning policy then it should be on all occasions be refused.
Money should not come into it.

If the applicant appeals against a refusal, that is his right. The council has an undeniable duty to defend its decision and its own policies and if this costs money, so be it.

The cost of a possible appeal should not be a factor in the decision to refuse.

Planning officers have no business in saying to the committee, prior to the decision, that if they refused it would go to appeal and cost the council a lot of money — implying that they should approve it whatever.

Equally, there is a fear in the planning committee that if a refusal is overturned on appeal, any Section 106 monies would be lost.

Section 106 monies, whilst very welcome in an approved planning application, should not be a reason for granting an application where there are planning grounds to refuse it.

As I have said before, the planning committee are too much in thrall to Section 106 money. Even on this matter they’re constantly being had on a butty.

Take the Tesco Longcauseway development. The committee managed to negotiate Section 106 money to the value of £325,000.This off a development with a projected annual turnover of £51million. At this rate, the value of thirty pieces of silver for the Tesco Little Lever proposal would be less than 100 grand.

A further point which might interest your readers is that if the competing Wainhomes development for 88 houses went ahead at Pennine Pets, the council would receive the sum of some £730,000 spread over six years from the Government’s New homes Bonus Scheme.

This in addition to the £325,000 Section 106 monies previously agreed with Wainhomes — plus the Council Tax revenue from the householders — plus their spending power for the village.

No contest — surely.

Paul Richardson Little Lever

................................................................................................





Time to shed light on plan

Monday 1st August 2011

I have heard rumours that Bolton Council are keeping the people of Little Lever in the dark concerning some of the issues surrounding Tesco's Planning application for a new store in Little Lever.

The issues are regarding the traffic problems that will be created by the building of such a large store.

Apparently the council organised a survey of the roads around the junction on Church Street, where the present zebra crossing is on the sharp bend, four to five years ago, just to see what could be done to alleviate traffic problems then, well before the Tesco plan.

They came to two conclusions at that time. The first being the compulsory purchase of the shops and buildings around the junction so that a roundabout could be built.

The second concept being the siting of Traffic Lights, which would drive even more traffic onto Mytham, Aintree, and Redcar Roads so as to avoid any traffic hold-ups.

These roads have infant and junior schools on them as well as being main routes for school children at Little Lever High School.

The first was doomed because of the high cost and the second because of dangers to school children. Will Tesco’s worry about cost or danger to school children so long as they get their store built Is there any truth in these rumours?

Desmond Magurk Bolton

...................................................................................................




Councillors gave no opinions on new Tesco store

Tuesday 2nd August 2011

In response the letter in Friday’s paper “No one wants or needs Tesco” (name and address supplied) I would like to ask the writer where he/she gets the impression that the Conservative Councillor is in favour of the scheme.

I sat next to cllrs Woodward (Conservative) and Connell (Labour) at the meeting and at no time did either of them express their view either in favour or against the scheme.

Both Tony and Mary are not permitted to air their comments as both sit on the planning committee and if they did so they would have to leave the room when the application is being heard.

Surely it is better to have both councillors in the meeting in order that they can make the views of the public known.

As for no one wanting the Tesco scheme, I for one am in favour of the scheme in principle as I said at the meeting. However, the traffic issues would need to be resolved prior to my support being confirmed in writing if they are not you can rest assured that I will object to the scheme on the basis of traffic.

Chris Lord Haseley Close Bradley Fold
.............................................................................................




And finally - one from me not yet printed.


Dear Sir,

In respect of the letter ‘No one wants or needs Tesco’ (Friday 29th July), I empathise with many of the points your anonymous correspondent makes. However I must take him or her to task on the assertion that the ‘Tory Councillor is in favour of Tesco taking the world over’

The lady referred to is Councillor Mrs Woodward who is a member of the planning committee and one of the people who will have to vote for or against an application should it arise. A person in such a position is akin to a member of a jury and must make her judgement solely on whether or not such an application satisfies planning policy.

It is incumbent upon Tesco to prove the case for this development.

They must prove the quantative and qualitative need for such a development measured against the Policies contained in the Bolton Core Strategy.

They must convince the Committee that the development does not impact adversely on the vitality and viability of other stores in the existing Village Centre.

They must produce an up to date survey of the condition of the land both on the surface and underneath and a plan to deal with any contaminants left over from previous usages.

They must address the Environmental impact of the development in terms of noise, light and air pollution and the effect on the amenity of nearby residents.

And finally and most difficult of all, they must come forward with a realistic solution to the Traffic Management at the critical Junction based on contemporary Traffic Data.

Such a solution must improve the already difficult traffic flow issues as well as catering for the extra traffic generated by the development. This - without throwing an increase of traffic onto the other residential roads across the Village - otherwise known as ‘rat-runs’.

Such a solution has, to date, defied the best brains and financial resources of the Council and there is no doubt that if it could be achieved it would involve horrendous cost and temporarily much disruption. They might even ask ‘Is it worth it?’

My view is that they are a heck of a long way from achieving any of the above.

Paul Richardson
Ripon Close
Little Lever

Area Forums

These are articles and letters from the Bolton News about the proposed alterations to the Area Forum system.

The whole thing is in abeyance at the moment but there are indications of how it will pan out later in the year.

.......................................................................................................



Council considers change for forums

Monday 6th June 2011

The way area forums work could change under new plans being considered by Bolton Council.

Two local authority teams — Neighbourhood Management and Area Working — are set to merge and could see the forums run differently.

None of the 18 forums have been given budgets so far this financial year while the council considers the plans.

Last week, area co-ordinator Idris Jeewa told the Great Lever Area Forum: “The forum does not have its budget yet for this year as Area Working and Neighbourhood Management are going to be amalgamated.”

He said there would be a review by the council between June and September. The Area Working team and the Neighbourhood Management team are both part of the chief executive’s department.

There will be a consultation before the plans are approved.

The proposed merger is part of the council’s cost-cutting drive.

Mr Jeewa told the meeting he did not know what form the new forums would take or whether there would be any changes at all.

Area forums were introduced in 2000, when there were initially six forums in the borough.

This increased to nine in 2004 under the Liberal Democrats, and to 18 in 2008.
The forums meet four times a year.

Power to hand out cash to local voluntary groups was taken away from forums earlier this year.

Previously, £45,000 of funding was available for small grants via the forums. Now small grant applications must be made to Bolton CVS, which has a £160,000 fund to help groups.

..................................................................................................

Alan Calvert wrote

Talks on future of local forums

Monday 20th June 2011

Bolton Council puts some effort in to staging area forums throughout the town.
They are an opportunity for members of the public to have their say about local issues.

Whether anything much happens as a result is sometimes debateable, but the meetings can be a worthwhile communications exercise.

We now learn that two local authority teams — Neighbourhood Management and Area Working — are set to merge and there could be changes in the way the forums are run.

A review lasts until September and there is to be some of that familiar consultation.

It seems inevitable that costs will be reduced during this exercise, but I hope the forums — established in 2000 — continue to exist in some form or another.

...................................................................................................


Tory chief hits out at changes to ward funds




Sunday 24th July 2011

Changes to the way funding is allocated to every ward in the borough has been criticised as “unbalanced, unfair and unacceptable” by the town’s most senior Conservative.

The budget for devolved funding has been slashed from almost £1.4 million to £842,000, with greater emphasis on funding being targeted at areas of higher deprivation.

But Cllr John Walsh says the figures are unbalanced, with four wards being allocated more than half the total budget.

He said: “Labour’s proposals for 2011/2012 are unbalanced with over half the total tar- geted allocations ear- marked for just four wards, Rumworth, Farnworth, Halliwell and Great Lever, while seven wards in total will get less than a quarter of the highest.

“Labour base the allocations on figures for deprivation which are years old and flawed. The present proposals will be seen as totally unfair and unaccept- able to the vast majori- ty of people across Bolton.”

Cllr Nick Peel, a member of the Executive, hit back at Cllr Walsh.

He said: “It was actually his Government who scrapped the area based grants.”
As part of the same drive to save money, Town Hall chiefs have also announced 21 posts are to go in the chief executive’s department.

A reorganisation of the way Bolton Council engages with local communities has been agreed by deputy council leader Cllr Linda Thomas.

Among the jobs top go will be the number of area managers, which is being cut from five to three while the number of area co-ordinators is being cut by the same amount.

Responsibility for area working is being shared with Bolton At Home, the organisation which took over the ownership of Bolton’s 18,500 council houses earlier this year, while the number of area forum meetings for each ward is being cut from four per year to three per year.

Cllr Thomas insisted residents will still be able to have their voices heard.

......................................................................................................




Forums should not lose out to areas of ‘high deprivation’

Thursday 28th July 2011

I am dismayed to hear of the proposed tinkering with the Area Forum system.
Constitutionally, these forums are committees of the council and perhaps the only place where ward councillors and the council can be publicly held to account by voters and be encouraged or embarrassed into acting on local issues.

I appreciate the council has financial difficulties and although it may be that the council views the forums merely as platforms for the views of assorted nutters, moaners and whingers, any reduction in their frequency or emasculation in any other way would be a further dilution of local democracy.

As Conservative leader Cllr John Walsh points out, once again we see that monies, once available equally to all the forums for spending at the behest of the ward councillors, are now to be skewed in favour of the wards of “high deprivation” — this based on figures at least 10 years old.

It’s time this mantra of “areas of high deprivation” was knocked on the head. The majority of people in these areas are no more deprived than I am — in fact, a lot of them are a lot less deprived.

There are health issues, but this is due to the fact that members of the ethnic minority communities are traditionally prone to different kinds of health problems, as minimal internet research can show.

These are matters for the NHS and no excuse for Labour councillors to pour more of our council tax into their favoured areas. There should be a rule that a proportion of the council tax paid by each ward should be returned to that ward for spending on projects decided by the ward councillors.

Finally, what has happened to the £50,000 District Centre Improvement Fund that Little Lever was supposed to get this year?

I think we ought to be told.

Paul Richardson Ripon Close Little Lever

........................................................................................................

Methinks we haven't heard the last of this

Little Lever Precinct Car Park - 2

This is the background stuff for the parking anomaly. Good bed-time reading.

This e-mail sent by me to Bolton Council tries to explain why the Council's statements of justification for the parking ticket are illogical and a nonsense.

Dear Sir

This e-mail relates to parking on the ‘Car Park’ at the rear of the Precinct Properties in Little Lever Village Centre - north of Fletcher St.

This follows the issuing of a Code 1 PCN (contravention of yellow lines) on a vehicle parked immediately behind Cohen's Chemist.

This may seem a bit convoluted but the implications of the uncertainties of what is allowed and what is not allowed are serious.

.............................................................................................................................


There have been a series of e-mails between Sean Hornby, yourselves and the Council’s Asset Management Unit at Highways and Delivery Services relating to this particular PCN.

The conclusion stated by the above unit was that this PCN was correctly issued because, according to them:-

“The waiting restrictions on Fletcher Street apply from the centre of the carriageway to the boundary of the highway on the appropriate side of the road.(originally they said the Building Line) This includes the carriageway and the maintainable footway. The restrictions do not apply to the building line as stated but to the property boundary (ie, at this location, the interface between the adopted footway and the car park). (

The contravention occurred on waiting restrictions which apply to the north side of the road, Fletcher Street, as stated in the traffic regulation order whereas there is no traffic regulation order in place on the private car park. There is no doubt that the vehicle is parked in contravention of the ‘no waiting at any time’ restriction on Fletcher Street.

I trust this clarifies the position and explains that the vehicle was parked on adopted highway and not the car park, therefore the contravention code of ‘parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours’ is correct; it should also be noted that there is no Traffic Regulation Order to enforce on the car park.”

..........................................................................................................

I have submitted three FOI requests about this matter and received replies.

...........................................................................................................

Historically the whole area bounded by Market St, Foundary St, Fletcher St and Mytham Road was made up of houses and commercial premises and for the sake of argument these were surrounded by a pavement say 1.8 metres wide.

There is no doubt that the then ‘Highway’ extended from the centre of the carriageways to the building line (the Property Line) – which was then at the inner edge of the pavement - say 1.8 metres from the kerb.


Subsequently the whole area was demolished and re-developed as the Precinct.

The ‘Building Line’ then changed to what it is now – accommodating the Car Parks.

..............................................................................................................


In relation to the ‘historical pavement’ along the length of Fletcher St, a FOI reply tells me that :- “There is no record of any legal request to close this footway as part of the development of the shops, therefore, its status as adopted public highway remains.( Equally there is no record of this area of the car park being 'adopted')

(The fact of the matter is that any records would be held by Lancashire County Council since the development took place before 1974 when Bolton took over Little Lever and so obviously Bolton Council wouldn't hold any record)
...........................................................................................................


I have seen three different maps of the development.

1) Supplied by FOI request with annotations






2) Land Registry Title Plan LA196662.






3) Your own Highways Plan



.........................................................................................................


There are obvious discrepancies between the three plans.

The annotations on Map 1 are informative.

Whilst the (original) pavements along Market St and Foundry St and in Fletcher St to the end of the West side Car Park are shown in blue as ‘Adopted Highway’, the ‘historical pavement’ from the south west corner of Unit 21 ( Premier Stores) eastwards along Fletcher St to Mytham Rd is not thus shown. (Double Click on the image and use the magnifier to read the annotations)

In fact the back wall of Unit 21 is built over at least half the historical pavement.

On Map 3, the line of adoption behind Cohen’s Chemist and the Bookies deviates from the straight line in a kind of hump which is not shown on the earlier Map 1. The origins or reasons for the ‘hump’ is a mystery but it certainly doesn’t conform to the ‘1.8metres from the kerbline’ quoted above.

........................................................................................................


The problem with the PCN is twofold.

Firstly:-

FOI replies confirm following:-

“We can confirm that the issuing of Traffic Regulation Orders by Bolton
Council is based on the definition of `Road' contained in The Road Traffic
Regulation Act of 1984, subsequent Road Traffic Acts and subsequent Case
Law and that this definition has no relation to whether or not a road or
highway is adopted or unadopted.”

However, these acts and subsequent Case Law make clear that a Highway means a piece of land that the public have unfettered ability to cross and re- cross by foot or by vehicle irrespective of whether that land is Public, Private Adopted or otherwise.

Case Law confirms that for the purposes of Road Traffic Regulation Act and other Road Traffic Acts, the highway extends from the centre of the carriageway to the Building Line even if the land in between is Private. (This was the original statement in the exchange of e-mails referred to above )

....................................................................................................

The commonsense demonstration of this is that if I were parked in my car with the ignition keys on the Precinct car park (Private land) – how can I put it – drunk, then I can be arrested. Ditto no Tax – ditto no Insurance etc.

This means that the whole of the Precinct Car Park is a Highway for the purposes of the Acts and thus the double yellow line restriction on Fletcher St East extends from the centre of the carriageway across the historical pavement and over the car park up to the building line.

So- anybody parking on that car park can be ‘done’ PCN code 1.

You seem to have confused the Council’s definition of a highway as being 'that which has been adopted by the Council as a highway' and the definition of a highway for the purposes of the Acts.


Secondly:-

The car park contains marked bays. The public assume that they can park there. However at least three of these bays cover all or part of the historical pavement width and so would, even by your rules, fall foul of a PCN code 1.

It is obvious that all this needs to be sorted so that the public know where they can park and where they can’t.

..................................................................................................

The original PCN was issued for parking on the historical pavement although there is no indication that there is a pavement historical or otherwise at that point or how far it extends. There is no demarcation between the ‘pavement’ and the rest of the car park.

The Act stipulates that parking restrictions should be clearly marked and understood and in this case they are not. There needs to be more than just the double yellow lines.

..................................................................................

The above e-mail resulted in the following reply:-

"Thank you for your e-mail addressed to the Director of Environmental Services in connection with a penalty charge notice issued to a vehicle parked at the rear of Little Lever Precinct.



I have made further enquiries into the issues you have raised and can confirm that for the purpose of parking enforcement highway rights always take precedence over property rights. The only plan that is relevant to the case where the penalty charge notice was issued is the extract from the highway register.



Any rights over the private parking area adjacent to Fletcher Street are permissive rights that could be withdrawn by the controller of the property at any time. Therefore the matter of the car park has no relevance to the case.



There is a lawful, enforceable traffic regulation order on Fletcher Street. The restriction is marked in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions that give full effect to the TRO. There are no other signs or markings that would be appropriate here.



It is incumbent upon a driver to ensure that when parking a vehicle it is safe and lawful to do so. In this particular case the vehicle was parked on the footway, within a metre (They previously said 1.8 metres)of the edge of carriageway (with DYLs), where the likelihood of it being highway (with waiting prohibited) was clear.



As previously stated Mr Hoyle has since paid the notice and closed the case. If he wishes to have the Council’s decision re-assessed by Traffic Penalty Tribunal; an independent body put in place to regulate all notices issued in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, he may ask for a refund of his payment and a form ‘Notice to Owner’ will be sent to the registered keeper/ owner of the vehicle as identified by DVLA to continue the process.



The attached leaflet explains this process and the grounds of appeal and it should be noted that if the case is dismissed by a Parking Adjudicator the full amount of £70 will be applicable.

.......................................................................................................

Frankly, at this point I became convinced that the Council hadn't got a clue as to the requirements of the Traffic Regulations and forwarded my views to my friend, Mr Eastwood.

I subsequently raised it at the Area Forum from where the Bolton News picked it up resulting in todays article.

I look forward to the officer's visit.

Cheers for now fellow anoraks!

Little Lever Precinct Car Park -1

The following article appeared in today's Bolton News.

Clear up village car park confusion, council urged

Tuesday 26th July 2011

Drivers are calling on Bolton Council to make its parking regulations clear after a vehicle was booked for parking on a private car park.

A ticket was issued to a car parked on the edge of the car park at the back of the Little Lever shopping precinct.

The vehicle was not in a marked parking bay but there are no signs to warn drivers they are liable to be fined.

However, it has now emerged the traffic warden gave the car a penalty charge notice for parking close to double yellow lines in Fletcher Street.

Driver Steve Hoyle, aged 50, appealed against the ticket but the council’s parking services department told him he did not have a case because the car park was a “pavement”.

He said: “I’ve parked there many times before without a problem and I’ve since seen other drivers park there without getting fined.

“There are cars on that car park in marked bays right on the edge of the road and they are more of an obstruction. It’s crazy — it just needs making clear.”

Mr Hoyle, who is licensee at Hardy Hall, Little Lever, had parked on the small triangle at the end of the car park.

But there are other marked bays in the car park that also come right up to the edge of the road, next to the yellow lines.

Paul Richardson, who owns the Village Tea Rooms, opposite the precinct, said: “It’s a car park.

There’s no indication you can’t park there.

“If this part is a pavement then surely it stretches all the way along the car park and through three marked parking bays.

“All we want is for it to be made clear so that no one else gets a ticket.”

A council spokesman said: “In light of concerns raised, an officer will visit the location within the next seven days to clarify whether any part of the car park is within the adopted highway.

“If necessary, we will then consider the best way to make this more clear.

“Cars parked in marked bays on the car park will not currently get a penalty charge notice from the council as the car park is not covered by a Traffic Regulation Order.”

The next post on this will give all the background details.

Tesco at Little Lever - Transport Assessment

Transport Impact Assessments

Here we will deal with the requirement, laid out in Government Guidance, for a planning application to be accompanied by a Traffic Impact Assessment.

There is a stipulation that a planning application for a food retail store such as a supermarket in excess of 800 sq metres must be accompanied by a Transport Assessment and a Travel Plan.

...................................................................................................

Here we deal with the Transport Assessment.

Most of what is below is direct copy and paste from that Government Guidance.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) states that, where a new development is likely to have significant transport implications, a Transport Assessment (TA) should be prepared and submitted with a planning application for the development.

A Transport Assessment is a comprehensive and systematic process that sets out transport issues relating to a proposed development. It identifies what measures will be taken to deal with the anticipated transport impacts of the scheme and to improve accessibility and safety for all modes of travel, particularly for alternatives to the car such as walking, cycling and public transport.

.......................................................................................................

To produce such a document Traffic Data particular to the roads immediately adjacent to and in the vicinity of the development needs to be collected.



The Guidance stipulates the conditions under which this data should be collected as follows:-

The assessment should include recent counts (normally surveyed within the last three years) for peak period turning movements at critical junctions.

The traffic data should reflect the normal traffic flow conditions on the transport network (e.g. non-school holiday periods, typical weather conditions etc.) in the vicinity of the site, and should be valid for the intended purposes.

The recommended periods for data collection are spring and autumn, which include the neutral months of April, May, June, September and October,

.....................................................................................................

The Guidance stipulates the periods during which data should be collected as follows:-

The analysis period should reflect the person trip generation characteristics of the proposed development, as well as conditions on the adjacent transport system. It should be related to known and anticipated peak patterns of demand both for the transport system and development-generated trips.

A TA should normally consider the following analysis periods:

• weekday morning and evening peak period trips for the adjacent transport system, with particular focus on the peak period traffic flows on the road network;

• weekday morning and evening peak period trips for the proposed development;

• an off-peak period selected to assess level of greatest change resulting from the development;

• weekend peak period if the development is anticipated to generate significant levels of new trips at weekends or the adjacent transport system suffers from greater levels of congestion than during weekdays.

The analysis period should also include an assessment of the combination of development related and non-development-related trips.

.........................................................................................................

The Guidance also addresses Environmental Issues and states that the Transport Assessment should address amongst other things the following matters.

• nuisance to people caused by transport-related noise and vibration generated by the development;

• the emission of greenhouse gases as a result of the transport implications of the development and the impact of changes in local air quality on people;


These are only short extracts from the Guidance.

More later