7 Nov 2018 Page 1 of 16

7 Nov 2018

Provision of road infrastructure for South Woodham Ferrers (SWF) in Chelmsford Local Plan

Background

SWF is an integrated community bounded to the north by the B1012. This is a heavily used Major road that takes the majority of traffic from the Dengie. All the current facilities in the town are to the south of this road.

Executive Summary

New homes north of the B1012 will be cut off from the existing town. The submission claims ‘new SWF’ will be an integrated community. The submission plans to keep the existing major road (B1012) whilst claiming safe and easy access for pedestrian and cyclists to the existing schools and railway station will be provided by adding 3-4 multiuser crossing points on the B1012. These, it is claimed, will not impede traffic flow.

Critical information contained in the evidence books is misleading and contradictory not representing the actual situation . The recommendations and conclusions cannot be substantiated using this information.

To reduce costs CCC intend to delegate their obligation to provide the required infrastructure to housing developers. CCC advised that mandating a new northern ring road would be expensive (my est £6-8M) and will make the sites ‘unattractive to developers’ (Leader of CCC 26 Apr 2018)

Road Capacity

There are 2 different Traffic Master peak flow representations in the submission. Both from 2014/15 data showing 08:00 to 09:00 as the peak hour. This is incorrect and should not be used for developing an infrastructure plan. Commuter peak hours on the B1012 and Ferrers road are pre 07:00 to post 08:00. (figs 4, 5)

1) CCC advised the correct plot is EB026 app G p140 showing 08:00 to 09:00 AM ‘peak flow’ in a ‘neutral month’ where the B1012 and Ferrers road are at 45-55% Max capacity. Fig 1

2) In EB025 the plot shows the B1012 is running at 15% of its capacity during the AM peak with Ferrers Road at 40%. (No time is given, it likely taken during the school run approx. 08:45 as delays are shown in Brent Avenue and King Edwards Road . Fig 2

The Trafficmaster capacity plot (fig 1) is in broad agreement with the 08:40 Google traffic plot. Fig 3.

HOWEVER SWF and the Dengie are commuter communities where the morning peak starts around 06:45 and starts to diminish after 08:00. The slow traffic speeds shown in the Google‘typical traffic’ plots confirm the roads are at capacity during the earlier AM peak. Figs 4 and 5

The fact that there is little or no current capacity at junctions 20 and 21 is verified in table 1 below and contradicts the plot in fig1 that infers the roads are well under capacity.

Table 1 Extract from capacity tables shown in EB026 ref table 5.7 P110

EB026 P111 states, Looking to the future, it should be noted that while the results illustrate the potential for accommodating additional demand on the critical junction approach arms, a proportion of spare capacity would be expected to be taken up by growth in background traffic

At J21 there are 128 vehicles ‘spare capacity’ if the traffic is spread the traffic over a 3 hour period. This does not consider the predicted increase in traffic flow up to 2036 (EB 033 and attachment 2). There is no evidence that the Ferrers road junction (J19) has been considered in this document.

7 Nov 2018 Page 2 of 16

There are considerable delays at J19 during the AM commute (Figs 4, 5) in direct contradiction with data shown in the submission (EB026 and table2)

Before the roundabout and pedestrian crossings are installed (as part of 14/00830) Hullbridge road is overcapacity at AM peak joining Burnham Road J21. It should be noted that Burnham Road westbound backs up approx. 1.0 KM 06:45 -08:00 past Hullbridge road (figs 4,5) hence J20 and J21 should be modelled together, currently they are not.

Traffic flow Plots

These plots are both generated by monitoring the positions of mobile phones. The Trafficmaster submissions are from 2014-2015 whilst the Google plots are current. With the increase in mobile phone usage the 2018 data will give a better representation of traffic queues / congestion. CCC are not willing to accept the Google traffic maps despite the data source being widely accepted as accurate and being used by traffic apps on all mobile phones and sat nav’s

Fig 1

CCC confirm (attach 1) that this shows the correct AM traffic flow for roads around SWF, (EOB26 App G P140). This is declared as representative of the AM peak levels of traffic in South Woodham Ferrers from data collected 2014-15. It indicates main roads are at 55% of free flow capacity between 08:00 to 09:00. (Ringway Jacobs drawing). It appears to show directional flow information.

7 Nov 2018 Page 3 of 16

Fig 2

EOB25 Figure 3-16: P20 AM observed levels of traffic in South Woodham Ferrers 2014-15 declared no congestion. This infers the B1012 is running at only 15% of its capacity during the AM peak. Ferrers road at about 40%.

Commuters travelling between 06:45 and 08:00 will tell you this is nonsense and are leaving at 06:30 to avoid delays.

NOTE, delays shown in Brent avenue infers it is during the school run approx. 08:45

Fig 3

Google ‘typical’ traffic 08:45 AM Peak, Minimal queues indicate the roads are below capacity which correlates with the above plot, confirming that the reports have assumed incorrect peak hours.

The observed ‘real peak travel times’ correlate well with the Google plots below

Fig 4

07:10 AM peak Significant slow moving queues indicate B1012, Ferrers and Hullbridge road are at or above capacity,

Fig 5

08:15 AM traffic is starting to ease but still shows significant slow moving queues, indicating the B1012, Ferrers and Hullbridge road at or above capacity, Peak load spreading is not appropriate.

7 Nov 2018 Page 4 of 16

Measured traffic volumes vs government declared road capacities

EB032 para 1.1.2 declares CCC will be using DMRB technical guidance for transport analysis. It is clear that this has not been followed

To use ‘peak spreading’ DMRB 12 2.5.3 recommends that that time period for traffic surveys should be wide enough to show the ‘shoulders’ of peak flow. The graphs in fig 6 show this has not been done.

DMRB 2.9.2 Forecast of traffic volumes ‘should be demonstrably compatible with the latest National Trip end models … and Tempro’ . EB033 P44 section 8 Summary predicts a 15% to 22%. Increase from 2014 to 2036 and Tempro 9% increase 2014 to 2021. This has not modelled see appendix 2

EB026 para 3.2 states the modelled flows have been reduced by 5%. It this reduced flow is being used in the models and as such the results must be considered invalid.

EB028 p4 answer to a written question confirms this 5% reduction was modelled but ‘may not be achievable’.

EB 026 provides ‘rolling’ hourly traffic volumes at junctions on the B1012 in SWF at 15-minute intervals. CCC have advised (attachment 1) that these represent total flow along the road and are not directional. These data are therefore invalid. However it can be assumed that during the AM peak the vast majority of traffic will be out of town and the graphs will be indicative of the traffic volume.

The plots (fig 6) are from data in EB026 P141 and it is clear that;

a) the traffic exceeds the directional capacity of the single carriageway road. (yellow horizontal line)

b) the ‘shoulder’ for the morning rush is before 07:00 and roads are congested before 07:00 and after 08:00. EB028 p 4 CCC acknowledge peak time should start at 06:45, elsewhere in the submission much evidence is presented that relates to an 08:00 to 09:00 AM peak which will not give an accurate representation of the congestion. Figs 4,5 from google ‘typical traffic’ confirm the roads have significant queues 07:00 to 08:00

To model traffic flow effectively at a junction it is essential to have ‘directional volume data’. This has not been presented although it must exists as queue lengths, time waiting, SFC is presented. 'Traffic Data Monitoring' collected data between the 20-26 September 2017 to cover junctions 19 to 21, this has been omitted from the submission. The company used twin sensor tubes from which direction and true flow rates can be established.

Fig 6

Sources; Traffic volumes from EB026 Preferred option strategic and local junction modelling January 2018 P141 appendix H,

DMRB from Volume 5 Section 1 Part 3 TA79/99 Amendment 1 and EB031

The solution offered to mitigate over capacity is ‘peak load spreading’ over a 3 hour period (fig 7) suggesting that the commuters start earlier and later. SWF commuters already leave at 06:30 to avoid the queues on the A132, B1012 and Ferrers Road. The fact that many commuters in industry have to be at their desk by 08:00 has not been considered.

7 Nov 2018 Page 5 of 16

Fig 7

Proposed peak load spreading Source EB026 P109 suggests commuters can spread travel over a 3 hour period.

Queuing / Waiting times modelling output

Table 2 below is a summary of the AM traffic delays at junctions 19-21 taken from EB026.

For information 2014 Vectos traffic data are included that were used to justify junction modification at J20 and 21 for planning application 14/0083. Exactly the same drawings have been submitted in this application to support declared mitigation (attachment 3). It should be noted that for J19, J20 and J21 there are significant anomalies in time delay that must be answered before the modelling can be considered credible. Conclusions based on these results will be unsound.

Both the VISUM and Vectos models consider junctions in isolation and do not include allowances for pedestrian crossings. The models are incorrect for J20 and J21 (Old Wickford Road and new Sainsburys roundabouts), they are close together and cause interactions. e.g. Vectos predicted AM peak (08:00- 09:00) westbound cars 144 cars queuing at J20 whilst only 11 were queued at J21, clearly impossible. Using this information, the Vectos report concluded adding a roundabout at J21 would improve traffic flow. The same anomaly is shown in table 1 when there is a 165.00 second delay at J20 but only a 26.86 delay at J21. A further conundrum is how a 307.26 second delay northbound on Hullbridge road reduces to 12.83 seconds after adding a pedestrian crossing and a roundabout with priority from the right on the B1012.

NOTE The assumed bases of 2013/16 for this submission bears no relation the actual situation on the ground or that in the 2014 Vectos report.

e.g.

J20 B1012 traffic from the east, delays drop from 106.80 seconds to 22.75 in 2016 with no change

J19 Typical delays on northbound Ferrers road are 300 to 600 seconds during the AM peak whereas 14.59s is claimed (fig4 and Table2 below).

These data are not credible and must be re assessed before any development decisions.

7 Nov 2018 Page 6 of 16

VISUM 20 Jan 2018 peak 7:30 - 8:30 delays seconds

Memo; 14/00830 Vectos, 4 Mar 2014 AM peak 7:45 9:15

Delays seconds

Junct ref

EB026 ref

Road name joining junction

(Note Burnham Road is B1012)

Base 2016

Do Min 2036

Plan 2036

2013

Base

2019 No Dev

2019 With Dev

19 4.21 Burnham Road 3.84 4.11 4.69

Ferrers Road northbound 14.59 24.07 29.37

A132 Burnham Road 4.03 4.54 5.00

Willow grove s/bound 4.67 5.00 5.55

20 4.22 B1418 3.93 4.03 4.74 4.19 4.60 4.97

Burnham Road westbound 22.75 48.74 165.00 106.86 275.83 363.15

Old Wickford Road n/bound 10.44 12.26 14.43 11.13 11.81 12.05

Burnham Road eastbound 5.22 5.81 7.15 4.72 5.26 3.89

21 Pre Sainsbury access 14/00830

4.23 Hullbridge road northbound 307.26 12.83 30.03 216.52

Burnham Road westbound No data

Burnham Road eastbound 3.48 5.43 14.99

Post Sainsbury roundabout 14/00830

4.24 Burnham Road westbound 10.75 27.86 37.33

Hullbridge Road northbound 12.83 30.03 180.49

Burnham Road eastbound 13.61 3.48 5.43 3.48 4.52

Sainsbury access 3.22 3.93 3.22 3.19

Table 2, AM peak Waiting times from EB026 Preferred option strategic and local junction modelling January 2018. and from Vectos report for 14/00830 (2014).

The presentation incorrectly assumes a 5% reduction in traffic despite EB025, P5 para 2.1. Which states; A sensitivity test considering the highway impact of a model-wide 5% reduction in vehicle trips has subsequently been undertaken to gain an insight into what might happen if congestion did have an impact on travel behaviour in the peak hours. It should be noted that while a reduction of 5% is considered to be a reasonable level for such a change, there is no evidence to suggest that this will be achieved or that it will be achieved uniformly across all origins and destinations of trips, as has been tested here. There is no allowance for housing growth from the Maldon district and the Dengie (approx. 5000 homes). EBO32 p44 asserts traffic growth will increase by 14 -37% by 2036

Peak hours incorrect.

The VISIUM traffic modelling output declares peak hours for the morning rush 08:00 to 09:00. They acknowledged that for SWF it may start 07:30. DMRB recommends traffic surveys must use data that shows the ‘shoulder in peak traffic flow. The results shown in fig 6 above show clearly that the AM shoulder on the B1012 has not been identified and needs to include data back to 06:00. The capacity of the B1012 is exceeded before 07:00. Commuters advise you to be away from SWF by 06:30 to get a clear run. The latest survey on the Burnham road was conducted the week before the school summer holidays. This is not during a ‘neutral month’. Traffic master advise that there is a reduction of 10% in traffic during the holidays.

7 Nov 2018 Page 7 of 16

Declared mitigation

The proposals pay minimal attention to the needs of SWF and its residents. Whilst inferring measures have been instigated to mitigate the traffic issues around the town and proposed drawings are included in the submission they are EXATLY the same as those submitted for planning application 14/00830. EB026 Preferred option strategic and local junction modelling January 2018 P164, No new designs or evidence has been submitted proposing junction solutions. The submission declares it will be left to the developers to develop the necessary designs.

£10m has been allocated for junction modifications which the submission asserts will solve all congestion issues to 2036. The change to junction 20 (Wickford Road) widens the Westbound carriageway by just 2m (PM peak) and the Sainsburys roundabout proposal does not fit the available space. These are being paid for by the developer of the Sainsburys site. Traffic modelling for this proposal has not demonstrated how adding 2-3 light controlled multiuser crossings on the B1012 will improve traffic flow. It should be noted that the 14/00830 traffic model included pedestrian crossings but set the number of pedestrains at zero.

CCC are not prepared to do any further modelling (attachment 1) and will wait for the developers (Countryside properties UK) to deliver their own solutions as part of the housing planning applications in tandem with their developments. By not specifying the required road infrastructure CCC are not meeting the requirements of their own core planning policies CP01, 04, 11 and 14. (attachment 4)

Costs

The problem with doing the ‘right thing’ seems to be cost. To paraphrase Cllr Whitehead’s written response to providing a northern ring road, April 2018 ‘a road to the north of the site would be very expensive’…’making it unattractive to purchasers’ It is assumed he meant developers. The documents in the plan confirm all the infrastructure in area 7 (SWF) will have to be provided by the developers.

The outer ring road costs could be offset using the’ as yet undefined’ £1.9 million for a footbridge + TBE pedestrian controlled crossings on the Burnham road. If this cost was ring fenced and much of the existing B1012 sold as a local road for both communities and housing an outer ring road would be much more affordable. This would integrate the new town, and meet the declared objectives by providing wide cycle paths, footways, safe crossings and less pollution. Constructing a dual carriageway on green field site in 2017 would cost approx. £4m a mile representing an approx. cost of £6m

Essex Highways have allocated £10m for A132 ‘junction improvements’ when they could be funding dualling 3km of the A132. Other councils can do a lot more with this level of spend. e.g. Wiltshire County Council dualled 2.6 km of the A530 at Chippenham between two roundabouts, at a cost of £7.2m (2017). Atkins provided a business case showing annual economic benefits of £27m and a 10-20% reduction in journey time. http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/highways-improvements-a350

By spending their £11.9m wisely the project could deliver the declared objectives; safe and easy access to the rail station and schools. To provide a priority bus services etc the A132 must be made a dual carriageway and a northern ring road provided before building starts. If the planners/ Essex Highways rely on the developers to provide the roads and wait for the 1000+ new homes to be built in SWF this will never happen.

The proposal has not considered the business case or looked at the whole cost. History shows that providing by-passes brings communities together

7 Nov 2018 Page 8 of 16

Potential Solution

Fig 8 Outer ring road proposal submitted by John Frankland March 2018

This proposal eliminates the unacceptable division of the new development by the congested B1012. It will allow safe and easy access to the railway station and existing facilities to the south and to those attending the proposed medical centre whilst encouraging walking and cycling.

There is a solution to bring the two communities together; provide a Northern Ring road, following the 25m contour round Bushy Hill, similar to that proposed by Mr J Frankland fig 6 (from responses to the public consolation).

A Brunning C Eng, SWF Resident

7 Nov 2018 Page 9 of 16

Attachment 1, E Mail discussions with Chelmsford City Council

Dear Ms Stuckey.

Thank you for your considered reply. However I am afraid I can't see how you can reach the conclusions

below. Please bear with me while I explain my concerns in the blue text add to your e mail.

Regards

Alan Brunning C Eng

SWF resident

From: STUCKEY, Claire [mailto:Claire.Stuckey@chelmsford.gov.uk]

Sent: 16 October 2018 13:15

To: (Mr Brunning)Subject: RE: Minor correction RE: Chelmsford Plan issues with the traffic data and modeling in and around

south Woodham Ferrers

Dear Mr Brunning

Thank you for your email which has been passed to me for a response. I respond to your points in turn below:

1. Queuing timesYou suggest that the data does not seem to match the actual situation on the ground and that additional pedestrian crossings on the B1012 will not reduce queuing times along this road.

Base year 2016 junction models were developed by Essex Highways using observed traffic count data. Modelled delays were then validated against available Trafficmaster journey time data in order to represent conditions on the ground. The Essex Highways junction capacity modelling was undertaken independently of the Vectos modelling. As such, junction geometries and, in particular, vehicle demand modelled are likely to differ between the two studies, leading to variations in junction capacity outputs. Where you highlight the discrepancies in modelled delay on the B1012 Burnham Road east (for example), we would argue that the delays modelled by Essex Highways are more representative of typical traffic speeds than Google maps (for example). Please can you confirm that the observed traffic count data you quote was from the survey in September 2017. The Trafficmaster plots (EB025 and 026) use 2014-2015 data and the incorrect AM peak hour between 08:00 to 09:00. EB025 uses information from what is described as a 'neutral month'. I would be pleased if you could advise if this map averages the AM traffic flow over the full month? If this includes weekends the plot would be showing a 33 % reduction in peak hour traffic. I cannot understand why you and your team will not accept Google maps 'real time' or 'typical traffic' information. The source for these data is collected in the same manner (mobile phone signals) and it is difficult to understand why it would be less accurate when showing queuing traffic. One could argue that due to the huge increase in smart phone usage since 2014, data sourced in 2018 would be more accurate. There is significant evidence that Google data matches the actual road conditions throughout the day and responds immediately to traffic congestion.

I am unaware of modelling outputs presented in the Essex Highways reports that demonstrate that adding pedestrian crossings to the B1012 will reduce queuing. The modelling of the Burnham Road/Hullbridge Road junction was undertaken without reference to Vectos’ capacity modelling, and demonstrated that the developer roundabout layout (with pedestrian crossings) would provide improved capacity over the existing priority junction layout. There are no references to modelling pedestrian crossings in the VISUM description and output. It would seem perverse that adding 2 or 3 traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings on this road would reduce traffic

7 Nov 2018 Page 10 of 16

congestion. The nominal 'RED' for a pelican crossing is around 30 seconds. With a flow at or close to the maximum quoted in your documents, this represents a reduction in capacity of at least 15 vehicles per stop, (1850*30/3600). Assuming a minimum of 1 stop every 3 minutes this would represent a 17% reduction in max flow and additional generation of NO2 and PM2.5's' during stopping and accelerating. This confirms the undesirability of adding these crossing on the B1012 which runs alongside a junior school and housing. The design guide for modelling junctions asserts that when 2 roundabouts are close to each other they should be modelled as a pair. The stated westbound queue on the B1012 at the Old Wickford Road roundabout overlaps the Sainsbury's roundabout by over 100 vehicles, creating a completely different dynamic for northbound vehicles wishing to join the B1012 from Hullbridge Road. 2. Road CapacityYou suggest that measured data shows that the vehicle flow rate/ hour is well above the DMRB capacity and

seek clarification on how the Traffic master plot of the AM peak shows the B1012 free flowing at 5%-15% of its

capacity, yet Brent Avenue is congested at around 80% capacity.

The measured data you refer to is representative of total peak hour junction throughput and not directional

route-based vehicle flow. Therefore, it cannot be compared against the DMRB max capacity values. The

Trafficmaster plots referenced are those presented in the EB025 report. These are acknowledged as being

superseded by updated Trafficmaster plots found in Appendix G of the EB026 report.

I cannot understand why the evidence books chose to use total flow data. During peak hours the real issue is

one way flow. It is a shame that you and the team were not able to use all the data collected by 'Traffic Data

Monitoring' between the 20-26 September 2017. By using twin sensor tubes this company is able to establish

direction, flow rates and an indication of the vehicle type. I note that modelled directional queuing times /

SFC's / Degree of saturation are quoted for junctions. It is very confusing to have so many different measures.

These outputs must have been derived from directional data. Could you please explain why the hourly traffic

volumes in EB026 did not quote directional flow rates. This would be much more representative of the real

issue at the road junctions around South Woodham Ferrers. Could you please advise how is it possible to

develop accurate junction models if the input data does not have a direction. Can these directional data be

supplied?

Thank you for pointing out there was a later trafficmaster map in EB026. Whilst it is difficult to read when

zoomed, the date of the drawing is 2013 suggesting earlier data was used. I invite you to come to visit SWF to

verify that on a typical work morning the peak traffic on the B1012 and Ferrers Road starts around 06:45 and is

mainly gone by 08:30.

The two maps in the submission seems to have been derived from the same source and year. They are

described as follows

EB025 App H p55 Peak hours 08:00 to 09:00, B1012 yellow infers 15% of free flow speed 2014-2015. Data for

a 'typical neutral month'

EB026 App G p140 Peak hours 08:00 to 09:00, B1012 pink infers 45% of free flow speed 2014-2015. Drawing is

dated 2013.

I would be pleased if you could confirm which is the latest data set and send me a better copy of EB026 App G

p140 as it is not possible to see the detail of the one in the evidence book.

More detailed analysis of traffic impacts and mitigation options testing will be required through the

preparation of Transport Assessments/Statements as part of future planning applications when they are

7 Nov 2018 Page 11 of 16

submitted for the development. The developer would be expected to provide sufficient mitigation within their

transport assessments for the development which would need to be agreed by the Highway Authority.

Core planning directives CP01, 04, 11 and 13 assert that Chelmsford City Council, District Council and Highways

would provide adequate transport infrastructure for any development so that the residents and those in the

Dengie would not be disadvantaged by local developments. I am afraid that you have failed to convince me

that the information and data in the evidence books will match these core directives or the key deliverables; 1)

that the development would integrate the two communities and 2) it will improve the traffic flow on the

B1012.

Finally I would like to ask you to help me find where the submission considers and takes into account the

increase in commuter traffic that will result from the new housing in Maldon, Burnham, Southminster and

elsewhere on the Dengie (approx 5000 homes). I continue to remain sceptical that developers will pay for the

required road system to support the growing needs for transport. EB032 para 8.1.3 forecasts a 30 to 37%

increase in traffic between 2014 and 2036. The evidence books are suggesting a 5% reduction.

I hope that this helpful. Kind regards Claire

Claire Stuckey

Principal Planning Officer (Policy)

Directorate for Sustainable Communities

Chelmsford City Council

Tel: 01245 606475

www.chelmsford.gov.uk

Chelmsford’s new Local Plan – click to find out more

attachment 2, Traffic Growth

Projected vehicle traffic growth 2014 to 2036 is between 15-22%. Many of the conclusions in the evidence books are inferring a 5% reduction in traffic. Results tables show no real change 2016-2036. EB026 p30 states No further growth has been modelled for journeys starting in the Chelmsford Administrative area. There is nothing in the submission indicating commuter travel from the 5000+ homes being built on the Dengie have been used in the traffic modelling. The B1012 and A132 are acknowledged as major routes.

EB033 P44 section 8 Summary 8.1.3 Forecast year highway and public transport matrices were assigned to specific future year networks for the AM peak hour, IP hour and PM peak hour in year 2021 and 2036. Main trends in future transport levels are summarized below:

Depending on the time of day, vehicle traffic in 2021 is forecast to grow by 14% to 18%

7 Nov 2018 Page 12 of 16

relative to year 2014, whereas total journey times across 22 routes are forecast to increase by an average of 8% to 13%.,

Depending on the time of day, vehicle traffic in 2036 is forecast to grow by 30% to 37% relative to year 2014, whereas total journey times across 22 routes are forecast to increase by average of 15% to 22%. Appendix D states Traffic growth is confirmed in Growth by year and mode, Highways, 15-31% increase 2016-2021-2036 Figure 3 LGV and HGV Traffic Forecasts, WebTAG TSGB0707

P41 Table 22 B1012 /A132 Considered major route, but spelt incorrectly. (Word search would not find it) Major Route 21 B1012/A132/Runwell Road from A130 to South Woorham Ferrers Major Route 22 B1012/A132/Runwell Road from South Woorham Ferrers to A130

EB025 Figs 3.7 to 3.15 Assumes 5% reduction in traffic which was a ‘look see’ rather than

based on fact. Tempro formula 2014 assumed 9% increase. There is no justification cited for the

reduction.

Exec summary p2; With peak hour congestion observed on the approaches to junctions along the

B1012 Burnham Road to the north of South Woodham Ferrers, and in the vicinity of the town’s rail

station, it is anticipated that the addition of development traffic will place further pressure on

surrounding network capacity. There should, however, be an opportunity to reduce levels of traffic

generated by the proposed development through the provision and promotion of walking and cycling

links between the site and the nearby rail station. Note during school holidays there is a 10%

reduction in peak traffic (Trafficmaster).

EB 025 P5 2.1 the VISUM model, A sensitivity test considering the highway impact of a model-wide

5% reduction in vehicle trips has subsequently been undertaken to gain an insight into what might

happen if congestion did have an impact on travel behaviour in the peak hours. It should be noted that

while a reduction of 5% is considered to be a reasonable level for such a change, there is no evidence

to suggest that this will be achieved or that it will be achieved uniformly across all origins and

destinations of trips, as has been tested here

7 Nov 2018 Page 13 of 16

Attachment 3, junction modifications EB 026 declares Mitigation at the existing

junction has not been investigated as it

appears that the new roundabout maximises

the land available to create as much capacity

as possible at that location. Therefore the

developer should look to further mitigate the

impact of their development through other

access arrangements and sustainable

transport links.

Mitigation suggested

Peak Spreading proposal for J 20 and J 21

suggest spreading the peak over 3 hours

ignoring the fact that commuters have to be

at their place of work by 08:00 (P110)

P113 suggests Highway mitigation possible at

J20 and 21 but not at J19 . This is the one

that could benefit from a ‘feed in lane’ to the

A132. With no spare capacity at J20 and J 21

there is nowhere else for the traffic to go.

Attachment 4 Infrastructure content is being led by potential developers

Changes were made to the submission document to meet the requirements of a potentail developer, Countryside Estates UK rather than the Core Policy directives of CCC .

SD002 AC40 P15 Amend 9th bullet under Transport and Highways section: Capacity improvements to the A132 between the Rettendon Turnpike and South Woodham Ferrers, including necessary junction improvements to be brought forward as early as possible in tandem with the delivery of development to mitigate its impact. SD002 AC41 p18 issue PS1223 Amend 10th bullet under Transport and Highways section: Multi-user crossings of bridge across the B1012 in South Woodham Ferrers which may include a bridge or underpass

7 Nov 2018 Page 14 of 16

Attachment 5

Extracts and information sources from evidence books for further reading and information

EB 0018A; Infrastructure delivery Plan Final report Jan 2018, Troy and Navigus

No discussion on SWF area 7 for roads junctions and rail. P65 budget in table 6.1 Road junctions £10.0m Bus service £0.6m Crossings £1.8m

No consideration for flooding risk from rainwater run off area 7

EB 0018B; Infrastructure delivery Plan Final report Jan 2018, Troy and Navigus

No discussions, just budget P26, 3.26 Junction improvements SWF £10m

P27 New Bus and Bus Priority and shuttle to Wickford station para 3.39 to 3.42. No details of how this concept can this be achieved with the current single carriageway roads between SWF and Wickford station?

P33 table 3.1 road junctions 10m A132 route based strategy. No mention of SWF flooding

EB0022 Local transport plan 2011

No consideration that the A132 is a major road. SWF and the Dengie not discussed

EB 0025 Transport Impact of local plan preferred special options March 2017 Ringway Jacobs and ECC, control date 29 Mar 2017

Table 2.2 assumed Dualling the A132 B148 to A130

P13 para 3.2 simulate the effects of peak hour demand responsiveness to network congestion, all vehicle trips contained within the model matrices were reduced by 5% before re-running the model assignment.

P19 Table 3.1 Location 10 SWF it is illogical that the am peak traffic from the new development will be less than the mid day peak flow

P20 fig 3.6 shows an optimistic flow on the B1012 observed 2014 and 2015. Maybe because the peak hour is incorrect. Typical flows show a much worse situation at 07:00

With peak hour congestion observed on the approaches to junctions along the B1012 Burnham Road to the north of South Woodham Ferrers, and in the vicinity of the town’s rail station, it is anticipated that the addition of development traffic will place further pressure on surrounding network capacity.

However, given the close proximity of the rail station to the proposed area of development to the north of South Woodham Ferrers, there should be an opportunity to reduce levels of traffic generated by the development through the provision and promotion of walking and cycling links between the site and the rail station.

3 official crossing points declared with only 1 en route to the rail station.

Section 5 There is no date or target for the modelling at SWF to be completed

P21 Further consideration of sustainable infrastructure to help mitigate the impact of Local Plan development traffic is summarised in the following section of this report. The local junction impact of developments in South Woodham Ferrers and Great Leighs will be quantified in more detail in the upcoming modelling work detailed in Section 5 of this report.

P23 Claims that the new SWF development commuters will be encourages to use busses or cycles. However in the morning rush they will have to cross the B1012 when there are no crossing points close to the bus stop. Any cyclists will have to cross the B1012 as well further slowing the traffic

EB026 Preferred option strategic and local junction modelling January 2018

Summary VISUM p9 Peak hour (08:00 – 09:00 and 17:00 – 18:00) agree the AM peak has more traffic growth

P 10 They agree they do not have the data for Burnham Hullbridge road and A130 and A132 junctions

7 Nov 2018 Page 15 of 16

P16 para 1,1,2 Ongoing studies A132 Route Based Strategy / South Woodham Ferrers Integrated Transport Package. This declares other routes and bus priority schemes but there are no ‘high level’ details on how it could be achieved.

P30 Traffic growth assumptions these are zero

No further growth has been modelled for journeys starting in the Chelmsford Administrative area It would appear that the 4000 homes in Maldon + 1000 in the Dengie and 1000+ in SWF have not been included. The SLAA potential for area 7 has been shown to be approx. 3500 homes.

P35 para 3.2.6

Outputs for SWF will be less robust Consequently, the strategic highway impact of Local Plan development in these areas cannot be robustly quantified ….. Local Plan development and infrastructure has been assessed exclusively at a local junction level, with modelled results and analysis included in Chapter 5 of this report.

P55 VISUM modelling have ignored the roundabout to be implemented at the top of Hullbridge roads part of planning 14/00830 calling it a ‘Priority junction’

EB027 Preferred Option Strategic & Local Junction Modelling Addendum - Infrastructure Studies

This is a summary of EB0026 maintains there are no issues in SWF despite the traffic volume measurements presented in their own documents. The proposals pays cursory attention to the real issues. The overall impression given is that there will be easy safe and free flowing access from north to south for pedestrians and cyclists. South Woodham Ferrers is being treated as an afterthought. Long term the proposed development area would support over 3000 homes

P23 Data suggests that the A132/B1012 route is not currently heavily congested and is observed to be relatively reliable. However, with the proposed development of 1,000 homes, there is likely to be an increase in the level of traffic using this route at peak times

P49 Developers will also be expected to demonstrate that they can mitigate the impacts of their developments. A number of the schemes from studies such as the Chelmsford Cycling Action Plan, A132 Route Based Strategy / South Woodham Ferrers Integrated Transport Package and those identified by but not delivered by the Chelmsford City Growth Package will require developer funding to implement them.

EB028 Response to Representations on Transportation Matters, Preferred Options

P 4 question; How achievable is a 5% reduction?

Essex Highways Response: The 5% reduction in overall vehicle trips was carried out as a sensitivity test to consider the impact of a change in travel behaviour on road conditions, and to gain a greater understanding of the severity of congestion on the road network. It was made clear in the reporting that whilst a reduction of 5% was considered to be significant, but not unrealistic, there was no evidence to suggest this would be achievable, or that it could be achieved uniformly across all trips in Chelmsford. Changes in travel behaviour as a result of peak hour congestion will be modelled to Department for Transport standards as part of upcoming Local Plan transport studies.

Question Traffic survey for SWF needs to be between 6.45am - 8.00am

Essex Highways Response It is acknowledged, however, that this does not reflect the true peak hour at all junctions in the administrative area and in particular in outlying towns and villages. Upcoming Local Plan transport studies will take into account the actual peak hours in South Woodham Ferrers when looking at the traffic impact of Local Plan developments on the surrounding local road network.

NOTE The most recent survey was completed the week before the school summer holidays when ‘trafficmaster’ acknowledge a 10% drop in commuter traffic.

7 Nov 2018 Page 16 of 16

EB029 Chelmsford Local Plan Pre-Submission Strategic and Local Junction Modelling

Focuses on the Chelmsford City to the general exclusion to outliers.

Page XXXi The data in table S8 assumes that there will be zero additional traffic from Maldon via the A414 . There are 4000 homes being built there at the moment. There is no data that suggest how many commuters will choose to come to Basildon etc via B1418 or the additional traffic from the 1000 new homes in the Dengie using the B1012

EB031 Chelmsford Traffic and Access Strategy, Essex County Council

Local Model Validation Report

Revision 4 25 August 2016

Uses mobile phone data to establish volumes.

Modelled assumptions 08:00 to 09:00

Appendix A quotes capacities of roads

P84 line 38 Suburban 1 lane each way 1875 pcus/hr

No evidence of modelling for pedestrian crossings

No content or observations for B1012, Burnham Road

EB 032 Chelmsford Traffic and Access Strategy, Essex County Council

Traffic Forecast Report V2 26 August 2016 Essex County Council

INTEND TO USE DMRB AS GUIDANCE

1.1.2 To be in a position to make the case for national funding allocations, in accordance with

Government’s technical guidance such as the Department for Transport (DfT) Transport Analysis

Guidance document (WebTAG) or the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), it is

essential to provide highly quantitative evidence on travel demand. These outputs will eventually

be fed into business-case appraisal by using Transport-User Benefit Analysis (TUBA) in

accordance with DfT guidance.