appendix a: locational sustainability review · holiday / day trip 19.4 20.9 31.2 33.6 ... whilst...

Place Land Limited | Proof of Evidence - Highways / Transportation | - | 30 March 2020 47

1. APPENDIX A: LOCATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW

1.1 Local Facilities and Services

1.1.1 Sampford Peverell benefits from a range of local service and facilities including a post office and

convenience shop, a hair salon, doctors’ surgery, a primary school and a number of pubs. It has a good

variety of services and facilities which would be of benefit to potential residents of the site. In terms of

sustainability, the application site is well located to benefit from existing footway and bus stops and

with the village centre being within walking distance guidelines.

Table A.1 - Local Services and Facilities in Context with the Application Site

1 Based on walking speed of 80m/minute, taken from ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’, IHT

2 Based on cycling speed of 320m/minute (19.2kph), taken from Cycling England Design Guide

1.1.2 Additional accommodation is available nearby, with a B&B opposite the site frontage on Turnpike, the

website for which notes 'the relatively traffic free minor road network in the area' which is suitable for

cycling, the Grand Western Canal (for walkers and cyclists), and the village pubs 'within walking

distance'61.

61 www.manleysbandb.com/outdoor-activities and www.manleysbandb.com/location

Service / Facility Distance from site (m)

Approximate journey time on foot (1)

Approximate journey time by bicycle (2)

Sampford Peverell Surgery 850m 10 minutes 40 seconds

2 minutes 40 seconds

Sampford Peverell Primary School

300m 3 minutes 50 seconds 1 minute

Halberton Primary School 2,800m 35 minutes 8 minutes 50 seconds

Hair Salon 850m 10 minutes 40 seconds


Post Office and Convenience Store

1,000m 12 minutes 30 seconds

3 minute 10 seconds

Butchers 1,600m 20 minutes 5 minutes

Closest Bus Stop – Turnpike 300m 3 minutes 50 seconds 1 minute

Lowertown Bus Stop 750m 9 minutes 20 seconds 2 minutes 20 seconds

Cycle Hire 850m 10 minutes 40 seconds


Tiverton Parkway Railway Station

2,000m 25 minutes 6 minutes 20 seconds

Public Houses 800m 10 minutes 2 minutes 30 seconds

Village Hall 900m 11 minutes 20 seconds


WGA Golf Course 1,600m 20 minutes 5 minutes

http://www.manleysbandb.com/outdoor-activities

http://www.manleysbandb.com/location


Figure A.1: Nearby B&B website excerpt - cycling and walking

Figure A.2: Nearby B&B website excerpt - location


1.1.3 Tiverton, located approximately 9km (5.6 miles) west of the site is a significantly larger population

centre and provides a comparably greater level of day to day services / facilities including Tiverton

Hospital, a number of schools (primary and secondary), Tiverton Business Park, Tesco Superstore,

Morrison’s Foodstore, Tiverton Town Football / Rugby Club and a town centre that includes a number

of retail shops, opticians, cinema, hair salons/ barbers, pharmacy’s, banks, a Pannier Market and coffee

shops / restaurants.

1.2 Travel Characteristics

1.2.1 There is often a simplistic, but false, assumption made that the further a site is away from areas of

employment and other services, the higher its vehicular trip rate.

1.2.2 Firstly, the site is sustainable in transport terms given that its trip generation would be consistent with

other appropriately-located residential developments, and by reference to the comparative travel

distances discussed subsequently.

1.2.3 This is further affirmed in the analysis submitted by PBA, on behalf of MDDC, in its Hearing Statement

dated December 2019. Table 2 (p.7) of that document sets out vehicle and pedestrian trip rates based

on PBA's use of the TRICS trip rate database62. I note that:

• The TRICS sites selected by PBA are based on parameters designed to reflect the location of the

appeal site.

• The vehicle trip rates are broadly consistent with the equivalent rates used in Hydrock's TA.

• The vehicle trip rates are also consistent with typical average trip rates for residential dwellings in

sites which are considered to be sustainable and appropriately-located - i.e. such rates are not

unusual in either a more rural setting such as that of the appeal site, or in a suburban/edge of town

environment63.

• It follows that PBA's predicted level of walking trips from the appeal site, and from existing local

properties, mirrors what MDDC consider to be typical rates of walking in sustainable locations.

1.2.4 Notwithstanding the above, the site’s accessibility also needs to be viewed in its more rural setting. As

noted previously, the NPPF recognises the need to distinguish between rural and urban areas.

1.2.5 Those choosing to live in a more rural location are making an informed decision about their lifestyle,

choosing to live outside of a larger urban area. This choice is made in the knowledge that distances to

local services and facilities will impact on the time and ease of undertaking each individual trip. In order

for travel needs to fit around people’s lives the result is likely to be a much more thorough approach to

journey planning.

1.2.6 A common element of this journey planning would be future users of the site linking trips together, so

that multiple destinations are visited during a single trip. As residents will be fully aware of the time cost

associated with a single trip, they will seek to minimise this cost by reducing the number of trips being

undertaken. For example, visiting a supermarket on the way home from work removes a two-way trip

and results in a considerable reduction in the overall daily travel time.

1.2.7 In addition, smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel64. This is particularly relevant

with the increase in popularity of home delivery services. It is expected that residents would make good

62 TRICS contains a database of observed trip rates at a wide variety of sites across the UK and Southern Ireland. 63 PBA Hearing Statement paragraph 3.8. 64 NPPF paragraph 102 notes the 'opportunities…from changing transport technology and usage'.


use of online shopping, offered in this area by major food retailers including Tesco and Sainsbury.

Superfast broadband is available throughout the vast majority (95.7%) of the village.

1.2.8 Sustainability can also be enhanced through the linkage of trips by different modes - e.g. pedestrian

trips to and from a bus stop, or to a meeting point for car-sharing - both examples being commonplace

and perfectly feasible from the appeal site.

1.3 Comparative Sustainability

1.3.1 NPPF paragraph 104 notes the need for planning policies to 'minimise the number and length of

journeys needed for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities'. The NPPF focus is

on the reduction of travel distance (by whatever mode, including motor vehicles). It is useful to make a

comparison between national, local and site travel distances for these journey types, as an indication of

locational sustainability.

1.3.2 I have made reference to National Travel Survey (NTS) data as set out in Table A.2:

2017/2018 - DfT Average Trip Length by Purpose [NTS9912]

Regional - National Comparison

Journey Purpose South West England South West England

Average Miles Average KM

Commuting 7.7 9.0 12.4 14.4

Business 22.4 19.0 36.1 30.6

Education 3.4 3.3 5.4 5.3

Escort education 2.5 2.2 4.0 3.5

Shopping 4.4 3.9 7.1 6.3

Other escort 5.9 5.1 9.5 8.3

Personal business 5.1 5.0 8.2 8.1

Visit friends at private home 11.0 10.4 17.7 16.8

Visit friends elsewhere 6.1 6.2 9.8 10.0

Sport / entertainment 7.6 7.0 12.3 11.2

Holiday / day trip 19.4 20.9 31.2 33.6

Other including just walk 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.5

All purposes 6.9 6.7 11.1 10.8

Table A.2: Trip lengths by journey purpose

1.3.3 Commuting: The national average commuting distance is around 9 miles (8.8 miles in the 2018 data),

with the regional average being 7.7 miles. In relation to the appeal site, employment in Tiverton (5.6


miles), at M5 J27 (1.5 miles), in the Willand business parks (1.8 miles) and in Cullompton (4 miles) are all

well within national and regional average commuting distances.

1.3.4 I further note that the national average commuting distance for urban areas is 7.9 miles, whereas the

average for rural villages is 11.8 miles. Consequently, the site is significantly more sustainable in terms

of travel distance than the national average, regional average (even for urban areas).

1.3.5 Shopping: The local average travel distance for shopping is 4.4 miles (6.9 miles for rural villages). Again,

the appeal site compares very favourably with these figures, having a local shop within 0.62 miles (1

km) and other shops in Tiverton (5.6 miles), Willand (1.8 miles) and Cullompton (4 miles).

1.3.6 Leisure: NTS categories for Visiting Friends (6.1 - 11.0 miles) and Sport / Entertainment (7.6 miles) also

indicate greater average travel distances than would be required to undertake similar activities from the

appeal site. In terms of social visits to friends, the whole of Sampford Peverell is within 0.65 miles of the

site, Halberton (1.2 miles), Willand (1.8 miles), Cullompton (4 miles) and Tiverton (5.6 miles) are nearby,

as are a number of villages and hamlets.

1.3.7 Education: The average travel distance for Education trips regionally is 3.4 miles (6.2 miles for Rural

Villages). In this case, Sampford Peverell Primary School is just 300m from the site, with a further

Primary School in Halberton (1.4 miles) and Secondary Schools in Uffculme (2.5 miles) and Tiverton (5.6

miles). Tiverton also has a Further Education College. Residents of the appeal site would be able to

access educational facilities at distances which are well below regional averages.

1.3.8 Other Activities: There is nothing to suggest that most or all other activities would result in travel

distances greater than regional averages, especially given the site's more rural location.

1.3.9 In all of the above instances, the travel distances associated with the appeal site are lower than regional

averages. This adds strongly to the locational sustainability of the appeal site with regard to the NPPF

focus on minimising travel distances (in a rural context).

1.4 Travel Plan

1.4.1 A Framework Travel Plan (FTP) has been prepared as part of the planning submission that presents a

package of measures and targets that enable future residents to reduce the impact of their travel.

Following planning permission, a separate Full Travel Plan would be prepared, tailored to the final

Combination Reserved Matters application(s).

1.4.2 Delivered successfully, a Travel Plan can help solve a number of practical issues associated with travel.

In summary, the implementation of a Travel Plan is intended to bring forward the following benefits:

» Encouragement of safe and viable alternatives to single occupant vehicles for travel to and from

the development site;

» Identification of pragmatic travel initiatives to encourage non-car modes of travel and car-

sharing, based on a continual appraisal of travel patterns to the site;

» Fewer vehicle trips than would otherwise have been the case; and,

» Minimisation of overall vehicle mileage.

1.4.3 It is generally accepted that Travel Plans can result in around a 10% shift away from the use of the

private car, in favour of other modes of transport.

1.4.4 Accessibility of the site by non-car modes has been described comprehensively in the TA and in the TP.

Whilst evidence from other sites has shown that TPs can have significant positive effects upon travel


behaviour, particularly when they are delivered in close liaison with residents from the outset of

occupation of a new development, there are wider technological considerations that will influence

sustainability outside of the effects of the TP.

1.4.5 For example, the site has been designed in order that electric vehicle (EV) charging points can be

conveniently provided in each dwelling. This responds to the increasing movement towards EVs as a

percentage of new car sales65 – something which is linked to rapidly improving convenience factors

(range and charging time) and reducing costs. Combined with legislation designed to reduce and indeed

prohibit the sales of fossil-fuelled vehicles, this technological change will play a significant part in

reducing the environmental effects of car travel more widely.

1.4.6 Similar trends are being seen in the availability and adoption of electrically-assisted bicycles.

1.4.7 In the longer term, the rapid progress towards Movement as a Service (MaaS), changing ownership

models for vehicles, and the progress of autonomous vehicle (AV) technologies have more widespread

effects on sustainability – including positive impacts on the social and economic dimensions (e.g. the

value of time spent travelling if you are not having to drive).

1.4.8 All of this is positive in sustainability terms. The current accessibility of the site, and the robust TP

measures described subsequently, should therefore be considered in the context of a rapidly-changing

travel environment – one which is moving rapidly away from fossil-fuelled vehicles.

1.4.9 The Framework Travel Plan provides a range of measures to promote sustainable transport. A

Residential Travel Plan aims to affect modal choice from the origin to a number of potential attractors,

including employment, education, access to services / retail outlets and leisure pursuits.

1.4.10 It is acknowledged that some of the journeys undertaken by residents will be most readily undertaken

by car. However, it is equally the case that many day-to-day trips currently undertaken as a single

occupant in a private motor car, do not require this modal choice and can realistically be replaced by a

more sustainable modal choice.

1.4.11 The TP aims to identify trips that can be undertaken by sustainable modes and suggest measures to

make the residents’ choice one which favours more sustainable modes due to them being readily

available and accessible.

1.4.12 Shown in Table A.3 is a summary of the Travel Plan measures included within the Framework Travel

Plan.

65 https://www.smmt.co.uk/2020/01/december-ev-registrations-3/ indicates a 21.8% drop in diesel vehicle sales in comparative periods during 2018/2019, alongside a 48% increase in registrations of electric and hybrid vehicles in the same period.

https://www.smmt.co.uk/2020/01/december-ev-registrations-3/


Table A.3: Agreed Travel Plan Measures

1.4.13 Table A.4 sets out the agreed Travel Plan monitoring schedule.


Table A.4: Travel Plan Monitoring Schedule


APPENDIX B: TRACE DESIGN REVIEW AND CORRESPONDENCE

Trace Design Consultants Limited, Registered Office: 1A Parliament Square, Parliament Street,

Crediton, Devon, EX17 2AW

Registered in England and Wales No. 08047125

1. This Technical Statement has been prepared to examine the highway information

submitted with the planning application reference 17/01359/MOUT regarding the

outline for the erection of 60 dwellings and construction of a new access to the west of

the site, and the assessment by DCC Highways as to the suitability of the proposed

highway works associated with this planning application. This includes an assessment

of the appropriateness and safety of:

a. The vehicular access

b. All pedestrian and cycle accesses

c. The offsite works by the Listed Bridge to provide a new footpath and crossing

point.

2. Trace Design has reviewed all the relevant information submitted as part of the

planning application, which includes the reports and supporting information provided

as well as the correspondence issued by DCC Highways.

3. Relevant legislation and highways design guidance on a national and County level

have also been reviewed and have been referenced in this assessment when

appropriate.

Assessment of the Vehicular Access

4. The main vehicular access is proposed off the link road that connects Turnpike with

Higher Town. The proposed access is shown in Drawing number 0685-HYD-XX-XX-

DR-TP-106 Revision P4, which was submitted as a single document to the planning

application, superseding Revision P3 which formed part of the Transport Assessment.

5. This Drawing is shown overleaf. This only shows the relevant section of the drawing

for the assessment. The gradient levels also shown as part of the drawing are

considered appropriate:

Technical Statement

HIGHER TOWN, SAMPFORD PEVERELL – PLANNING REFERENCE 17/01359/MOUT – PART 1

Trace Design Consultants Ltd 3 Silverdown Office Park

Fair Oak Close Clyst Honiton

Exeter Devon

EX5 2UX United Kingdom

t: +44 (0)1392 927717 www.trace-design.co.uk




Assessment:

Issue: Road Layout for Residential Estate

6. The road has been designed as a “R31 Traditional Access Way”, as defined in the

Devon Highways Design Guide, which allows up to 50 dwellings provided off a loop

road.

7. The drawing was acceptable by DCC Highways (as stated in the letter issued on 25

May 2018) as well as the design of the internal road as a Traditional Access Way as

stated in the letter issued by DCC Highways on 26 March 2018.




8. This design requires a carriageway 4.8m wide, which provides enough width for a large

vehicle and a car to pass each other.

9. Trace Design Assessment:

a. It is considered and accepted that a R31 Traditional Access Way road layout

may provide enough width for the internal element of the development from the

point where the loop road is provided. This point would start to the east of the

intersection from the access road leading to internal roads to the north and

south as shown in the relevant part of the master plan below (which is shown

as drawing 1238.04 and included as a single document in the planning

application).

b. It is suggested that the section between the site access and the loop road

should provide for a minimum of 5.5m width to allow for two large vehicles to

pass each other. The size of the proposed development is 60 units, which is 10

units over that recommended for the provision of a R31 Traditional Access

Way. It is likely that due to the size of the development, two large vehicles could

occasionally meet up on the road, with the need for one of them to reverse back

to a place which would allow the two vehicles to pass each other. This may

also impact on the link road with one the large vehicles reversing on this road




to let the other vehicle pass, which may lead to safety concerns. It is

acknowledged that the Stage 1 Road Safety raised no objections in terms of

highway safety but in paragraph 3.3 it stated that: “The site access carriageway

width is identified at 4.8m with 2m verges to either side. This width is in line

with the requirements for Manual for Streets, however the audit team would

expect this width to be sued within the estate roads rather than as a width for

the primary access. As part of the detailed design it would beneficial to

reconsider the proposed access width in line with providing a 5.5m carriageway

and adjust the verge widths accordingly”.

Visibility Splays at the Site Access Junction

10. These are provided for a “Y” distance of 43m and from an “X” distance of 2.4m.

11. The letter issued by Hydrock on the 8th of June 2018 with the title “Comments on

Further Objection Letters” states that visibility splays have been provided 1.0m away

from the nearside in either direction and that this is common practice.


a. Manual for Streets is not clear about the distance that should be allowed from

the nearside. It states however that: “The Y distance represents the distance

that a driver who is about to exit from the minor arm can see to his left and right

along the main alignment. For simplicity it is measured along the nearside kerb

line of the main arm, although vehicles will normally be travelling at a distance

from the kerb line. (…)” (paragraph 7.7.3 from MfS).

b. It is considered that the distance of 1.0m may be too much in this case to

provide for a safe access. The nature of the link road, being relatively narrow

and twisty, is likely to have vehicles, mainly cyclists, travelling at 0.5m away

from the kerb line. Visibility splays may be re-designed to provide adequate

visibility.

c. The distance of 1.0m away from the kerb line is not considered to be common

practice based on our experience. This should be applied to roads with wider

carriageway and space for vehicles being able to overtake cyclists comfortably,

which is unlikely to be in this case.




Forward Visibility Splays on the Link Road

13. These have been provided in Drawing 06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-107 Revision P1 for

the bend located to the south of the proposed site access on the link road leading to

Battens Cross. This drawing as Appendix H of the Transport Assessment.

14. The relevant section of this Drawing for assessment purposes is shown below.




15. The forward visibility splays are based on 85th percentile vehicle speeds of 30mph and

have been provided for a forward visibility distance of 43m following Manual for Streets

guidance.


a. Forward visibility splays appear to have been provided from the centre of the

road, rather than the centre of the inner lane, as recommended in Manual for

Streets (Figure 7.19, which is shown below). It is suggested that the design is

amended to comply with MfS and provide appropriate forward visibility splays.

b. The drawing does not show any details on carriageway width along the section

of the link road between Battens Cross and the site access, which is likely to

provide the main access for development traffic as based on the vehicle trip

distribution from the Transport Assessment. It is suggested that this road

provides a minimum width of 5.5m to ensure that two large vehicles can pass

each other in this section due to the likely occurrence that this may happen

occasionally.




c. The bend where forward visibility splays is provided should be widened to

approximately 6.5m to ensure that two large vehicles can manoeuvre

adequately in case they meet at this point.

d. It is recommended that swept paths for two large vehicles are provided for the

junction of Batten Cross and the section of carriageway leading to the site

access, including the proposed site access junction, to ensure that two large

vehicles will be able to manoeuvre adequately during this section of the road in

the likely scenario that two large vehicles meet occasionally due to the size of

the development.

Assessment of All Pedestrian and Cycle Accesses

17. There are three pedestrian and cycle access points proposed for the development.

18. Cycle Access off the Link Road (at the Proposed Vehicle Site Access)

19. One of the three cycle access points is proposed off the link road that connects

Turnpike with Higher Town and that also provides the main vehicular access to the

site. This has been reviewed in the previous section for the vehicle access and the

same points would apply in this case.

Pedestrian and Cycle Access off Turnpike

20. The main pedestrian and cycle access is proposed off Turnpike to the south of the site.

This access is shown in Drawing number 06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-108 Revision P3,

which was submitted as a single document to the planning application, superseding

Revision P2 which formed part of the Transport Assessment.

21. This Drawing is shown overleaf. For simplicity, this only shows the relevant section of

the drawing for the assessment.




Assessment:

Visibility Splays

22. Visibility splays have been provided for 85th percentile vehicle speeds of over 40mph.

These splays have been based on the results from the vehicle speed survey

undertaken for this.


a. Visibility splays appear to have been provided to the nearside kerb line, which

is inconsistent with the visibility splays provided on other drawings 1.0m off the

kerb line. It is recommended that these are provided consistently on all

drawings, ideally at 0.5m off the kerb line.

Access Layout

24. This has been designed with the provision of dropped kerbs with tactile paving on both

sides of the road. The crossing on the northern side of the road located within the

application site leads to a footway/cycleway that provides a connection to the proposed

development.





a. This access is considered the main pedestrian access to the site and is likely

to be used by children and older people. Despite the long visibility splays

provided and in order to assign priority to pedestrians and cyclists as

recommended in Manual for Streets two options are suggested for

consideration:

i. Provision of a 30mph vehicle speed limit from approximately 50 to 100m

to the west of the proposed access location that may encourage drivers

to drive slower. This may be accompanied by appropriate signage and

road markings, indicating the use of the crossing by pedestrians.

ii. Provision of a pedestrian refuge if the vehicle speed limit is kept at

40mph to provide for a safer access and reduce waiting time for

pedestrians trying to cross the road. If this could not be provided other

alternatives may be considered in order to encourage walking as a

realistic mode of travel.

Cycle Access for Cyclists Travelling Eastbound

26. The current design does not appear to provide for cyclists travelling from the west to

the site. This only provides a dropped kerb with tactile paving for pedestrians and

cyclists crossing to the opposite side of the road.


a. With the current design it appears that cyclists may need to stop on the road

and do a U-turn with their bicycles to keep travelling towards the proposed

development, which may raise safety concerns. It is suggested to provide a

dropped kerb to the west of the proposed access for cyclists to be able to leave

the main road without the need to stop by the crossing, even more if

pedestrians were waiting to cross and there was no clear space for cyclists to

manoeuvre.

Pedestrian and Cycle Access off Higher Town

28. Another point of access to the site for pedestrians and cyclists is proposed off Higher

Town to the north of the site. This access is shown in Drawing number 06685-HYD-

XX-XX-DR-TP-P-04 Revision P3, which was submitted as a single document to the




planning application and superseded the previous version that was included within the

Transport Assessment following the recommendations from the Stage 1 Road Safety

Audit undertaken.

29. This Drawing is shown below. This only shows the relevant section of the drawing to

be assessed.




Assessment:

Visibility Splays

30. Visibility splays have been provided for 45m on each direction, which should be able

to accommodate 85th percentile vehicle speeds of over 30mph following MfS guidance.


a. Visibility splays appear to have been provided to the nearside kerb line to the

south west of the junction but 1.0m off the kerb line to the north east in the

same drawing. This shows inconsistency with the way visibility splays are

applied and designed. It is suggested that these splays are shown at the same

distance from the kerb line, ideally at a distance of 0.5m off the kerb line in both

directions.

Priority Working

32. Priority working is provided with a give way line to the south west for vehicles to let

other vehicles travelling on the opposite direction to come through first.


a. The carriageway width is not provided at relevant sections of the carriageway.

This is considered relevant to understand the location of any pinch points along

the route. It is suggested that the width at the give way line should be provided

and should include a minimum width of 4.8m to allow for a large vehicle and a

car to pass each other.

b. Depending on the carriageway width available it may be appropriate to consider

the provision of passing bays with a minimum of 5.5m width at selected

locations to allow for two large vehicles to pass each other.

c. It is also suggested to provide carriageway width just to the north east of the

red line boundary to consider the impact of the building that seems to protrude

on the carriageway in order to identify any width constraints and design any

mitigation measures needed.




Pedestrian Link to Grand Western Canal Path

34. An additional point of access for pedestrians is proposed to the south west of the site

with a segregated footway parallel to the road that provides access to Battens Bridge

and the Canal. The proposed route is shown in Figure 4.3 of the Transport Assessment

and is shown below.

35. The relevant section of proposed access for assessment is shown below. This is

included as a single drawing within the planning application and supersedes the

previous version included within the Transport Assessment. This access is shown in

Drawing number 06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-0110 Revision P2.




Assessment:

Inconsistency and/or Lack of Information Provided on the Design

36. The proposed route and the crossing provided on the southern side of Turnpike does

not show continuity with the footway shown in Figure 4.3.


a. There is no connection provided between the dropped kerb at the crossing and

the proposed pedestrian route leading to the Canal Path. It is recommended

that this is included and shown even on a conceptual design.

b. The extract from the relevant section of the HMPE plan shown below and

extracted from Appendix C of the Transport Assessment shows that the land

proposed to provide the segregated footway is not highways land. It is

suggested for the applicant to confirm that this land would be available for

development as stated within the Transport Assessment.




c. The proposed master plan, which was submitted with drawing reference

1238.04, does not include the area included for development of the proposed

pedestrian link within the red line boundary. This is shown in the relevant

section of this drawing overleaf. This potential inconsistency is corroborated by

Figure 4 “Land Ownership Plan” of the Design and Access Statement submitted

as part of the planning application (Replacement Version January 2018) and

also shown overleaf.




d. Finally, and also showing a potential inconsistency, the Design and Access

Statement submitted as part of the planning application (Replacement Version

January 2018) shows a different route for the proposed pedestrian connection.

This is shown in the relevant section of the design concept for the site shown

in Figure 12 of this document and shown overleaf.




e. It is suggested that more and clearer information is provided regarding the

proposed route, feasibility and deliverability of this proposal.

Assessment of Offsite Works

38. Offsite works have been proposed at the junction of Turnpike / Higher Town and Lower

Town with the development of a new footway that will provide a connection between

the existing footway provided at the southern side of Turnpike to the west with the

pedestrian footbridge to the east.

39. These proposed offsite highway works are shown in Drawing number 0685-HYD-XX-

XX-DR-TP-P-05 Revision P, which is included as part of the Transport Assessment

(Appendix L). This Drawing is shown overleaf. This only shows relevant section

considered for the assessment.




Assessment:

Visibility Splays

40. Visibility splays are shown 1.0m off the nearside kerb line. Visibility splays are sub-

standard. DCC Highways has raised no objection to the scheme.


a. Visibility splays should be consistent and realistic. Given the nature of the road

vehicles are likely to travel closer to the kerb line and visibility splays should be

provided 0.5m off the kerb line.

b. Despite the sub-standard visibility splays provided this is considered to be an

improvement to the local highway network in its existing situation, which




provides further priority to pedestrians as recommended in Manual for Streets

design guidance.

SUMMARY:

· Assessment of the appropriateness and safety of the vehicular access:

o It is suggested to ensure that carriageway width is 5.5m minimum between

Batten Cross and the point within the application site where internal loop road

starts.

o It is suggested that forward visibility splays on the link road to the south of the

proposed site access is designed in accordance with Manual for Streets.

o It is suggested that swept paths are undertaken for the section between Batten

Cross and the point within the application site where the internal loop road

starts to ensure that two large vehicles can pass each other.

o It is suggested that visibility splays are all provided at a 0.5m distance away

from the kerb line.

· Assessment of the appropriateness and safety of all pedestrian and cycle

accesses:


from the kerb line.

o It is suggested to provide a design for the pedestrian and cycle access off

Turnpike that either includes a 30mph scheme with appropriate traffic calming

measures or provides physical infrastructure to accommodate and encourage

walking as a realistic mode of travel if the vehicle sped limit is kept at 40mph.

o It is suggested to provide further information on existing carriageway width on

Higher Town to identify any constraints where the proposed pedestrian and

cycle access is proposed to allow for the appropriate width for vehicles to pass

each other.

o It is suggested to provide further information that confirms the deliverability of

the proposed pedestrian link to the Canal path.

· Assessment of the appropriateness and safety of the offsite works by the Listed

Bridge to provide a new footpath and crossing point:


from the kerb line.




1. This Technical Statement has been prepared to examine the highway information

submitted with the planning application reference 17/01359/MOUT regarding the

outline for the erection of 60 dwellings and construction of a new access to the west of

the site, and the assessment by DCC Highways as to the suitability of the proposed

highway works associated with this planning application.

2. This includes the assessment on whether a condition requesting the development of

improved access works to the A361 junction at Sampford Peverell would be

reasonable and legitimate.

3. These improvement works would comprise the development of west facing slip roads

at this junction to enable direct access to and from the west.

4. Trace Design has reviewed all the relevant information submitted as part of the

planning application, which includes the reports and supporting information provided

as well as the correspondence issued by DCC Highways.

5. Relevant legislation and highways design guidance on a national and County level

have also been reviewed and have been referenced in this assessment where

appropriate.

Assessment of the Development Impact

Proposed Development Traffic Generation

6. Paragraph 5.2.1 for the Transport Assessment states that trip rates were obtained from

the consented residential development at Court Farm, Cullompton – Phase 2 of the

Transport Assessment dated October 2009.

7. These trip rates are stated to have been agreed with the LPA and LHA during scoping

and were found to be acceptable.

Technical Statement

HIGHER TOWN, SAMPFORD PEVERELL – PLANNING REFERENCE 17/01359/MOUT – PART 2

Trace Design Consultants Ltd 3 Silverdown Office Park

Fair Oak Close Clyst Honiton

Exeter Devon

EX5 2UX United Kingdom

t: +44 (0)1392 927717 www.trace-design.co.uk




8. The resulting vehicle trip generation is shown in Table 5.1 of the Transport

Assessment, which has been included below:


a. Vehicle trip rates have been assessed and it is considered that these are

suitable for the assessment of the vehicular impact of the proposed

development.

Proposed Development Flow Distribution

10. Paragraph 5.5.2 of the Transport Assessment states that vehicle trip distribution

percentages have been based on Census Travel to Work Area (TTWA) data using

2011 Census data.

11. The resulting percentages and allocation of vehicle trips to and from the A361 is shown

in Table 5.3 from the Transport Assessment, which is included below:





a. A vehicle trip distribution has been undertaken also using the 2011 Census

data in order to compare the percentages and results from the Transport

Assessment. This assessment has been based on vehicle trips with origin on

the MSOA (Middle super Output Area) E02004169: Mid Devon 006 and

destination to all the MSOA areas included within Mid Devon and all the District

areas included within the South West. This assessment has only included

destination areas with a minimum of 0.4% of the vehicle trips from the proposed

development for simplicity. The results are shown in the Table below (please

note that trips to Mid Devon District are included in the Mid Devon MSOA areas

above so the percentage for this has not been included):




place of work %

E02004164 : Mid Devon 001 1.4%

E02004165 : Mid Devon 002 2.1%

E02004166 : Mid Devon 003 2.7%

E02004167 : Mid Devon 004 9.7%

E02004168 : Mid Devon 005 9.7%

E02004169 : Mid Devon 006 8.8%

E02004170 : Mid Devon 007 10.4%

E02004171 : Mid Devon 008 3.1%

E02004172 : Mid Devon 009 0.1%

E02004173 : Mid Devon 010 0.3%

E02004174 : Mid Devon 011 0.4%

Bath and North East Somerset 0.1%

Bournemouth 0.0%

Bristol, City of 0.5%

Cheltenham 0.0%

Christchurch 0.0%

Cornwall,Isles of Scilly 0.2%

Cotswold 0.0%

East Devon 8.7%

East Dorset 0.0%

Exeter 21.5%

Forest of Dean 0.0%

Gloucester 0.0%

Mendip 0.0%

Mid Devon

North Devon 2.0%

North Dorset 0.0%

North Somerset 0.4%

Plymouth 0.6%

Poole 0.0%

Purbeck 0.0%

Sedgemoor 1.4%

South Gloucestershire 0.3%

South Hams 0.4%

South Somerset 0.8%

Stroud 0.1%

Swindon 0.0%

Taunton Deane 10.6%

Teignbridge 1.7%

Tewkesbury 0.0%

Torbay 0.5%

Torridge 0.2%

West Devon 0.3%

West Dorset 0.0%

West Somerset 0.4%

Weymouth and Portland 0.0%

Wiltshire 0.1%

TOTAL 100.0%




b. When assigning a route to these destinations the results were similar to those

provided in Table 5.3 of the Transport Assessment, with 38.4% of vehicles

travelling to the west (compared to 43% of trips in the Transport Assessment)

and 61.6% of trips travelling to the east (compared to 57.1% in the TA). This

resulted in 1 more vehicle trip travelling to the east in the AM peak and 2 more

trips to the east during the PM peak.

c. In terms of route allocation and based on journey times allocated in Google

Maps with Traffic it was considered that only vehicle trips to North Devon and

Torridge District would see a significant benefit from the development of west

facing slip roads on the A361 junction in Sampford Peverell. This resulted in

only 2.2% of the vehicle trips generated by development traffic. Other

destinations to the west of the development site would be able to travel via

Halberton and would have an impact on this route that could not be considered

as severe. This was agreed by DCC Highways. Furthermore, the potential

development of new links to the A361 as part of the Tiverton Eastern Urban

Extension would result in likely improvements to journey times and convenient

routes.

Assessment of the Reasonability and Legitimacy for Planning Condition on A361

Highway Improvement Works

Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

13. Part 11 Paragraph 122 (2) of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

states the following:

Limitation on use of planning obligations

122.—(1) This regulation applies where a relevant determination is made which results

in planning permission being granted for development.

(2) A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning

permission for the development if the obligation is—

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and

(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

(3) In this regulation—




“planning obligation” means a planning obligation under section 106 of

TCPA 1990 and

includes a proposed planning obligation; and

“relevant determination” means a determination made on or after 6th

April 2010—

(a) under section 70, 76A or 77 of TCPA 1990(a) of an application for

planning permission which is not an application to which section 73 of

TCPA 1990 applies; or

(b) under section 79 of TCPA 1990(b) of an appeal where the

application which gives rise to the appeal is not one to which section 73

of TCPA 1990 applies.


a. The planning condition does not seem to be in compliance with the above

points 122. 2(a), 122.2(b) and 122.2(c) due to the low impact likely to be caused

by the development traffic on the local highway network, and especially on the

A361 junction in Sampford Peverell.

Mid Devon District Council Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging

Schedule and Explanatory Notes (December 2016)

15. This document states in Paragraph 1.6.4 the following:

“(…) The following four sections indicate the areas which may still be subject to planning

obligations under Section 106.

(…)

3. Site –Specific Transport Improvements.

Site-specific improvements needed to make a development acceptable in planning

terms. These can include (but are not limited to) highways crossovers to access the

site and local road junctions, deceleration and turning lanes, measures to facilitate

pedestrian and cyclist access, lighting and street furniture needed to mitigate the

impact of a particular development. They may also include mitigation works remote

from the development site where the need for such works is identified in a Transport

Assessment or Junction Capacity Study.





a. The Transport Assessment has not identified any need for mitigation on the

A361 junction in Sampford Peverell.

b. This was supported by DCC Highways were no comment was raised in this

regard.

c. No information has been provided regarding the need to mitigate any capacity

problems at this junction and the need for the development of the west facing

slip roads.

d. No information is available in the Devon County Council Local Transport Plan

or the Mid Devon District Council Local Plan regarding the need to mitigate any

capacity problems at this junction and the need for the development of the west

facing slip roads.

SUMMARY:

· Assessment of the development impact:

o Traffic generation has been shown to be relatively low and unlikely to be

considered as significant in the local highway network.

o Following the results from the vehicle trip distribution it is likely that traffic

impact from the development on the A361 junction in Sampford Peverell would

be minimal.

· Assessment of the reasonability and legitimacy for Planning Condition on A361

highway improvement works

o The proposed condition would not be necessary to make the development

acceptable and would not be related to the scale of the impact caused by the

development.

o The need to undertake the highway improvement works included in the

planning condition have not been identified by DCC and MDDC. It has not been

considered by DCC Highways as relevant to ensure that the development is

acceptable. The Transport Assessment has not identified any mitigation

measures needed in this respect.

TECHNICAL NOTE

TECHNICAL DESIGN NOTE | Sampford Peverell - Place Land | C-06685-C | 21 November 2018 1

Project name Sampford Peverell - Place Land

Technical note title 17/01359/MOUT: Higher Town, Sampford Peverell - response to Trace Design comments (for Mid Devon District Council)

Document reference C-06685-C

Author James McKechnie

Revision -

Date 21 November 2018

1. BACKGROUND

1.1.1 This Technical Note (TN) responds to comments raised by Trace Design (TD) on behalf of Mid Devon

District Council (MDDC), in its Technical Statements Parts 1 & 2 supplied to Hydrock on 5th November

2018. At the request of MDDC, Trace Design has undertaken an independent technical audit of

Hydrock's access / off-site works proposals relating to the above site.

1.1.2 Trace Design has advised MDDC that the existing highways proposals are acceptable and would not lead

to sustainable Reasons for Refusal (see notes on MDDC planning webpages confirming this point).

However, Place Land notes the TD work and has committed to responding to the points raised and

addressing these where possible / relevant.

1.1.3 Part 2 of TD's Technical Statement, to do with the need or not for works to the A361 junction in relation

to this site, is accepted by Place Land, MDDC and DCC - there is no need for these works in relation to

the proposed development. This TN is therefore focussed on Part 1 of TD's Technical Statement, which

relates to means of access to the site / off-site works.

2. POINTS OF ACCESS

2.1 Link Road Vehicular Access

2.1.1 Referring to point 9(b) of the TD Technical Statement, Hydrock has amended the width of the estate

road between the Link Road and the start of the internal loop road to 5.5m (as opposed to the previous

4.8m width).

2.1.2 Referring to point 12(b) of the TD Technical Statement, it is implausible and in conflict with design

guidance to suggest that cyclists would be wholly obscured from motorists' view whilst travelling at

speed in a narrow corridor <1m from the carriageway edge, as suggested in the Technical Statement.

2.1.3 Notwithstanding that guidance including Manual for Streets 2 makes it clear that there is no direct

correlation between visibility splay provision and safety, and that the existing splays are consistent with

current guidance in any case, Hydrock has amended the current drawing to show visibility splays of

2.4m x 39.1m to a 0.5m offset from the carriageway edge.

2.1.4 These visibility splays (including the 41.3m splay shown in the opposite direction) are consistent with

the observed design speeds (85th %ile speeds) in either direction, as is usual practice. This

TECHNICAL NOTE


demonstrates that, whilst all parties were content with the previous visibility splays, it is possible to

achieve appropriate splays to a 0.5m offset.

2.1.5 These amendments are shown on Hydrock drawing 06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-106 Rev P5, as attached to

this TN.

2.2 Turnpike Accesses

2.2.1 Visibility splays on Turnpike do not need to be amended to a 0.5m offset, as the splays already shown

by Hydrock represent a more onerous standard of provision. This addresses point 23(a) of the report.

2.2.2 The provision of a 30mph speed limit past the Turnpike access had already been agreed with DCC. This

addresses point 25(a) of the report.

2.2.3 Responding to TD's comments, Hydrock has added an additional drop kerb for cyclists at the Turnpike

access. This addresses point 27(a) of the report. The amendment is shown on drawing 06685-HYD-XX-

XX-DR-TP-108 Rev P4, attached to this document.

2.2.4 Note: the above drawing also confirms that visibility splays to a 0.5m offset can readily be provided (re

2.7 above) and, given the generally straight alignment of the road, that there is no issue with visibility

from or onto the additional drop kerb.

2.3 Higher Town

2.3.1 A 1.0m offset for the visibility splay would cause no adverse issues for cyclists or other users at this

location, for the reasons mentioned previously (section 2.1 of this TN). This addresses point 31(a) of the

Trace Design report.

3. OFFSITE WORKS

3.1 Link Road

3.1.1 With regard to forward visibility through the bend on the Link Road, this road does not have a centre

marking (line) and drivers do not use the road in the way shown at 16(a) of the Trace Design report.

3.1.2 On that basis, and given that widening of the road here would lead to increased speeds and an effect on

its character more generally, the forward visibility splays as shown by Hydrock are acceptable. This

addresses point 16(a) of the TD report.

3.1.3 If required by Members, centreline markings could be installed through the bend. Whilst this is not

considered to be ‘necessary’ on technical grounds, and is not a requirement of DCC, Place Land would

be amenable to such provision if deemed appropriate by Councillors.

3.1.4 There is no requirement to widen the Link Road, as the additional Heavy Goods Vehicle movements

resulting from the site would be very minimal and ad hoc in nature. They would not give rise to a

material impact. This addresses points 16(b-d) of the Trace Design note.

3.2 Higher Town

3.2.1 The proposed Give Way arrangement is a highway safety improvement scheme sought by DCC,

providing a wider benefit to the village. The development site itself would give rise to very little traffic

indeed on Higher Town.

TECHNICAL NOTE


3.2.2 Consequently, comments regarding carriageway widths, and the potential provision of widenings,

passing places and so on are unrelated to the effect of the proposed development. Planning conditions

requiring such works would therefore be unreasonable. This addresses Trace Design points 33(a-c).

3.3 Pedestrian Route to the Canal

3.3.1 During the application process, the proposals moved on further to the original Transport Assessment.

The pedestrian link would not now go through the field access on the south side of Turnpike. Rather, a

drop-kerb has been indicated on the approved drawing of the south-western access / Turnpike crossing,

as requested by DCC, providing for pedestrian access to the lane to the south. There is therefore no

third-party land issue. This addresses all points within 36 & 37 of the Trace Design report.

3.4 Works near to the Canal Bridge

3.4.1 Trace Design states that ‘this is considered to be an improvement to the local highway network in its

existing situation, which provides further priority to pedestrians as recommended in Manual for Streets

design guidance’.

3.4.2 That view accords with those of DCC, Hydrock and the independent Road Safety Auditors that have

assessed the scheme. This addresses point 41(a-b) of the report.

4. CONCLUSION

4.1.1 All points within the Trace Design Technical Statements are addressed and resolved through the

provision of information within this TN, addressing MDDC's concerns from a highways / transportation /

access perspective.

1

1

9

.7

9

1

1

9

.8

7

1

1

9

.

9

7

1

2

0

.

1

3

1

1

9

.

5

3

1

1

8

.

9

7

1

1

7

.

9

6

1

1

6

.

8

6

1

1

9

.

6

2

119.86

127.14

126.85

126.60

126.30 126.01

125.78

125.51

125.2

3

124.8

5

1

2

4

.5

4

1

2

4

.

1

0

1

2

4

.

3

6

1

2

4

.8

3

G

U

GUG

U

1

2

4

.

0

2

1

2

4

.

1

8

1

2

3

.

5

2

1

2

2

.

9

9

B

T

B

T

1

2

3

.

5

6

1

1

1

.3

8

1

2

2

.

6

5

1

2

2

.

1

4

1

2

1

.

5

7

1

2

1

.

1

7

1

2

0

.

6

2

1

2

0

.

1

0

C

V

R

C

V

R

1

2

2

.

7

1

1

1

4

.

5

8

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

1

1

4

.

1

8

1

1

4

.

3

2

1

1

4

.

5

2

1

2

0

.

7

2

1

2

1

.

0

6

1

2

1

.

4

8

1

2

1

.

9

9

1

2

2

.

5

3

1

2

2

.

9

1

1

2

3

.

4

9

1

2

3

.

9

3

1

2

4

.1

3

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.5

1

1

1

3

.4

6

1

2

4

.4

4

1

2

4

.7

4

125.0

6

125.33

125.55

125.88

126.16

126.43126.74

126.92

SP

1

2

6

.

4

0

1

2

6

.

2

4

1

2

5

.

8

7

1

2

5

.

1

7

1

2

4

.

3

6

1

2

3

.

4

2

1

2

6

.

1

6

1

2

5

.

8

4

1

2

5

.

4

8

1

2

5

.

1

2

1

2

4

.

8

6

1

2

4

.

5

2

1

2

4

.

0

1

1

2

3

.

3

6

1

2

2

.

5

8

1

2

1

.

9

1

1

2

1

.

3

7

1

2

6

.

1

9

1

2

5

.

8

5

1

2

5

.

5

0

1

2

5

.

1

7

1

2

4

.

8

3

1

2

4

.

5

3

1

2

4

.

0

8

1

2

3

.

3

8

1

2

2

.

6

8

1

2

2

.

0

0

1

2

1

.

4

2

1

2

1

.

0

3

1

2

0

.

6

9

1

2

0

.3

3

1

2

0

.

1

5

1

2

0

.

1

9

1

2

0

.

0

0

1

1

9

.

7

3

1

1

9

.

5

3

1

2

6

.

7

3

1

2

7

.

5

0

1

2

7

.

4

5

1

2

6

.

4

2

1

2

6

.

2

4

1

2

5

.

8

3

1

2

5

.

3

5

1

2

5

.

2

2

1

2

4

.

8

2

1

2

4

.

3

8

124.04

1

1

4

.

6

0

1

1

4

.

6

5

1

1

4

.

6

3

1

1

4

.

5

7

1

1

4

.

4

9

1

1

4

.

3

6

1

1

4

.

1

9

1

1

4

.

0

1

1

1

3

.5

8

1

1

3

.2

7

1

1

2

.8

5

1

1

2

.3

7

1

1

1

.7

1

1

1

0

.7

6

1

1

0

.0

8

1

1

5

.

4

6

1

1

4

.

7

2

1

1

2

.

3

4

115.39

1

1

5

.5

9

1

1

4

.

4

7

1

1

4

.

4

7

1

1

4

.

4

1

1

1

4

.

3

3

1

1

4

.

2

4

1

1

3

.

9

9

1

1

3

.8

4

1

1

3

.5

8

1

1

3

.2

6

1

1

2

.7

3

1

1

2

.2

9

1

1

4

.

5

4

1

1

4

.

6

6

1

1

4

.

5

8

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.

0

51

1

4

.

3

5

1

1

4

.

2

7

1

1

4

.

0

3

1

1

3

.8

6

1

1

3

.5

9

1

1

3

.3

3

1

1

4

.0

2

1

1

4

.

0

6

1

1

3

.

8

7

1

1

2

.8

8

1

1

2

.4

0

111.58

1

1

0

.6

6

1

1

0

.

1

7

1

1

0

.0

8

1

1

0

.7

2

1

1

1

.6

5

112.38

G

R

A

S

S

S

E

T

S

T

A

R

M

A

C

G

R

A

S

S

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

1

2

.9

0

1

1

3

.3

1

1

1

3

.6

7

1

1

4

.0

3

1

1

4

.

2

0

1

1

4

.

3

3

1

1

4

.

4

2

1

1

4

.

4

9

1

1

4

.

5

5

1

1

4

.

5

9

1

1

4

.

5

5

1

1

4

.

4

3

1

1

4

.

5

1

1

1

5

.

2

5

1

1

5

.

7

71

1

5

.

7

1

1

1

4

.

9

2

1

1

5

.

8

8

1

1

5

.

3

1

1

1

5

.

3

0

115.5

0

1

1

5

.7

6

1

1

6

.

1

3

1

1

6

.

5

6

1

1

6

.

8

2

1

1

7

.

8

8

1

1

9

.

0

5

1

1

9

.8

4

1

2

0

.8

8

OH

W

OH

W

125.82

125.74

125.47

125.36

125.28

125.15

124.89

124.54

124.02

124.45

124.31

124.37

122.78

123.15

123.52

123.90

124.26

124.25

124.14

123.75

123.26

123.11

122.76

122.56

122.87

122.99

123.51

123.95

124.09

124.36

124.89

125.32

125.74

126.02

126.26

126.36

126.29

126.18

125.92

125.49

125.74

125.97

126.17

126.11

126.02

125.85

125.71

125.40

125.00

124.53

124.13

123.88

123.54

123.21

122.60

122.50

122.22

121.84

121.36

121.08

120.97

120.71

120.27

120.46

120.01

120.47

119.80

119.00

114.04

113.59

113.85

114.36

114.67

114.89

115.13

115.53

116.24

115.81

115.51

115.37

114.98

114.59

114.83

115.29

115.79

116.08

116.16

116.48

117.00

117.24

116.60

116.63

117.34

117.28

116.55

116.43

117.17

117.38

117.55

117.53

117.38

117.32

117.11

116.69

117.28

117.67

117.97

118.19

118.34

118.36

118.28

118.04

117.81

117.95

118.03

117.90

117.74

117.29

117.01

116.89

116.47

116.07

115.60

117.42

116.67

116.21

116.99

117.80

118.53

118.17

118.89

119.24

119.97

119.53

120.27

120.64

121.21

120.97

121.70

121.99

122.19

122.69

122.96

123.34

123.61

123.06

123.54

124.02

124.30

124.56

124.65

124.57

124.88

125.13

125.32

125.09

124.16

123.26

122.26

123.05

122.05

121.08

121.24

121.52

120.55

120.28

119.23

119.59

118.53

118.10

118.78

118.88

119.01

119.09

119.20

119.03

118.71

118.71

118.73

118.81

118.66

118.45

117.99

117.78

117.78

117.33

116.91

116.53

117.17

117.57

118.12

118.47

118.52

118.81

119.13

119.55

119.65

119.69

119.52

119.50

119.77

120.02

119.97

119.89

119.90

119.76

120.58

120.70

120.78

120.82

120.78

120.69

120.32

120.44

120.48

120.35

120.27

119.98

119.51

119.36

119.24

118.79

118.37

117.96

118.61

119.16

119.55

119.97

120.14

120.37

120.68

121.03

121.23

121.27

121.32

121.19

121.53

121.68

121.82

121.73

121.63

121.54

122.37

122.57

123.35

124.32

123.58

122.67

122.72

123.64

124.43

124.35

123.49

122.67

122.26

123.29

123.98

123.81

122.99

122.15

122.16

122.98

123.84

123.75

122.92

122.14

122.04

122.80

123.67

123.30

122.61

121.84

121.46

121.04

120.87

120.64

120.27

119.82

119.41

120.03

120.40

120.97

121.36

121.46

121.75

122.14

122.91

122.47

122.22

121.91

121.55

121.05

120.74

122.75

122.43

122.08

121.63

121.36

1

2

4

.4

8

1

2

4

.1

4

1

2

3

.6

9

1

2

4

.

3

1

1

2

4

.

1

8

1

2

1

.

0

9

1

2

0

.

6

6

1

2

0

.

9

5

1

2

1

.

2

1

1

2

1

.

4

7

1

2

1

.

3

4

1

2

1

.

5

6

1

2

1

.

9

7

1

2

2

.

3

7

1

2

2

.

5

2

1

2

2

.

4

3

1

2

2

.

8

5

1

2

3

.

3

2

1

2

3

.

2

0

1

2

4

.0

1

1

2

2

.2

2

121.83

121.44

1

2

0

.

9

5

1

2

0

.

4

0

1

1

9

.

6

6

1

1

8

.

9

4

1

1

8

.

2

8

1

1

7

.

4

2

1

1

6

.

8

9

1

1

6

.

4

7

116.1

6

1

1

6

.3

2

1

1

6

.4

4

1

1

6

.

5

3

1

1

6

.

6

6

1

1

6

.

7

2

1

1

6

.

7

5

1

1

6

.

6

0

1

1

6

.

6

7

1

1

6

.

5

2

1

1

6

.

2

8

1

1

6

.

0

8

1

1

6

.

2

0

1

1

6

.

1

8

1

1

6

.1

5

115.89 115.23

1

1

4

.9

0

1

1

4

.4

3

1

1

4

.2

6

113.93

1

1

3

.2

8

1

1

2

.6

9

1

1

7

.

4

9

1

1

8

.

0

6

1

1

7

.

6

9

1

1

8

.

3

1

1

1

8

.

9

4

1

1

9

.

4

5

1

2

0

.

0

2

1

2

0

.

4

7

1

2

0

.

8

7

1

2

1

.

3

5

1

2

2

.

9

3

1

2

3

.

4

0

1

2

3

.

9

5

1

2

4

.

5

8

1

2

4

.

9

2

1

2

5

.

3

9

1

2

5

.

8

2

1

2

6

.

1

7

1

2

6

.

3

7

1

2

6

.

5

4

1

2

6

.

4

9

T

O

W

:

1

2

3

.

1

3

T

O

W

:

1

2

4

.

1

7

T

O

W

:

1

2

5

.

2

0

T

O

W

:

1

2

6

.

3

1

T

O

W

:

1

2

6

.

8

9

T

O

W

:

1

2

7

.

3

2

1

2

4

.

8

9

1

2

4

.

7

3

1

2

5

.

1

2

1

2

5

.

2

2

1

2

5

.

2

8

1

2

5

.

2

4

125.6

3

1

2

5

.

5

5

1

2

5

.

7

3

1

2

5

.

9

4

1

2

5

.

9

2

1

2

6

.

1

1

1

2

6

.

2

4

1

2

6

.

3

1

1

2

6

.

3

1

1

2

6

.4

3

1

2

4

.

5

5

1

2

4

.

3

0

1

2

3

.

9

7

1

2

4

.

4

5

1

2

3

.4

7

1

2

4

.

4

0

1

2

4

.

4

2

1

2

4

.

4

7

124.6

0

1

2

4

.

6

0

1

2

4

.

5

3

1

2

4

.

2

1

1

2

4

.

0

7

1

2

4

.

2

5

1

2

4

.

5

0

1

2

4

.

3

9

1

2

4

.

4

3

1

2

4

.3

1

1

2

4

.1

0

1

2

3

.6

6

1

2

3

.0

5

A

C

C

E

S

S

T

R

A

C

K

UNMADE

GRASS

GRASS

O

H

W

O

H

W

P

E

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

SLO

W

2.4m x 39.1m VISIBILITY SPLAY

2.4m x 41.3m VISIBILITY SPLAY

43m FORWARD VISIBILITY SPLAY

5

.5

m

2

.0

m

V

E

R

G

E

2

.0

m

V

E

R

G

E

R

=

1

0

m

R

=

1

0

m

43m FORWARD VISIBILITY SPLAY

TO BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN

THE SITE.

Location of replacement wall to

tie into existing (details to be

approved by Local Planning

Authority)

Location of replacement wall to tie into

existing (details to be approved by

Local Planning Authority)

L=14.374m

12

1.6

77

R: 100.000

L: 15.942

R: 100.000

L: 28.522

Level Datum =121.000

Le

ve

l

121

122

123

124

125

126

E

X

IS

T

IN

G

P

R

O

P

O

S

E

D

PROPOSED

EXISTING

CHAINAGE

12

4.8

83

12

4.9

17

12

4.9

19

12

4.7

35

12

4.3

01

12

3.61

7

12

2.6

86

12

4.8

84

12

5.1

38

12

5.3

36

12

4.8

62

12

4.2

09

12

3.4

71

12

2.6

23

12

1.8

56

HORIZONTAL

VERTICAL

G:0.670

G

L:4.970m

L

R:-400.000m

R:500.000m

L:43.935m

L:9.127m

0.0

00

4.9

70

10

.0

00

20

.0

00

30

.0

00

40

.00

0

50

.0

00

58

.8

42

PROPOSED ACCESSARRANGEMENT & PROFILE

FROM WEST

Drawn: Checked: Scale @ A1:

Drawn:

Drawing No.

S2

Revision06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-

Drawn Date: First Issue:

Purpose of Issue INFORMATION

P

Drawing Title:

Notes:All dimensions are to be checked on site before the commencement of works.Any discrepancies are to be reported to the Architect & Engineer forverification. Figured dimensions only are to be taken from this drawing.Thisdrawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant Engineers' and ServiceEngineers' drawings and specifications. This drawing is copyright.

Client:

Project:

C-06685-CProject Number:

DescriptionDateRev CkdBy

PLACE LAND LLP.

LAND AT SAMPFORD PEVERELL,DEVON

2 East Pool, Tolvaddon Energy Park,Camborne TR14 0HX.Tel:01209 719037 Fax:0870 838 1078 or visitwww.hydrock.comThis drawing is the copyright of Hydrock Ltd. No liability will beaccepted for any amendments to this drawing either printed ordigital by parties other than Hydrock. RS MR AS SHOWN 18/10/2017 18/10/2017

106 5

PLAN

Scale 1:500

OS NORTH

VISIBILITY SPLAY AMENDED25/10/17P1 MJMPFORWARD VISIBILITY SPLAY ADDED25/10/17P2 MJMPFORWARD VISIBILITY SPLAY ADDED08/11/17P3 TGJMPRETAINING WALL ADDED05/04/18P4 MJMPROAD WIDTH & VISIBILITY SPLAY REVISED11/10/18P5 MJRS

1

0

3

.

0

7

1

0

2

.

7

3

1

0

2

.

3

7

1

0

1

.

9

8

1

0

1

.

7

6

1

0

3

.

1

6

1

0

2

.

8

5

1

0

2

.

5

1

1

0

2

.

0

9

1

0

1

.

8

4

G

U

1

0

1

.

9

1

1

0

2

.1

0

1

0

2

.

5

9

1

0

2

.

9

4

1

0

3

.

2

5

1

.

5

m

H

i

g

h

1

0

2

.

6

9

B

T

1

0

3

.

0

6

1

0

1

.

8

8

1

0

2

.

1

5

1

0

2

.

5

1

1

0

2

.

8

6

1

0

3

.

1

9

101.7

7

1

0

2

.

0

6

1

0

2

.

3

0

1

0

2

.

5

4

1

0

2

.

9

3

1

0

3

.

4

3

M

H

1

0

3

.

0

0

P

S

P

S

P

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

C

V

R

1

0

3

.

3

7

W

V

1

0

3

.

4

1

1

0

4

.

1

7

1

0

3

.

8

1

1

0

3

.

5

2

2

m

H

i

g

h

2

m

H

i

g

h

1

0

4

.

1

2

1

0

3

.

7

7

1

0

3

.

4

6

1

0

3

.

4

5

103.43

1

0

1

.

4

8

1

0

1

.

8

2

1

0

2

.

1

0

1

0

2

.

4

4

1

0

2

.

7

7

1

0

3

.

1

3

1

0

3

.

4

4

1

0

3

.

7

2

1

0

4

.

0

9

1

0

3

.

9

4

1

0

4

.

0

3

1

0

4

.

5

2

1

0

4

.

5

2

O

H

W

1

0

9

.2

3

1

0

8

.8

5

1

0

8

.5

8

1

0

8

.2

5

1

0

7

.4

2

1

0

6

.0

3

1

0

6

.2

8

1

0

6

.2

0

1

0

6

.8

3

1

0

6

.8

1

1

0

8

.0

0

1

0

8

.2

0

1

0

8

.0

8

1

0

7

.4

8

1

0

7

.5

3

1

0

7

.2

9

1

0

5

.

7

3

1

0

5

.4

3

1

0

5

.

1

7

1

0

5

.

3

0

1

0

7

.

5

5

1

0

7

.

2

7

1

0

7

.

2

4

1

0

7

.

0

9

1

0

6

.

7

7

1

0

6

.

5

2

1

0

5

.

4

1

1

0

5

.

3

8

1

0

7

.

0

7

1

0

7

.

5

9

1

0

7

.

3

6

1

0

6

.

9

7

1

0

6

.

7

9

1

0

6

.

2

8

1

0

6

.

0

2

1

0

6

.0

2

1

0

6

.

1

1

1

0

5

.8

4

1

0

5

.

8

6

1

0

5

.

7

0

1

0

5

.

6

0

1

0

5

.

5

2

1

0

5

.

2

8

1

0

5

.

0

5

P

T

A

R

M

A

C

30

PROPOSED SAFETYBARRIERS - DETAILS TBC

REPLACE EXISTING BN KERB

EXISTING KERBED FOOTWAY

1.5m X 122m PEDESTRIAN VISIBILITY SPLAY


PROPOSED BN KERB

PROPOSED BN KERB

PROPOSED BN KERB



103.0

7

102.7

3

102.3

7

101.9

8

101.7

6

103.1

6

102.8

5

102.5

1

102.09

101.8

4

101.60

101.25

100.91

100.55

100.22

99.90

99.60

101.52

101.15

100.80

100.44

100.11

99.78

99.49

GU

GU

GU

GU

GU

GU

GU G

U

99.16

98.93

98.61

99.27

99.05 98.75

98.42

98.52

98.19

98.28

98.34

98.56

98.87

99.08

99.39

99.68

99.97

100.30

100.61

100.96

101.30

101.67

101.9

1

102.1

0

102.5

9

102.9

4

103.2

5

1.5

m H

igh

100.11

101.04

101.39

101.76

101.81

102.19

102.44

102.67

102.67

102.69

BT

BT

103.0

6

BENC

H

CVR

98.77

98.32

98.5498.80

99.05

99.32

99.58

99.88

100.17

100.51

100.90

101.27

101.64

101.8

8

102.15

102.5

1

102.8

6

103.1

9

100.85

101.21

1

0

1

.7

7

102.06

102.30

102.5

4

102.9

3

103.4

3

MH

MH

103.0

0

100.20

100.46

100.15

99.90

99.59

99.32

99.05

99.06

99.25

99.62

9

9

.

9

6

1

0

0

.

0

3

99.9

8

100.29W

V

98.8

1

98.48

98.73

98.23

P

P

P

P

SP

SP

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

CV

R

103.3

7

WV

103.4

1

103.5

2

1

0

3

.4

3

101.48

101.82

102.1

0

102.4

4

102.7

7

103.1

3

103.4

4

1

0

3

.9

4

1

0

6

.2

0

1

0

4

.

7

3

105.73

105.4

3

105.1

7

105.3

0

105.07

106.52

1

0

5

.

4

1

1

0

5

.3

8

1

0

7

.

0

7

1

0

6

.

2

8

1

0

6

.

0

2

1

0

6

.0

2

106.1

1

105.84

1

0

5

.8

6

105.7

0

105.60

105.5

2

105.2

8

105.0

5

TARMAC

TARMAC

30

SLO

W

SLO

W


0.5m


103.0

7

103.1

6

103.2

5

1.5m

Hig

h

BT

103.0

6

103.1

9

103.43

P

P

O

H

W

B

T

104.99

CV

R

103.3

7

WV

103.4

1

107.4

2

106.8

7

106.40

106.02

105.59

1

0

5

.3

0

1

0

4

.9

3

104.53

104.17

103.8

1

103.5

2

106.3

4

1

0

5

.6

3

105.7

8

105.4

1

1

0

5

.1

3

1

0

5

.

1

4

2m

Hig

h

1

0

4

.8

1

1

0

4

.4

9

2m

Hig

h

2m

Hig

h

104.1

2

103.7

7

103.4

6

1

0

3

.

4

5

1

0

3

.4

3

103.1

3

103.4

4

103.7

2

104.09

1

0

3

.9

4

1

0

4

.0

3

104.52

1

0

4

.5

2

1

0

4

.8

8

1

0

5

.2

7

1

0

5

.5

1

105.94

106.34

106.83

107.3

7

107.97

108.5

6

M

H

105.1

1

OH

W

OH

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

0

7

.4

8

1

0

8

.8

7

1

0

9

.0

4

1

0

9

.2

0

1

1

0

.7

5

1

1

1

.2

2

1

1

1

.5

4

1

1

1

.8

3

1

1

4

.0

4

1

1

3

.5

9

1

1

3

.0

7

1

1

2

.5

8

1

1

2

.3

61

1

4

.3

6

1

1

4

.6

7

114.26

113.93

113.28112.69

111.78

111.21

110.4

8

110.4

9

109.9

9

109.52

109.12

108.7

8

1

0

8

.6

6

108.35

1

0

8

.0

6

107.74

1

0

7

.5

5

1

0

7

.2

7

1

0

7

.2

4

1

0

7

.0

9

1

0

6

.7

7

1

0

9

.3

9

1

0

9

.

7

1

1

0

9

.

6

6

1

1

0

.

1

4

P

P

OH

W

OH

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

P

P

P

O

H

W


0.5m


S2SUITABLE FOR INFORMATION

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN, CYCLE ANDEMERGENCY ACCESSGENERAL ARRANGEMENT

1:250

06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-0108 P4Plotted 11/11/2018 14:19:43

P01FIRST ISSUE

M.PEARCE 13/11/17M.ROWE 13/11/17J.MCKECHNIE 13/11/17

DRAWING NO.(PROJECT CODE-ORGINATOR-ZONE-LEVEL-TYPE-ROLE-NUMBER)

SCALE @ A3

REVISION

HYDROCK PROJECT NO.

STATUS

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

NOTES

STATUS DESCRIPTION

KEY PLAN

REVISIONS

DATE

REVISION NOTES/COMMENTS

DRAWN BY DATECHECKED BY DATEAPPROVED BYREV

C-06685-C

PLACE LAND LLP

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTSAMPFORD PEVERELL

2 East PoolTolvaddon Energy ParkCamborneTR14 6TUt: +44 (0)1209 719037e:[email protected]

PROPOSED KERBPROPOSED BN KERBPROPOSED HARD STANDING AREA

OS NORTH

1.5m X 122m PEDESTRIAN VISIBILITY SPLAY TO THE WEST (1:500)

1.5m X 120m PEDESTRIAN VISIBILITY SPLAY TO THE EAST (1:500)

OS NORTH

OS NORTH

P02REVISED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS

M.PEARCE 05/04/18M.JONES 05/04/18J.MCKECHNIE 05/04/18

P03REVISED CROSSING ARRANGEMENTS BASED ON DCC COMMENTS

M.PEARCE 23/04/18M.JONES 23/04/18J.MCKECHNIE 23/04/18

P04REVISED CROSSING ARRANGEMENTS BASED ON DCC COMMENTS

R.STOREY 10/11/18M.JONES 10/11/18J.MCKECHNIE 12/11/18

Subject:FW: Higher Town Sampford Peverell Brief and proposed reports 17/01359/Mout

From: Daniel Rance Sent: 13 November 2018 12:54To: Development ControlSubject: FW: Higher Town Sampford Peverell Brief and proposed reports 17/01359/Mout

Please add to the web site as additional info re Trace design report

Daniel

From: Rafael Morant Sent: 24 September 2018 14:12To: David Green; Alison FishCc: Martin Brady; Jenny Clifford; Kathryn TebbeySubject: RE: Higher Town Sampford Peverell Brief and proposed reports

Dear David,

Thank you for your email.

After another look at our assessment and considering your email below, we cannot find sufficient grounds for refusing the application on highway safety grounds.

All the points mentioned in our assessment would help the scheme be safer and more convenient for its use by all people accessing and egressing the site, however, and based on our wide and extensive experience in the preparation of transport reports and schemes in support of outline planning applications, we do not find the proposed scheme to cause a “severe” impact in highway safety as based on the NPPF and would be difficult to defend highway safety as a reason for refusal on any subsequent appeal that may happen in the future. Furthermore, DCC Highways did not raise any objections in terms of highway safety, which would make the case more difficult to defend.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Best regards,

Rafael Morant

w: www.trace-design.co.uk

3 Silverdown Office Park, Fair Oak Close, Clyst Honiton, Exeter, Devon. EX5 2UX

Trace Design Consultants Limited, company number:08047125, VAT: 153496591

Trace Design International Limited, company number:11428267, VAT: 299268437

All companies are registered in England & Wales and trading as ‘Trace Design’

IMPORTANT: This message, and any files transmitted with it may be confidential and is intended for the above named only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. You must not disclose or copy the contents to a third party.

Any attachments to this e-mail are believed to be virus free, however it is the responsibility of the recipient to make the necessary virus checks.

Trace Design accepts no legal responsibility for the contents of the message. Any views expressed in the message are those of the sender and may not reflect the views of the Company.

Trace Design are GDPR compliant, our policy is available on request.

From: David Green Sent: 24 September 2018 11:02To: Rafael Morant; Alison Fish Cc: Martin Brady ; Jenny Clifford ; Kathryn Tebbey Subject: RE: Higher Town Sampford Peverell Brief and proposed reports

http://www.trace-design.co.uk/

Dear Rafael

Our Planning committee are minded to refuse this application on highway safety grounds . I note in the attached the report you make suggestions to improve the scheme but I suppose what we really need is a formal view from you on whether these suggestions would be grounds for refusing the application and whether they would be defendable at any subsequent appeal ?

This is a fundamental question for me and I do need to have a view on it from yourselves before I go back to the planning committee.

I look forward to your swift response on this

Kind regards

Dave

David Green

Group Manager for Development

Mid Devon District Council | Phoenix House | Phoenix Lane | Tiverton | EX16 6PP DDi: 01884 234348 | Main: 01884 255255 | E: [email protected]

Website www.middevon.gov.uk Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

Do you really need to print this? Please stay Green and leave it on the screen!

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.middevon.gov.uk/

http://www.facebook.com/middevon1

http://twitter.com/#!/MidDevonDC


APPENDIX C: LEA EMAIL 21ST FEBRUARY 2018

From:JackCottrell<[email protected]>Sent:21February201814:35To:[email protected]:SchoolTransportpickuppointqueryHiRoz,Thankyouforcontactingusregardingyourson’spickuppointatBatten’sCross.WechosetoallocateyoursontoBatten’sCrossratherthanTheGlobeasBatten’scrossisamuchshorterwalkingdistance.ThedecisiontoaddastopherewasalsomadebecausetherearesectionsofunpavedroadalongTurnpike.Therefore,inordertominimalizetheriskandprovidethesafestpossiblewalk,Battenscrosswascreatedasapickuppointforthosestudentslivingaroundyou.Althoughthereisnotapavementforallofthewaythereisatleastagrassvergeinwhichstudentscanwalkalong.Thismeanstheyareoffoftheroadandnotinthedirectpathoftraffic.Whereas,ifweweretoallocateallstudentstoTheGlobestoptherearesectionsweretherearenopavementorgrassvergemeaningstudentswouldneedtowalkalongtheroadsideandforalongerdistance.AsI’msureyoucanappreciatethereisahighpercentageofroadsinDevondonothaveapavementorgrassvergetowalkalongsoattimessomestudentsareexpectingtowalkalongunpavedroadsbutwherepossiblewewouldalwaysaimtocreatepickuppointswherethereisassafeawalkingrouteaspossibleinordertominimiserisk.Itisstronglyrecommendedthathighvisibilityclothingiswornwhenwalkingalongruralroadsandotherroadswherethereisnofootpath.MayIremindyouthatDevonCountyCouncilpolicystatesthatitistheparent/carersresponsibilitytoensuretheirchildgetstoandfromthepick-uppointsafely.IhopethisclarifieswhyyourchildwasallocatedtoBatten’sCross.KindregardsJack CottrellTransport Coordination OfficerTransport Coordination ServiceCounty Hall, Topsham Road, Exeter, EX2 4QDTel: 0345 155 1019 or 01392 383000 (Please state my name when prompted).Email: [email protected] Website: www.devon.gov.uk

Appendix_JB_G School Bus dangers on Turnpike


1. APPENDIX D: PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY

1.1 Existing Pedestrian Movements

1.1.1 Figure D.1 shows the Strava Heatmap for walking/running movements in the vicinity of the site, the

brightness of the lines indicating the most popular routes used by pedestrians and runners that use the

Strava app. Whilst the majority of pedestrians and runners would not be using Strava, it is a helpful

starting point in assessing the pattern of such movements locally.

Figure D.1: Strava Walking/Running Heatmap

1.1.2 Likely reflecting its focus on leisure movements, Strava shows very significant use of the canal, as well as

movements along Higher Town and Link Road connecting with the network of quiet country lanes.

1.1.3 Given Strava's focus towards leisure/sporting users, it should be noted that most or all of the

movements shown on the heatmap are undertaken by choice - users are actively choosing to walk/run

on these roads as part of an enjoyable activity, which suggests that they are perceived to be attractive

and safe.

Turnpike

1.1.4 Turnpike carries existing pedestrian trips which continue beyond the extent of footway, some

continuing west towards Halberton (a National Speed Limit road without any footway). The majority of

the Turnpike trips are likely to be to/from existing dwellings on that road, the Link Road, or the route

south to the canal.

1.1.5 In its Hearing Statement, PBA estimated that there are 'approximately 25' properties accessed from

Turnpike, west of the canal bridge and extending up to Battens Cross. I estimate that there are 26-27


such properties. MDDC and DCC has agreed that there are approximately ten dwellings on Turnpike,

opposite the appeal site's southern boundary and that 'Any pedestrian demand from these properties,

or any other users of this route, would be required walk [sic - 'to walk'] within the carriageway to access

these properties and routes to/from the Grand Western Canal' (4.5.5).

1.1.6 PBA's analysis is that these dwellings generate 25 pedestrian movements per day along Turnpike

towards the village centre (4 in the morning peak hour, and 2 in the evening peak hour). In addition,

there are trips to/from the canal, as above.

1.1.7 As previously noted, there have been no recorded accidents on Turnpike in the last 20 years. During

that time, based on the PBA analysis, there would have been at least 182,500 pedestrian movements

along the road without incident66. It is consequently accepted by MDDC that Turnpike has carried

significant numbers of pedestrians without incident over an extended timeframe.

1.1.8 Between the south-western site access at Batten's Cross and the canal bridge, is 0.44 miles (711m). PBA

traffic surveys67, on behalf of MDDC, recorded 24-hour vehicle flows of 2,437 vehicles per day (7-day

average). Over this 0.44 mile length of Turnpike, that equates to 1,072 total vehicle miles per day /

391,382 vehicle miles per year / 7,827,644 vehicle miles in 20 years.

1.1.9 I refer to the Department for Transport (DfT) publication Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain:

2018 Annual Report (the latest available) and its dataset RAS30018, which provides a breakdown of

accident rates by road type. This indicates accident rates per billion passenger miles of 368 for all

vehicles on rural roads such as Turnpike.

1.1.10 Consequently, on average, during the last 20 years, one would expect there to have been three68 injury

accidents in this area involving motor vehicles, whereas there have been none.

1.1.11 Taking the same approach for pedestrians, the relevant casualty rate per billion miles travelled by all

vehicles on similar rural roads is 37, which would equate to less than one69 predicted accident in 20

years. Again, there have been no accidents in that period.

1.1.12 Consequently, Turnpike is statistically safer than average. The addition of pedestrian, cycle and motor

vehicle movements from the appeal site would result in no significant increase in risk.

Higher Town

1.1.13 Higher Town carries existing pedestrian trips, including to/from dwellings on that road, the village

school, and routes extending into the rural lanes around the west side of Sampford Peverell.

1.1.14 The Royal Mail website records 49 individual dwellings on Higher Town. Additionally, around half of the

pedestrian trips from the 27 dwellings on Blackdown View and 20 dwellings on Paullet would use Higher

Town, as well as a similar proportion of the 196 dwellings served from Boobery.

1.1.15 Taking the PBA trip rates analysis (as above), that would equate to daily pedestrian trips of:

• 48 from Higher Town dwellings

• 23 from Blackdown View and Paullet

66 25 x 365 x 20 = 182,500 pedestrian movements. 67 7th-13th January 2020. 68 2.88 accidents. 69 0.29 accidents.


• 97 from Boobery and its side roads

1.1.16 Giving a total of 168 trips per day, plus pedestrian trips from further afield to/from the school.

1.1.17 During a morning site visit on 31st January 2020, I observed around 20 school-escort (parents and

children) pedestrian movements into/from Higher Town at the Turnpike junction. It is reasonable to

double the figure to 40 school-based pedestrian trips per day on that route, accounting for the morning

drop-off and evening pick-up. There would certainly have been further pedestrian movements to/from

the school via other routes.

1.1.18 That gives a total of more than 208 pedestrian movements per day on Higher Town associated with

residential dwellings and the school. Additionally, there would be leisure trips along Higher Town from

further afield, either within or beyond the village.

1.1.19 There have been no recorded accidents on Higher Town for at least 20 years. During that time, based

on the above figures, there would have been approximately 1.38m pedestrian movements along the

street70 without incident.

1.1.20 Higher Town is safe for use by pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. This is also the professional

judgment of the LHA, Trace Design, MDDC Officers and MDDC Members in promoting the appeal site

for allocation.

1.2 Turnpike: Geometry

Footways

1.2.1 I note from the frequent visits which I have made to site, and my own knowledge of the village, that

peak pedestrian movements tend to be tidal - e.g. to the bus stop or to school in the morning, which

again minimises the need for pedestrians to pass one another.

1.2.2 PBA's Hearing Statement reinforces this view. Combining PBA's predicted appeal site and existing

Turnpike pedestrian movements gives total peak hour pedestrian flows of two westbound / five

eastbound in the AM peak hour and three71 westbound / two eastbound in the PM peak hour. Whilst

the PM peak is more balanced than the clearly-tidal AM peak, the overall number of pedestrian

movements in lower.

1.2.3 In Table D.1 I present the Level of Service provided by the existing Turnpike footway in relation to the

combined appeal site and existing pedestrian demand level described above. This refers to the standard

Level of Service calculations described by Fruin (1971) and adopted widely by highway authorities in the

UK and elsewhere.

Time

Period

Pedestrian

Demand

(per minute)

Width

(m)

Width

(ft)

Pedestrians/minute

per ft width

Level of

Service

(LoS)

Criteria

for LoS

AM 0.12

2 6.56 0.02 A <7

1.8 5.91 0.02 A <7

1.5 4.92 0.02 A <7

70 Allowing for weekends and a 39-week school year. 71 Rounded from 2.5, and taking account of appeal site pedestrian trips split 50/50 between Higher Town and Turnpike.


1.3 4.27 0.03 A <7

1.1 3.61 0.03 A <7

0.9 2.95 0.04 A <7

0.75 2.46 0.05 A <7

PM 0.08

2 6.56 0.01 A <7

1.8 5.91 0.01 A <7

1.5 4.92 0.02 A <7

1.3 4.27 0.02 A <7

1.1 3.61 0.02 A <7

0.9 2.95 0.03 A <7

0.75 2.46 0.03 A <7

Table D.1: Pedestrian Level of Service for a variety of footway widths

1.2.4 In Table D.1 I have shown the LoS for a variety of footway widths found along Turnpike, based on total

pedestrian demand (appeal site and existing) as set out by PBA. I have also included the calculation for a

2.0m footway width for comparison.

1.2.5 Fruin set out six LoS classifications (A-F). A is the highest ('best') LoS and F is the lowest ('worst'). The

LoS available on Turnpike is very significantly within an 'A' classification - there would be few if any

realistic constraints experienced by most users of the route.

1.2.6 Based on the PBA predictions, with the appeal development in place, pedestrians travelling in opposite

directions on Turnpike would not meet for 91.85% of the AM peak hour / 96.87% of the PM peak hour /

96.89% of the period 0700-190072. Consequently, the need for pedestrians to pass when travelling

along the Turnpike footway would be very infrequent.

1.2.7 Looking specifically at the extent of footway <1.2m in width, which PBA alleges in its Hearing Statement

would be unacceptable, I measure that as a total of 0.128km. Within that area, pedestrians would

coincide in opposite directions for 99.1% of the AM peak hour / 99.6% of the PM peak hour / 99.7% of

the period 0700-1900.

1.3 Higher Town: Geometry

Pedestrian/Cycle Use

1.3.1 Higher Town is an existing country lane on the site's northern boundary, connecting into the village

centre past the school, church and onwards across an existing pedestrian bridge on the north side of

the Grand Western Canal.

1.3.2 The road is lightly trafficked, with fewer than 50 vehicles per hour in weekday peak periods (and far less

at other times). There have been no accidents recorded in the last 20 years (the limit of the available

72 The probability of pedestrians meeting is calculated based on the % of the relevant time period that there would be eastbound pedestrian movements x the equivalent % for westbound movements.


data). Whilst Higher Town is a typical village street, as an indicator of the acceptability of its layout,

Manual for Streets advises that roads carrying up to 100 vehicles per hour operate as 'shared space'

where pedestrians are comfortable using the full width of the carriageway73 and consequently do not

require footways - Higher Town carries no more than half that volume of traffic.

1.3.3 Whilst LTN 1/11 Shared Space has been withdrawn, I note that document focussed on shared space

within high street environments (p.5), contrary to the statement at 7.2 of PBA's Hearing Statement74.

On 28th September 2018, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) and the

Department for Transport (DfT) wrote to all Local Authorities stating that the pause on new shared

space schemes 'does not apply to streets within new residential areas, or the redesign of existing

residential streets with very low levels of traffic'.

1.3.4 MDDC policy promotes shared-space principles, including on more heavily-trafficked routes, via its

Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension: Design Guide which seeks to introduce shared-spaces at junctions

and along roads linking that urban extension with the A361 and Blundell's Road. With regard to existing

country lanes, the Design Guide (p.96) states 'narrow lanes create a natural 'shared surface', no

hierarchy of road user = mutual awareness'. MDDC's Adopted (June 2018) SPD for the Tiverton Eastern

Urban Extension mirrors the Design Guide, with new and existing shared spaces indicated throughout

the proposed development area.

1.3.5 Similarly, MDDC's Adopted North West Cullompton Masterplan SPD (February 2016) includes proposed

shared surface areas near to schools and in local centres, and the use of existing, trafficked lanes as key

pedestrian/cycle links into this urban extension.

1.3.6 Whilst Higher Town exhibits many of the characteristics which would be desirable in a newly-designed

shared space street, it is of course an historic route which has safely accommodated movements by all

modes of transport. I agree with the assertion in MDDC's Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension: Design

Guide that historic lanes are natural 'shared surface' features, promoting mutual awareness between all

users.

1.3.7 Higher Town has a footway near to the Methodist Church, at the junction with Blackdown View, and

between the Parish Church and the junction with Turnpike. There are also multiple locations which act

as de facto pedestrian 'refuge' areas, should users feel the need to utilise them - e.g. driveways,

junctions, parked vehicles, a waiting area (with bench) outside of the school, and small footway/refuge

areas in the vicinity of the junctions with Boobery. Whilst I consider that Higher Town would be safe in

the absence of such areas, their presence adds to the overall provision for pedestrians along the street.

1.3.8 East of the site access, Higher Town varies in width between 3.7m and 7.7m. In areas without footway,

it is generally 5.0m-5.5m wide. Where narrowings exist, they are over short distances, with good inter-

visibility which enables users (pedestrians, cyclists or drivers) to 'give-and-take' as necessary. However,

in general, the width is more than sufficient for shared use - e.g. a car measures 2.0m wide and a HGV

3.0m wide, leaving significant space when passing pedestrians.

1.3.9 Traffic speed surveys were undertaken at the proposed site pedestrian/cycle access onto Higher Town,

with recorded average speeds of 20.8mph eastbound / 20.3mph westbound and 85th percentile speeds

73 Beyond this width, space can still be 'shared', but pedestrians will tend to walk at the carriageway edge. 74 Paragraph 7.2 of the PBA Hearing Statement erroneously states that 'shared surface streets are normally provided on residential cul-de-sacs where drivers are usually residents of the estate and are therefore familiar with the layout and the likelihood of pedestrians to be present in the carriageway'. This assumption seems to have informed PBA's wider views regarding the suitability of Higher Town.


of 26.6mph eastbound / 25.8mph westbound. This area is proposed to be traffic-calmed, and the

30mph speed limit extended, so I would expect actual vehicle speeds to be accordingly reduced.

1.3.10 PBA has alleged that the speed of traffic along Higher Town is incompatible with safe pedestrian use.

Notwithstanding the absence of any accident history on this street, and the regular existing

pedestrian/cycle use of Higher Town, further traffic speed surveys were undertaken on Higher Town

adjacent to the Methodist Church between 27/02/20 and 04/03/20.

1.3.11 As would be expected, moving into the village, traffic speeds are lower than existing speeds at the site

access, due to the nature of the highway environment (village street with active frontages and a mix of

users), with average speeds of 16.4mph eastbound / 16.7mph westbound and 85th percentile speeds of

21.4mph eastbound / 20.6mph westbound. At this location, the average maximum two-way vehicle

flow was recorded as 41 vehicles per hour (0800-0900), and the average hourly flow during the period

0700-1900 was 26 vehicles per hour. Outside of that 12-hour period, traffic flows are significantly lower

- typically fewer than five vehicles per hour.

1.3.12 At its southern end, towards the junction with Turnpike/Lower Town, PBA's speed surveys undertaken

7th-13th January 2020 showed average speeds of 11.1mph southbound / 12.5mph northbound and

85th percentile speeds of 13.4mph southbound / 13.4mph northbound75.

1.3.13 Estate road design for new developments commonly seeks to deliver a 20mph design speed (i.e. the

speed below which most vehicles would be travelling), including in shared space areas. Examples of this

include p.51 of MDDC's Adopted SPD for the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension ('Shared surface, 20mph

zone at key locations'). LTN 1/11 made it clear that geometry, rather than speed limits, determines the

design speed.

1.3.14 Consequently, measured speeds and traffic volumes along Higher Town are entirely appropriate for

continued use by pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed traffic calming at the site access and extension

of the 30mph speed limit on approach would further reduce speeds.

Proposed Access

1.3.15 A pedestrian/cycle access is proposed on the site's northern boundary, incorporating visibility splays in

line with the measured current design speeds (i.e. robust assumptions, given that the proposed traffic

calming and TRO would reduce speeds in the future).

1.3.16 To the north east, the visibility splay has been taken to a point 1.0m from the carriageway edge. This is

common practice76 acceptable to the Local Highway Authority and is consistent with guidance in

Manual for Streets77. Given that all vehicles travel some distance away from the carriageway edge, the

question therefore is whether taking visibility to a point 1.0m from the edge of the road would result in

oncoming traffic being obscured - in this case, it would not.

1.3.17 Figure 6.18 of Manual for Streets indicates that a typical car is 2.0m wide. A cyclist riding has a dynamic

(moving) width of 1.0m and would be riding typically 0.5m from the edge of the carriageway78. A

75 Speeds have not been wet-weather adjusted, so are not Design Speeds (which would be lower). 76 I note that Trace Design, on behalf of MDDC, took no issue with this as a general principle. 77 Manual for Streets paragraph 7.7.3 notes that visibility measurements are commonly measured along the nearside kerb line 'for simplicity…although vehicles will normally be travelling a distance from the kerb line'. There are other 'relaxations' to the approach, including taking measurements to the centreline where it is unlikely that opposing traffic will cross it. 78 Sustrans Design Manual: Chapter 1 (2014) - P.3 and Fig 3.1. CD9.5.


motorcyclist would be between these two widths. Consequently, none of these road users would be

obscured by virtue of the visibility splay being measured to a 1.0m offset as agreed with the LHA.

1.3.18 The visibility 'x' distance of 1.5m for cyclists, shown on the application drawing, is consistent with

paragraph 3.8.5 of the Devon Design Guide79 and is in common use nationally.

1.3.19 A 2.5m wide foot/cycleway is proposed onto Higher Town. This width is consistent with the

requirements of Manual for Streets (6.4.8) and paragraph 3.8.2 of Devon County Council's Design

Guide80. The foot/cycleway would have a 'landing' of reduced gradient (1:40) adjacent to Higher Town

and, whilst onsite design is a reserved matter and outside of the scope of this appeal, Hydrock's design

work has shown the feasibility of an onsite link of appropriate gradient (1:14.3 / 7%), as agreed by the

LHA81.

1.3.20 The Rule 6 party has questioned whether cycle barriers should be installed at this access. Whilst that

has not been raised by the Road Safety Auditors, nor by the LHA, it would be feasible to install such

barriers at S278 or Reserved Matters stage. I would expect such barriers to be within the site, as

opposed to adjacent to the Highway, in order to provide space for pedestrians and cyclists

joining/existing Higher Town - consequently, addressing any such requirement at a later stage would be

appropriate, given that the barriers would not form part of the immediate access arrangement.

1.3.21 In response to other points raised by the Rule 6 party, I would reiterate that there are several proposed

pedestrian/cycle accesses to the site, of which this is one. Whilst I consider that all such accesses would

be suitable for use, the LHA and LPA agree with me that there would be a split of pedestrian

movements between Higher Town and Turnpike.

1.3.22 I measure the passing place, shown as a Give Way line on the application drawings, at 4.3m wide. East

of that, at the existing speed limit signs, the carriageway is 5.2m wide, narrowing to 4.0m (with the

potential to widen to 4.3m within the Highway) at the western end of the barn, east of the proposed

site access.

1.3.23 Figure 7.1 of Manual for Streets shows that 4.1m is sufficient for two cars to pass, with 4.8m being

suitable for a car to pass a Heavy Goods Vehicle. Given the nature of Higher Town as a quiet village

street, I consider it unlikely that two Heavy Goods Vehicles would meet at this location, and I consider

that interaction between a car and an oncoming Heavy Goods Vehicle would be an infrequent

occurrence.

1.3.24 In any case, the existing passing bay enables vehicles travelling along Higher Town to pass - Figure D.2

shows that there is significant space available for two cars (or larger vehicles82) to pass at this location,

and this is further evidenced via the vehicle tracking plots at Appendix N.

79 CD9.4. 80 CD9.4. 81 Whilst we have shown that suitable gradients are achievable, the Devon Design Guide allows for 'increased gradients [to be] considered provided they are agreed at planning stage' (Table 7.3.6). As noted, the proposed access is agreed with the LHA. 82 Onsite, I have observed tractors and other large vehicles passing parked cars at this location.


Figure D.2: Parked car in passing bay at proposed Higher Town access, showing clear space for two vehicles to pass

1.3.25 Whilst the existing passing bay is not provided for the purposes of parking, and the LHA has no

objection to the proposed access arrangement, I note that the appellant proposes to provide some

suitable parking on-site for local people, in a convenient location.

1.3.26 Furthermore, the LHA has confirmed that it would be content with either a Give Way arrangement as

shown on the access drawing, or an informal 'give-and-take' arrangement as currently exists. This is a

detailed design (S278) matter, and either option could be secured via a planning condition requiring the

detailed design of the access to be generally in accordance with the application drawing (as is usual).

1.3.27 Passing the proposed traffic calming build-out, there would be a retained width of 3.2m. Manual for

Streets paragraph 6.7.3 recommends a width of 2.75m or greater in order to enable emergency vehicle

(fire tender) access.

1.3.28 The final point raised by the Rule 6 party in relation to this access has to do with the extent of highway

land in relation to the proposed works. For clarity, as shown in Figures D.3 and D.4, HMPE extends to

the field boundary north of Higher Town, rather than to the line of the overhead wires as stated by the

Rule 6 party. The proposed scheme is therefore wholly within the Highway or land within the

appellant's control.


Figure D.3: Highway Extents at Higher Town access

Figure D.4: Showing overhead wires relative to field/Highway boundary


APPENDIX E: SURVEYED FOOTWAY AND CARRIAGEWAY WIDTHS


APPENDIX F: EXTENT OF 30MPH TRO

1

1

9

.7

9

1

1

9

.8

7

1

1

9

.

9

7

1

2

0

.

1

3

1

1

9

.5

3

1

1

8

.

9

7

1

1

7

.

9

6

1

1

6

.

8

6

1

1

9

.6

2

119.86

1

0

3

.0

7

1

0

2

.7

3

1

0

2

.3

7

1

0

1

.9

8

1

0

1

.7

6

1

0

3

.1

6

1

0

2

.8

5

1

0

2

.5

1

1

0

2

.0

9

1

0

1

.8

4

1

0

1

.6

0

1

0

1

.2

5

1

0

0

.9

1

1

0

0

.5

5

100.2

2

9

9

.9

0

99.6

0

1

0

1

.5

2

1

0

1

.1

5

1

0

0

.8

0

1

0

0

.4

4

100.1

1

9

9

.7

8

9

9

.4

9

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

MH

99.1

6

9

8

.9

3

9

8

.6

1

9

9

.2

7

99.0

5

98.7

5

98.4

2

98.5

2

98.1

9

97.9

1

97.6

8

9

8

.2

8

97.9

9

97.8

0

98.3

4

9

8

.5

6

9

8

.8

7

9

9

.0

8

99.3

9

9

9

.6

8

9

9

.9

7

1

0

0

.3

0

1

0

0

.6

1

1

0

0

.9

6

1

0

1

.3

0

1

0

1

.6

7

1

0

1

.9

1

102.10

1

0

2

.5

9

1

0

2

.9

4

1

0

3

.2

5

1

.5

m

H

ig

h

100.11

101.0

4

1

0

1

.3

9

101.7

6

1

0

1

.8

1

102.1

9

1

0

2

.4

4

102.6

7

102.6

7

102.6

9

B

T

BT

B

T

1

0

3

.0

6

B

E

N

C

H

C

V

R

98.7

7

97.8

4

98.1

0

9

8

.3

2

98.5

4

98.8

0

99.0

5

99.3

2

9

9

.5

8

9

9

.8

8

1

0

0

.1

7

1

0

0

.5

1

1

0

0

.9

0

1

0

1

.2

7

1

0

1

.6

4

1

0

1

.8

8

1

0

2

.1

5

1

0

2

.5

1

1

0

2

.8

6

1

0

3

.1

9

1

0

0

.8

5

101.2

1

101.77

102.0

6

1

0

2

.3

0

1

0

2

.5

4

1

0

2

.9

3

1

0

3

.4

3

M

H

M

H

1

0

3

.0

0

1

0

0

.2

0

1

0

0

.4

6

1

0

0

.1

5

9

9

.9

0

9

9

.5

9

9

9

.3

2

9

9

.0

5

9

9

.0

6

99.2

5

99.6

2

9

9

.9

6

1

0

0

.

0

3

9

9

.9

8

100.2

9

W

V

98.81

98.4

8

98.7

3

97.93

98.2

3

P

P

P

P

P

P

S

P

S

P

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

97.4

5

97.53

G

U

GU

97.57

9

7

.

7

0

97.9

4

TARMAC

WV

C

V

R

97.6

1

97.7

4

97.5

2

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

2

8

.1

4

1

2

7

.9

1

127.60

127.35

127.14

126.85

126.60

126.30 126.01

125.78

125.51

125.23

124.85

124.5

4

1

2

4

.1

0

1

2

4

.

3

6

1

2

4

.8

3

G

U

M

H

GU G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

1

2

4

.0

2

1

2

4

.1

8

1

2

3

.5

2

1

2

2

.9

9

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

BT

1

2

3

.

5

6

1

1

0

.5

1

1

0

4

.9

9

1

1

1

.3

8

1

2

2

.

6

5

1

2

2

.

1

4

1

2

1

.

5

7

1

2

1

.

1

7

1

2

0

.6

2

1

2

0

.1

0

1

1

9

.

7

3

1

1

9

.

2

5

1

1

8

.9

1

C

V

R

C

V

R

C

V

R

C

V

R

C

V

R

C

V

R

C

V

R

C

V

R

C

V

R

1

2

2

.

7

1

1

1

7

.8

2

1

1

2

.

2

6

1

0

3

.3

7

1

0

7

.7

2

1

1

4

.5

8

1

1

8

.6

2

118.2

4

1

1

8

.1

3

118.0

1

1

1

7

.5

3

117.2

7

116.5

0

1

1

6

.4

0

1

1

6

.1

6

1

1

6

.0

1

1

1

5

.8

5

1

1

5

.6

8

1

1

5

.3

8

1

1

4

.

9

1

1

1

7

.1

7

1

1

6

.9

3

116.7

6

1

1

4

.4

9

1

1

4

.2

7

1

1

3

.9

9

1

1

3

.8

2

1

1

3

.5

4

M

H

:1

1

4

.0

5

M

H

:1

1

1

.0

3

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

1

1

0

.6

7

1

1

5

.1

6

1

1

5

.2

5

1

0

3

.4

1

1

0

8

.8

4

1

0

9

.5

8

1

1

4

.1

8

1

1

4

.3

2

1

1

4

.5

2

M

H

C

V

R

1

1

3

.4

6

1

1

3

.1

6

1

1

2

.

7

0

1

1

2

.

0

8

1

1

1

.

7

9

1

1

1

.

9

6

1

1

2

.

5

9

1

1

3

.

2

2

1

1

3

.

7

0

1

1

3

.

1

1

1

1

1

.1

5

1

1

1

.

1

3

1

1

0

.5

3

1

1

0

.4

2

1

1

0

.8

6

1

1

1

.9

8

1

1

2

.

2

6

1

1

2

.7

6

1

1

3

.0

1

1

1

3

.4

0

1

1

3

.7

3

1

1

3

.9

7

1

1

4

.3

7

1

1

4

.7

5

1

1

4

.8

8

11

5.0

5

1

1

5

.3

2

1

1

5

.6

9

1

1

5

.8

6

1

1

5

.9

7

1

1

6

.2

5

1

1

6

.3

6

116.5

8

1

1

6

.7

3

1

1

6

.9

2

1

1

7

.1

8

117.4

7

117.8

3

1

1

8

.2

4

1

2

0

.

8

0

F

H

F

H

1

1

5

.1

3

1

0

7

.7

0

1

1

8

.6

3

1

1

8

.9

1

1

1

9

.2

4

1

1

9

.7

0

1

2

0

.

1

2

1

2

0

.

7

2

121.03

1

2

1

.

0

6

1

2

1

.

4

8

1

2

1

.

9

9

1

2

2

.

5

3

1

2

2

.9

1

1

2

3

.4

9

1

2

3

.9

3

1

2

4

.1

3

1

1

4

.3

8

1

1

4

.5

1

113.4

6

1

2

4

.4

4

124.7

4

125.06

125.33

125.55

125.88

126.16

126.43126.74

126.92127.09

127.36

127.65

1

2

7

.9

0

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

S

P

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

WOH

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

2

6

.

4

0

1

2

6

.

2

4

1

2

5

.

8

7

1

2

5

.

1

7

1

2

4

.

3

6

1

2

3

.

4

2

1

2

6

.

1

6

1

2

5

.

8

4

1

2

5

.

4

8

1

2

5

.

1

2

1

2

4

.8

6

1

2

4

.

5

2

1

2

4

.

0

1

1

2

3

.

3

6

1

2

2

.

5

8

1

2

1

.

9

1

1

2

1

.

3

7

1

2

6

.

1

9

1

2

5

.

8

5

1

2

5

.

5

0

1

2

5

.

1

7

1

2

4

.

8

3

1

2

4

.

5

3

1

2

4

.

0

8

1

2

3

.

3

8

1

2

2

.

6

8

1

2

2

.

0

0

1

2

1

.

4

2

1

2

1

.

0

3

1

2

0

.

6

9

1

2

0

.3

3

1

2

0

.

1

5

1

2

0

.

1

9

1

2

0

.

0

0

1

1

9

.

7

3

1

1

9

.

5

3

1

2

6

.

7

3

1

2

7

.

5

0

1

2

7

.

4

5

1

2

6

.

4

2

1

2

6

.

2

4

1

2

5

.

8

3

1

2

5

.

3

5

1

2

5

.

2

2

1

2

4

.

8

2

1

2

4

.

3

8

12

4.0

4

1

1

3

.9

0

1

1

3

.8

3

1

1

3

.7

4

1

1

3

.6

2

1

1

3

.4

8

1

1

3

.2

9

1

1

3

.0

1

1

1

2

.6

7

1

1

3

.8

5

1

1

3

.9

2

1

1

3

.9

9

1

1

3

.9

7

1

0

8

.

6

7

1

0

9

.

5

3

1

1

0

.

1

1

1

1

0

.8

2

1

1

1

.3

7

1

1

1

.8

0

1

1

2

.

4

5

1

1

2

.8

3

1

1

3

.

1

0

1

1

3

.5

3

1

1

3

.6

8

1

1

2

.2

9

1

1

1

.7

6

1

1

1

.1

9

1

1

0

.6

5

1

1

0

.1

0

1

0

9

.

6

0

1

0

9

.

1

2

1

0

8

.

6

8

1

0

8

.

3

2

1

0

8

.

0

8

1

0

8

.

3

8

1

0

8

.

1

5

1

0

7

.

8

3

1

0

8

.

5

4

1

0

8

.

8

8

1

0

9

.

3

0

1

0

9

.

8

4

1

1

0

.3

0

1

1

0

.7

9

1

1

1

.2

8

1

1

1

.8

4

1

1

2

.3

5

1

1

2

.7

5

1

1

3

.0

5

1

1

3

.3

7

1

1

3

.5

6

1

1

3

.6

9

1

1

3

.7

5

1

1

3

.8

8

1

1

3

.9

8

1

1

4

.0

8

1

1

4

.1

8

1

1

4

.2

5

1

1

4

.2

8

1

1

4

.5

1

1

1

4

.6

0

1

1

4

.6

5

1

1

4

.6

3

1

1

4

.5

7

1

1

4

.4

9

1

1

4

.3

6

1

1

4

.1

9

1

1

4

.0

1

1

1

3

.5

8

1

1

3

.2

7

112.8

5

112.37

111.71

110.7

6

1

1

0

.0

8

1

0

9

.4

2

1

0

8

.6

3

1

0

8

.0

0

1

0

7

.4

2

1

0

6

.8

7

1

0

6

.4

0

1

0

6

.0

2

1

0

5

.5

9

1

0

5

.3

0

1

0

4

.9

3

1

0

4

.5

3

1

0

4

.1

7

1

0

3

.8

1

1

0

3

.5

2

1

1

5

.

4

6

1

1

4

.

7

2

114.35

1

1

4

.

0

9

1

1

3

.

9

6

1

1

3

.8

9

1

1

3

.8

3

1

1

3

.7

2

1

1

3

.6

6

1

1

3

.6

2

1

1

3

.5

0

1

1

3

.3

6

1

1

3

.0

4

1

1

2

.7

8

1

1

2

.3

0

1

1

1

.8

5

1

1

1

.3

2

1

1

0

.8

5

1

1

0

.4

5

109.9

5

1

0

9

.

4

9

1

0

9

.

1

0

1

0

8

.

7

1

1

1

4

.5

3

1

0

9

.

7

1

1

0

9

.

3

0

1

0

8

.

9

2

1

1

2

.

3

4

1

1

0

.0

8

1

1

0

.6

6

1

1

1

.

6

7

1

1

2

.3

1

1

1

2

.8

9

1

1

3

.0

8

1

1

3

.4

4

1

1

3

.6

2

1

1

3

.9

0

1

1

4

.0

9

1

1

4

.0

7

1

1

4

.1

4

1

1

4

.1

8

1

1

4

.

3

3

1

1

4

.

3

9

1

1

4

.

7

0

1

1

5

.0

5

11

5.3

9

1

1

5

.5

9

1

1

4

.4

1

1

1

4

.4

7

1

1

4

.4

7

1

1

4

.4

1

1

1

4

.3

3

1

1

4

.2

4

1

1

3

.9

9

1

1

3

.8

4

1

1

3

.5

8

1

1

3

.2

6

1

1

2

.7

3

112.2

9

1

1

4

.

5

0

1

1

4

.5

4

1

1

4

.6

6

1

1

4

.5

8

1

1

4

.3

8

1

1

4

.0

51

1

4

.3

5

1

1

4

.2

7

1

1

4

.0

3

1

1

3

.8

6

1

1

3

.5

9

1

1

3

.3

3

1

1

4

.0

2

1

1

4

.0

6

1

1

3

.8

7

1

1

2

.8

8

1

1

2

.4

0

111.58

110.6

6

1

1

0

.

1

7

1

0

9

.3

3

1

0

8

.5

1

1

0

7

.9

4

1

0

7

.3

4

1

0

6

.7

8

1

0

6

.3

4

105.63

1

0

5

.7

8

1

0

5

.4

1

1

0

5

.1

3

1

0

5

.

1

4

1

0

5

.

4

8

2

m

H

ig

h

1

0

4

.8

1

1

0

4

.4

9

2

m

H

ig

h

2

m

H

ig

h

1

0

4

.1

2

1

0

3

.7

7

1

0

3

.4

6

1

0

3

.

4

5

103.43

1

0

1

.4

8

1

0

1

.8

2

1

0

2

.1

0

1

0

2

.4

4

1

0

2

.7

7

1

0

3

.1

3

1

0

3

.4

4

1

0

3

.7

2

1

0

4

.0

9

1

0

3

.9

4

1

0

4

.0

3

1

0

4

.5

2

1

0

4

.5

2

1

0

4

.8

8

1

0

5

.2

7

1

0

5

.5

1

1

0

5

.9

4

1

0

6

.3

4

1

0

6

.8

3

1

0

7

.3

7

1

0

7

.9

7

1

0

8

.5

6

1

0

9

.4

1

1

1

0

.0

8

1

1

0

.7

2

111.6

5

112.38

M

H

1

0

5

.1

1

G

R

A

S

S

S

E

T

S

T

A

R

M

A

C

G

R

A

S

S

G

R

A

S

S

G

R

A

S

S

G

R

A

S

S

TAR

M

AC

G

R

A

S

S

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

OH

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

1

2

.

1

0

1

1

2

.

7

1

1

1

3

.

3

3

11

3.7

5

1

1

3

.

9

9

1

1

4

.1

0

1

1

4

.2

4

1

1

4

.3

5

1

1

2

.

8

3

1

1

3

.4

9

11

3.8

51

1

4

.

0

7

1

1

4

.

1

9

1

1

4

.3

9

1

1

4

.

3

7

1

1

3

.7

8

1

1

4

.0

7

1

1

4

.

2

2

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.

4

9

1

1

3

.2

6

1

1

3

.6

9

1

1

4

.

0

8

1

1

2

.

2

5

1

1

2

.

8

5

1

1

3

.

0

5

1

1

3

.

6

5

1

1

3

.9

8

1

1

3

.9

5

1

1

3

.

8

1

1

1

4

.0

7

1

1

3

.9

5

114.01

113.71

1

1

3

.

6

1

BENCH

CAB

CAB

P

L

A

N

T

E

R

1

1

4

.0

7

1

1

2

.9

0

1

1

3

.3

1

1

1

3

.6

7

1

1

4

.0

3

1

1

4

.2

0

1

1

4

.3

3

1

1

4

.4

2

1

1

4

.4

9

1

1

4

.5

5

1

1

4

.5

9

1

1

4

.5

5

1

1

4

.4

3

1

1

4

.3

5

1

1

4

.2

2

1

1

4

.

2

4

1

1

4

.

5

1

1

1

5

.

2

5

1

1

5

.

7

7

1

1

5

.

7

1

1

1

4

.

9

2

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.2

2

1

1

4

.2

9

1

1

4

.7

5

1

1

4

.6

2115.00

1

1

5

.

8

8

1

1

5

.3

1

1

1

5

.3

0

115.50

115.46

1

1

5

.7

6

1

1

6

.1

3

1

1

6

.5

6

1

1

6

.

8

2

1

1

7

.

8

8

1

1

9

.

0

5

1

1

9

.8

4

1

2

0

.8

8

RS

O

H

W

O

HW

O

H

W

O

H

W

OHW

OHW

125.82

125.74

125.47

125.36

125.28

125.15

124.89

124.54

124.02

124.45

124.31

124.37

122.78

123.15

123.52

123.90

124.26

124.25

124.14

123.75

123.26

123.11

122.76

122.56

122.87

122.99

123.51

123.95

124.09

124.36

124.89

125.32

125.74

126.02

126.26

126.36

126.29

126.18

125.92

125.49

125.74

125.97

126.17

126.11

126.02

125.85

125.71

125.40

125.00

124.53

124.13

123.88

123.54

123.21

122.60

122.50

122.22

121.84

121.36

121.08

120.97

120.71

120.27

120.46

120.50

120.51

120.42

120.49

120.09

119.48

118.98

118.73

118.70

118.97

119.28

120.00

120.39

120.10

119.88

119.17

118.78

118.61

118.24

118.33

117.89

117.75

117.32

117.16

117.68

118.13

118.37

118.45

118.83

119.43

119.64

119.80

120.01

120.47

119.80

119.55

119.12

119.06

118.89

118.42

117.97

117.87

117.71

117.40

116.94

116.46

116.89

117.15

117.25

117.43

117.75

118.22

118.22

118.40

118.78

119.00

118.25

118.06

117.65

117.43

117.39

117.10

116.66

116.56

116.50

116.40

115.97

115.68

115.00

115.45

115.76

115.74

115.79

115.96

116.30

116.56

116.57

116.93

117.22

117.32

116.52

116.37

116.03

115.67

115.63

115.62

115.14

114.97

114.95

114.96

114.68

114.27

113.57

113.82

114.04

114.12

114.09

114.36

114.79

114.84

114.85

115.22

115.57

115.69

114.78

114.74

114.44

113.99

113.88

113.91

113.64

113.30

113.30

113.30

113.05

112.93

112.51

111.70

112.11

112.33

112.37

112.41

112.41

112.83

113.06

113.10

113.18

113.56

113.85

113.86

112.89

112.84

112.67

112.20

112.05

112.17

111.97

111.65

111.52

111.57

111.49

111.35

111.01

110.18

110.52

110.65

110.69

110.60

110.67

111.19

111.21

111.08

111.41

111.84

111.99

111.95

111.11

111.12

110.99

110.63

110.37

110.22

110.24

109.91

109.77

109.83

109.83

109.73

109.56

108.46

108.76

109.08

109.20

108.95

108.97

109.23

109.56

109.50

109.61

109.99

110.35

110.45

110.33

109.81

109.81

109.72

109.37

108.88

108.76

108.85

108.58

108.25

108.12

108.29

108.30

107.97

107.63

106.89

107.26

107.58

107.60

107.42

105.95

106.03

106.28

106.20

106.83

106.81

106.86

106.68

106.38

108.00

108.20

108.08

108.27

108.53

107.48

107.53

107.29

108.87

109.04

109.20

110.75

111.22

111.54

111.83

114.04

113.59

113.07

112.58

112.36

111.90

111.27

112.01

112.73

113.07

113.24

113.85

114.36

114.67

114.89

115.13

115.53

116.24

115.81

115.51

115.37

114.98

114.59

113.94

113.72

113.44

112.87

113.63

114.23

114.65

114.83

115.29

115.79

116.08

116.16

116.48

117.00

117.24

116.60

116.63

117.34

117.28

116.55

116.43

117.17

117.38

117.55

117.53

117.38

117.32

117.11

116.69

117.28

117.67

117.97

118.19

118.34

118.36

118.28

118.04

117.81

117.95

118.03

117.90

117.74

117.29

117.01

116.89

116.47

116.07

115.60

115.34

115.07

114.51

115.28

116.10

116.99

117.42

116.67

115.91

116.21

116.99

117.80

118.53

118.17

118.89

119.24

119.97

119.53

120.27

120.64

121.21

120.97

121.70

121.99

122.19

122.69

122.96

123.34

123.61

123.06

123.54

124.02

124.30

124.56

124.65

124.57

124.88

125.13

125.32

125.09

124.16

123.26

122.26

123.05

122.05

121.08

121.24

121.52

120.55

120.28

119.23

119.59

118.53

118.10

118.78

118.88

119.01

119.09

119.20

119.03

118.71

118.71

118.73

118.81

118.66

118.45

117.99

117.78

117.78

117.33

116.91

116.53

117.17

117.57

118.12

118.47

118.52

118.81

119.13

119.55

119.65

119.69

119.52

119.50

119.77

120.02

119.97

119.89

119.90

119.76

120.58

120.70

120.78

120.82

120.78

120.69

120.32

120.44

120.48

120.35

120.27

119.98

119.51

119.36

119.24

118.79

118.37

117.96

118.61

119.16

119.55

119.97

120.14

120.37

120.68

121.03

121.23

121.27

121.32

121.19

121.53

121.68

121.82

121.73

121.63

121.54

122.37

122.57

123.35

124.32

123.58

122.67

122.72

123.64

124.43

124.35

123.49

122.67

122.26

123.29

123.98

123.81

122.99

122.15

122.16

122.98

123.84

123.75

122.92

122.14

122.04

122.80

123.67

123.30

122.61

121.84

121.46

121.04

120.87

120.64

120.27

119.82

119.41

120.03

120.40

120.97

121.36

121.46

121.75

122.14

122.91

122.47

122.22

121.91

121.55

121.05

120.74

122.75

122.43

122.08

121.63

121.36

1

2

4

.4

8

1

2

4

.1

4

1

2

3

.6

9

1

2

4

.3

1

1

2

4

.1

8

1

2

0

.1

8

1

2

0

.

7

7

1

2

1

.

0

5

1

2

1

.

0

9

1

2

0

.

6

6

1

2

0

.

9

5

1

2

1

.

2

1

1

2

1

.

4

7

1

2

1

.

3

4

1

2

1

.

5

6

1

2

1

.

9

7

1

2

2

.

3

7

1

2

2

.

5

2

1

2

2

.

4

3

1

2

2

.

1

6

1

2

2

.3

2

1

2

2

.

5

9

1

2

2

.

8

5

1

2

3

.

3

2

1

2

3

.2

0

1

2

4

.0

1

1

0

5

.7

3

105.43

1

0

5

.1

7

1

0

5

.3

0

1

0

5

.0

7

1

2

2

.2

2

121.83

121.44

1

2

0

.

9

5

1

2

0

.

4

0

1

1

9

.

6

6

1

1

8

.

9

4

1

1

8

.

2

8

1

1

7

.

4

2

1

1

6

.

8

9

1

1

6

.4

7

116.16

1

1

6

.3

2

1

1

6

.4

4

1

1

6

.5

3

1

1

6

.6

6

1

1

6

.7

2

1

1

6

.7

5

1

1

6

.6

0

1

1

6

.6

7

1

1

6

.5

2

1

1

6

.2

8

1

1

6

.

0

8

1

1

6

.2

0

1

1

6

.1

8

1

1

6

.1

5

115.89 115.23

114.9

0

114.4

3

114.26

113.93

1

1

3

.2

8

112.6

9

111.7

8

1

1

1

.2

1

1

1

0

.4

8

1

1

0

.4

9

1

0

9

.9

9

1

0

9

.5

2

1

0

9

.1

2

1

0

8

.7

8

1

0

8

.6

6

1

0

8

.3

5

1

0

8

.0

6

1

0

7

.7

4

1

0

7

.5

5

1

0

7

.2

7

1

0

7

.2

4

1

0

7

.0

9

1

0

6

.7

7

1

0

6

.5

2

1

0

9

.

3

9

1

0

9

.

7

1

1

1

0

.

1

4

1

1

0

.

8

3

1

1

1

.

4

6

1

1

2

.

1

3

1

1

2

.

9

4

1

1

3

.

6

8

1

1

4

.

3

5

1

1

4

.

9

7

1

1

5

.

6

4

1

1

6

.

3

5

1

1

6

.

9

3

1

1

7

.

4

9

1

1

8

.

0

6

1

2

2

.

9

3

1

2

3

.

4

0

1

2

3

.

9

5

1

2

4

.

5

8

1

2

4

.

9

2

1

2

5

.

3

9

1

2

5

.

8

2

1

2

6

.

1

7

1

2

6

.

3

7

1

2

6

.

5

4

1

2

6

.

4

9

T

O

W

:

1

2

3

.

1

3

T

O

W

:

1

2

4

.

1

7

T

O

W

:

1

2

5

.

2

0

T

O

W

:

1

2

6

.

3

1

T

O

W

:

1

2

6

.

8

9

T

O

W

:

1

2

7

.

3

2

1

2

4

.

8

9

1

2

4

.

7

3

1

2

5

.

1

2

1

2

5

.

2

2

1

2

5

.

2

8

1

2

5

.

2

4

125.63

1

2

5

.

5

5

1

2

5

.

7

3

1

2

5

.

9

4

1

2

5

.

9

2

1

2

6

.

1

1

1

2

6

.

2

4

1

2

6

.

3

1

1

2

6

.

3

1

1

2

6

.4

3

120.3

5

1

2

0

.4

3

1

2

0

.3

7

1

2

0

.0

8

1

1

9

.4

5

1

1

9

.1

0

1

1

8

.9

1

118.8

2

1

1

8

.5

3

1

1

8

.1

9

1

1

7

.8

7

1

1

7

.4

4

116.92

1

0

5

.

4

1

1

0

5

.

3

8

1

0

7

.

0

7

1

0

7

.

5

9

107.36

1

0

6

.

9

7

1

0

6

.

7

9

1

0

6

.

2

8

1

0

6

.

0

2

106.02

1

0

6

.1

1

105.84

1

0

5

.8

6

1

0

5

.7

0

1

0

5

.6

0

1

0

5

.5

2

1

0

5

.2

8

1

0

5

.0

5

1

2

4

.

5

5

1

2

4

.

3

0

1

2

3

.

9

7

1

2

4

.

4

5

1

2

3

.4

7

1

2

4

.

4

0

1

2

4

.

4

2

1

2

4

.

4

7

124.60

1

2

4

.

6

0

1

2

4

.

5

3

1

2

4

.

2

1

1

2

4

.

0

7

1

2

4

.

2

5

1

2

4

.

5

0

1

2

4

.

3

9

1

2

4

.

4

3

124.31

1

2

4

.1

0

1

2

3

.6

6

1

2

3

.0

5

A

C

C

E

S

S

T

R

A

C

K

UNMADE

GRASS

GRASS

O

H

W

O

H

W

P

E

P

P

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

G

R

A

S

S

GRASS

T

A

R

M

A

C

T

A

R

M

A

C

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

30

4

0

SLO

W

SLO

W

SLO

W

SLO

W

SLO

W

STO

P

1

0

3

.0

7

1

0

2

.7

3

1

0

2

.3

7

1

0

1

.9

8

1

0

1

.7

6

1

0

1

.5

2

1

0

1

.1

5

1

0

0

.8

0

1

0

0

.4

4

100.1

1

9

9

.7

8

9

9

.4

9

99.1

6

9

8

.9

3

9

8

.6

1

98.4

2

98.1

9

97.9

1

97.6

8

100.11

101.0

4

1

0

1

.3

9

101.7

6

1

0

1

.8

1

102.1

9

1

0

2

.4

4

102.6

7

102.6

7

102.6

9

97.8

4

98.1

0

9

8

.3

2

98.5

4

98.8

0

99.0

5

99.3

2

9

9

.5

8

9

9

.8

8

1

0

0

.1

7

1

0

0

.5

1

1

0

0

.9

0

1

0

1

.2

7

1

0

1

.6

4

1

0

1

.8

8

1

0

2

.1

5

1

0

2

.5

1

1

0

2

.8

6

1

0

3

.1

9

1

0

0

.4

6

1

0

0

.1

5

9

9

.9

0

9

9

.5

9

9

9

.3

2

9

9

.0

5

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

97.4

5

97.6

1

97.7

4

97.5

2

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

2

8

.1

4

1

2

7

.9

1

127.60

127.35

127.14

126.85

126.60

126.30 126.01

125.78

125.51

125.23

124.85

124.5

4

1

2

4

.1

0

1

2

4

.

3

6

1

2

4

.8

3

1

2

4

.0

2

1

2

4

.1

8

1

2

3

.5

2

1

2

2

.9

9

1

2

2

.

6

5

1

2

2

.

1

4

1

2

1

.

5

7

1

2

1

.

1

7

1

2

0

.6

2

1

2

0

.1

0

1

1

9

.

7

3

1

1

9

.

2

5

1

1

8

.9

1

1

1

7

.1

7

1

1

6

.9

3

116.7

6

1

1

3

.9

9

1

1

3

.1

6

1

1

2

.

7

0

1

1

2

.

0

8

1

1

1

.

7

9

1

1

2

.

2

6

1

1

2

.7

6

1

1

3

.0

1

1

1

3

.4

0

1

1

3

.7

3

1

1

3

.9

7

1

1

8

.6

3

1

1

8

.9

1

1

1

9

.2

4

1

1

9

.7

0

1

2

0

.

1

2

1

2

0

.

7

2

1

1

4

.3

8

1

1

4

.5

1

113.4

6

1

2

4

.4

4

124.7

4

125.06

125.33

125.55

125.88

126.16

126.43126.74

126.92127.09

127.36

127.65

1

2

7

.9

0

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

WOH

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

2

6

.

1

6

1

2

5

.

8

4

1

2

5

.

4

8

1

2

5

.

1

2

1

2

4

.8

6

1

2

4

.

5

2

1

2

4

.

0

1

1

2

3

.

3

6

1

2

2

.

5

8

1

2

1

.

9

1

1

2

1

.

3

7

1

2

6

.

7

3

1

2

7

.

5

0

1

2

7

.

4

5

1

2

6

.

4

2

1

2

6

.

2

4

1

2

5

.

8

3

1

2

5

.

3

5

1

2

5

.

2

2

1

2

4

.

8

2

1

2

4

.

3

8

12

4.0

4

1

1

3

.9

0

1

1

3

.8

3

1

1

3

.7

4

1

1

3

.6

2

1

1

3

.4

8

1

1

3

.2

9

1

1

3

.0

1

1

1

2

.6

7

1

1

2

.2

9

1

1

1

.7

6

1

1

1

.1

9

1

1

0

.6

5

1

1

0

.1

0

1

0

9

.

6

0

1

0

9

.

1

2

1

0

8

.

6

8

1

0

8

.

3

2

1

0

8

.

0

8

1

0

8

.

5

4

1

0

8

.

8

8

1

0

9

.

3

0

1

0

9

.

8

4

1

1

0

.3

0

1

1

0

.7

9

1

1

1

.2

8

1

1

1

.8

4

1

1

2

.3

5

1

1

2

.7

5

1

1

3

.0

5

1

1

3

.3

7

1

1

3

.5

6

1

1

3

.6

9

1

1

3

.7

5

1

1

3

.8

8

1

1

3

.9

8

1

1

4

.0

8

1

1

4

.1

8

1

1

4

.2

5

1

1

4

.2

8

1

1

4

.5

1

1

1

4

.6

0

1

1

4

.6

5

1

1

4

.6

3

1

1

4

.5

7

1

1

4

.4

9

1

1

4

.3

6

1

1

4

.1

9

1

1

4

.0

1

1

1

3

.5

8

1

1

3

.2

7

112.8

5

112.37

111.71

110.7

6

1

1

0

.0

8

1

0

9

.4

2

1

0

8

.6

3

1

0

8

.0

0

1

0

7

.4

2

1

0

6

.8

7

1

0

6

.4

0

1

0

6

.0

2

1

0

5

.5

9

1

0

5

.3

0

1

0

4

.9

3

1

0

4

.5

3

1

0

4

.1

7

1

0

3

.8

1

1

0

3

.5

2

1

1

5

.

4

6

1

1

4

.

7

2

114.35

1

1

4

.

0

9

1

1

3

.

9

6

1

1

3

.8

9

1

1

3

.8

3

1

1

3

.7

2

1

1

3

.6

6

1

1

3

.6

2

1

1

3

.5

0

1

1

3

.3

6

1

1

3

.0

4

1

1

2

.7

8

1

1

2

.3

0

1

1

1

.8

5

1

1

1

.3

2

1

1

0

.8

5

1

1

0

.4

5

109.9

5

1

0

9

.

4

9

1

0

9

.

1

0

1

0

8

.

7

1

1

1

2

.3

1

1

1

2

.8

9

1

1

3

.0

8

1

1

3

.4

4

1

1

3

.6

2

1

1

3

.9

0

1

1

4

.0

9

1

1

4

.0

7

1

1

4

.1

4

1

1

4

.1

8

1

1

4

.

3

3

1

1

4

.

3

9

1

1

4

.

7

0

1

1

5

.0

5

11

5.3

9

1

1

5

.5

9

1

1

4

.4

1

1

1

4

.4

7

1

1

4

.4

7

1

1

4

.4

1

1

1

4

.3

3

1

1

4

.2

4

1

1

3

.9

9

1

1

3

.8

4

1

1

3

.5

8

1

1

3

.2

6

1

1

2

.7

3

112.2

9

111.58

1

0

8

.5

1

1

0

5

.7

8

1

0

5

.4

1

1

0

5

.1

3

1

0

1

.4

8

1

0

1

.8

2

1

0

2

.1

0

1

0

2

.4

4

1

0

2

.7

7

1

0

3

.1

3

1

0

3

.4

4

1

0

3

.7

2

1

0

4

.0

9

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

OH

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

1

2

.

1

0

1

1

2

.

7

1

1

1

3

.

3

3

11

3.7

5

1

1

3

.

9

9

1

1

4

.1

0

1

1

4

.2

4

1

1

4

.3

5

1

1

3

.2

6

1

1

3

.6

9

1

1

4

.

0

8

1

1

2

.

2

5

1

1

2

.

8

5

1

1

3

.

6

5

1

1

3

.9

8

1

1

3

.9

5

1

1

4

.0

7

1

1

2

.9

0

1

1

3

.3

1

1

1

3

.6

7

1

1

4

.0

3

1

1

4

.2

0

1

1

4

.3

3

1

1

4

.4

2

1

1

4

.4

9

1

1

4

.5

5

1

1

4

.5

9

1

1

4

.5

5

1

1

4

.4

3

1

1

4

.3

5

1

1

4

.2

2

1

1

4

.

2

4

1

1

4

.

5

1

1

1

5

.

2

5

1

1

5

.

7

7

1

1

5

.

7

1

1

1

4

.

9

2

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.2

2

1

1

4

.2

9

1

1

4

.7

5

1

1

4

.6

2115.00

1

1

5

.

8

8

O

H

W

O

HW

O

H

W

O

H

W

OHW

OHW

1

0

9

.

3

9

1

0

9

.

7

1

1

1

0

.

1

4

1

1

0

.

8

3

1

1

1

.

4

6

1

1

2

.

1

3

1

1

2

.

9

4

1

1

3

.

6

8

1

1

4

.

3

5

1

1

4

.

9

7

1

1

5

.

6

4

1

1

6

.

3

5

1

1

6

.

9

3

1

1

7

.

4

9

1

1

8

.

0

6

120.3

5

1

2

0

.4

3

1

2

0

.3

7

1

2

0

.0

8

1

1

9

.4

5

1

1

9

.1

0

1

1

8

.9

1

118.8

2

1

1

8

.5

3

1

1

8

.1

9

1

1

7

.8

7

1

1

7

.4

4

116.92

1

0

5

.

4

1

1

0

5

.

3

8

1

0

7

.

0

7

1

0

7

.

5

9

107.36

1

0

6

.

9

7

1

0

6

.

7

9

1

0

6

.

2

8

1

0

6

.

0

2

106.02

1

0

6

.1

1

105.84

1

0

5

.8

6

1

0

5

.7

0

1

0

5

.6

0

1

0

5

.5

2

1

0

5

.2

8

1

0

5

.0

5

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

30

4

0

SLO

W

SLO

W

SLO

W

SLO

W

SLO

W

STO

P

REPLACE '40MPH'ROUNDEL WITH '30MPH'

ROUNDEL TO DIAGRAM 670- NATIONAL SPEED LIMIT

ROUNDEL TO BE RETAINED

REPLACE '40MPH'ROUNDEL WITH '30MPH'ROUNDEL TO DIAGRAM 670- NATIONAL SPEED LIMITROUNDEL TO BE RETAINED

'40MPH' ROUNDEL ANDNATIONAL SPEED LIMITROUNDEL TO BE REMOVEDWITH POSTS


30MPH PAINTED ROUNDEL TO BE REMOVED

40MPH PAINTED ROUNDELTO BE REPLACED BY 30MPH

PAINTED ROUNDEL

PROVIDE '30MPH' ROUNDELTO DIAGRAM 670 AND

NATIONAL SPEED LIMITROUNDEL TO TO DIAGRAM 671

WITH POSTS


S2SUITABLE FOR INFORMATION

PROPOSED EXTENTION TO 30mph TRO

1:2000

06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-0124 P1Plotted 09/03/2020 16:30:12

P01FIRST ISSUE

M.PEARCE 09/03/20 M.JONES 09/03/20 J.MCKECHNIE 09/03/20

DRAWING NO. (PROJECT CODE-ORGINATOR-ZONE-LEVEL-TYPE-ROLE-NUMBER)

SCALE @ A3

REVISION

HYDROCK PROJECT NO.

STATUS

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

NOTES

STATUS DESCRIPTION

KEY PLAN

REVISIONS

DATE

REVISION NOTES/COMMENTS

DRAWN BY DATECHECKED BY DATEAPPROVED BYREV

C-06685-C

PLACE LAND LLP


2 East PoolTolvaddon Energy ParkCamborneTR14 6TUt: +44 (0)1209 719037e:[email protected]

OS NORTHPROPOSED 30mph TRO EXTENTSEXISTING 30mph TRO EXTENTS

AutoCAD SHX Text

46

AutoCAD SHX Text

PAULLET

AutoCAD SHX Text

9

AutoCAD SHX Text

12

AutoCAD SHX Text

30

AutoCAD SHX Text

18

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

18

AutoCAD SHX Text

HIGHER TOWN

AutoCAD SHX Text

38

AutoCAD SHX Text

BLACKDOWN VIEW

AutoCAD SHX Text

22a

AutoCAD SHX Text

10

AutoCAD SHX Text

11

AutoCAD SHX Text

26

AutoCAD SHX Text

House

AutoCAD SHX Text

Crossways Close

AutoCAD SHX Text

30

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

34

AutoCAD SHX Text

13

AutoCAD SHX Text

7

AutoCAD SHX Text

17

AutoCAD SHX Text

36

AutoCAD SHX Text

House

AutoCAD SHX Text

28

AutoCAD SHX Text

The Haven

AutoCAD SHX Text

Surgery

AutoCAD SHX Text

6

AutoCAD SHX Text

44

AutoCAD SHX Text

33

AutoCAD SHX Text

House

AutoCAD SHX Text

22

AutoCAD SHX Text

9

AutoCAD SHX Text

16

AutoCAD SHX Text

22

AutoCAD SHX Text

14

AutoCAD SHX Text

32

AutoCAD SHX Text

Cheriton

AutoCAD SHX Text

7

AutoCAD SHX Text

17

AutoCAD SHX Text

23

AutoCAD SHX Text

26

AutoCAD SHX Text

TURNPIKE

AutoCAD SHX Text

28

AutoCAD SHX Text

48

AutoCAD SHX Text

42

AutoCAD SHX Text

40

AutoCAD SHX Text

Battens

AutoCAD SHX Text

Ascot House

AutoCAD SHX Text

20

AutoCAD SHX Text

Oakfield

AutoCAD SHX Text

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432


APPENDIX G: DCC EMAIL - POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE PEDESTRIAN/CYCLE ACCESS

ARRANGEMENT ON TURNPIKE

Archived: 31 March 2020 14:07:01From: Ian Sorenson Sent: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:57:07To: James McKechnie Subject: Re: SP2 Sampford Peverell - Turnpike ped/cycle accessSensitivity: Normal

HiI am happy with the plan it gives the driver appropriate visibility to the crossing and pedestrian to vehicles , more over withnothing coming from right they can be forward of the 1.5m. Ian

Get Outlook for iOS

From: James McKechnie <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 2:52:05 PMTo: Ian Sorenson <[email protected]>Subject: SP2 Sampford Peverell - Turnpike ped/cycle access Hi Ian Just wondered what your thoughts were on the attached drawing 0125 Rev P1 please? This responds to the comment by PBA (for MDDC), seeking to show visibility from a 1.5m set-back on the southern side ofTurnpike. As you can see, we have narrowed the carriageway to 5.5m over a short length, meaning that to the west we canachieve 1.5 x 43m to the centre of the westbound lane, 1.5m x 55m to the centreline, and 77m from the kerb to the centre ofthe westbound lane. Given the proposed 30mph TRO, and the fact that the cemetery wall would keep any overtaking motorcyclists etc away fromthe southern edge of the carriageway, I think this should be ok? If you’re happy with this, then I will present it to the Inspector as a potential alternative access arrangement should he be so-minded. I remain happy with the approved access drawing though, so am not seeking to replace that for the purposes of theInquiry. Kind regards James James McKechnie BA (Hons) PGDip FCIHT CMILTDirector | Transportation HydrockTel: 07921 264955hydrock.com

Five consecutive years in the top 40 ‘Sunday Times 100 Best Companies to Work For’ listing, and winner of the NCE100 ‘Health and Wellbeing Leader of the



https://aka.ms/o0ukef

http://www.hydrock.com/

Year’ award, 2019.

Hydrock Consultants Limited, company number 3118932 registered in England and Wales at Over Court Barns, Over Lane, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS324DF. Before printing this e-mail, please think about the environment. Disclaimer: The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be read, copied or used onlyby the intended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notif ied that any perusal, use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictlyprohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise us immediately by return e-mail to [email protected] and delete the e-mail document w ithoutmaking a copy. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure this email is virus free, no responsibility is accepted for loss or damage arising from viruses orchanges made to this message after it w as sent.

http://twitter.com/#!/hydrocknews

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostPopular=&gid=3896586



APPENDIX H: PEDESTRIAN ACCESS SW CORNER - ADDITIONAL DETAIL

S

P

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

BE

NC

H

CA

B

CAB

P

L

A

N

T

E

R

P

P

P

P

1

1

8

.

9

7

1

1

7

.

9

6

1

1

6

.

8

6

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

BT

C

V

R

1

1

4

.

5

8

W

V

W

V

1

1

4

.

5

2

S

P

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

1

2

1

.

9

1

1

2

1

.

3

7

1

2

2

.

0

0

1

2

1

.

4

2

1

1

3

.

9

0

1

1

3

.

9

7

1

1

3

.

9

8

1

1

4

.

0

8

1

1

4

.

1

8

1

1

4

.

2

5

1

1

4

.

2

8

1

1

4

.

5

1

1

1

4

.

6

0

1

1

4

.

6

5

1

1

5

.

4

6

1

1

4

.

7

2

114.35

1

1

4

.

0

9

1

1

3

.

9

6

1

1

3

.

8

9

1

1

3

.

8

3

1

1

4

.5

3

1

1

4

.

1

8

1

1

4

.

3

3

1

1

4

.

3

9

1

1

4

.

7

0

1

1

5

.0

5

115.39

1

1

5

.5

9

1

1

4

.4

1

1

1

4

.

4

7

1

1

4

.

5

0

1

1

4

.

5

4

T

A

R

M

A

C

G

R

A

S

S

O

H

W

1

1

2

.

7

1

1

1

3

.

3

3

113.75

1

1

3

.

9

9

1

1

4

.

1

0

1

1

4

.

2

4

1

1

4

.

3

5

1

1

2

.

8

3

1

1

3

.

4

9

113.85

1

1

4

.

0

7

1

1

4

.

1

9

1

1

4

.

3

9

1

1

4

.

3

7

1

1

3

.7

8

1

1

4

.0

7

1

1

4

.

2

2

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.

4

9

1

1

3

.2

6

1

1

3

.6

9

1

1

4

.

0

8

1

1

3

.

6

5

1

1

3

.9

8

1

1

3

.

9

5

1

1

3

.

8

1

1

1

4

.0

7

1

1

3

.

9

5

114.01

113.71

1

1

3

.

6

1

BE

NC

H

CA

B

CAB

P

L

A

N

T

E

R

1

1

4

.

0

7

1

1

4

.

5

9

1

1

4

.

5

5

1

1

4

.

4

3

1

1

4

.

3

5

1

1

4

.2

2

1

1

4

.

2

4

1

1

4

.

5

1

1

1

5

.

2

5

1

1

5

.

7

7

1

1

5

.

7

1

1

1

4

.

9

2

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.

2

2

1

1

4

.

2

9

1

1

4

.7

5

1

1

4

.6

2115.00

1

1

5

.

8

8

1

1

5

.

3

1

1

1

5

.

3

0

115.5

0

115.46

1

1

5

.7

6

1

1

6

.

1

3

1

1

6

.

5

6

1

1

6

.

8

2

1

1

7

.

8

8

1

1

9

.

0

5

1

1

9

.8

4

1

2

0

.8

8

R

S

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

OH

W

OH

W

117.32

117.11

116.69

117.28

117.67

117.97

118.19

118.34

123.26

122.26

123.05

122.05

121.08

121.24

121.52

120.55

120.28

119.23

119.59

118.53

118.10

118.78

118.88

119.01

119.09

119.20

120.02

119.97

119.89

119.90

119.76

120.58

120.70

120.78

120.82

120.78

120.69

121.82

121.73

121.63

121.54

122.37

122.57

1

2

2

.2

2

121.83

121.44

1

2

0

.

9

5

1

2

0

.

4

0

1

1

9

.

6

6

1

1

8

.

9

4

1

1

8

.

2

8

1

1

7

.

4

2

1

1

6

.

8

9

1

1

6

.

4

7

116.1

6

1

1

6

.3

2

1

1

6

.4

4

1

1

6

.

5

3

1

1

6

.

6

6

1

1

6

.

7

2

1

2

2

.

9

3

T

O

W

:

1

2

3

.

1

3

O

H

W

O

H

W

P

P

P

P

G

R

A

S

S

GRASS

4

0

STO

P

1

0

.

0

0

0

30.0

00

1

2

1

.

0

0

1

2

0

.5

0

1

2

1

.

5

0

1

2

0

.0

0

1

1

9

.5

0

119.00

118.5

0

1

1

8

.0

0

1

1

7

.

5

0

1

1

4

.4

0

114.60

114.80

115.0

0

1

1

5

.

2

0

1

1

5

.

4

0

1

1

5

.

6

0

1

1

5

.

8

0

1

1

6

.

0

0

1

1

6

.

2

0

1

1

6

.

4

0

1

1

6

.

6

0

1

1

6

.

8

0

1

1

7

.

0

0

1

1

7

.

2

0

0m 10m

SCALE BAR (1:250)

5m

A

l

i

g

n

1

Alig

n 1

2

0

.0

0

0

A

lig

n

1

Refer to drawing D-0002 for footpath

link Long Section and Cross Sections.

1

0

.

0

0

0

1

5

.

0

0

0

2

0

.

0

0

0

2

5

.

0

0

0

3

0

.

0

0

0

F

W

_

0

1

F

W

_

0

1

F

W

_

0

1

F

W

_

0

1

F

W

_

0

1

S

P

S

P

S

P

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

BE

NC

H

CA

B

CAB

P

L

A

N

T

E

R

P

E

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

1

1

9

.7

9

1

1

9

.8

7

1

1

9

.

9

7

1

2

0

.

1

3

1

1

9

.

5

3

1

1

8

.

9

7

1

1

7

.

9

6

1

1

6

.

8

6

1

1

9

.

6

2

119.86

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

G

U

B

T

BT

1

1

1

.3

8

C

V

R

C

V

R

1

0

7

.7

2

1

1

4

.

5

8

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

1

0

8

.8

4

1

0

9

.5

8

1

1

4

.

1

8

1

1

4

.

3

2

1

1

4

.

5

2

F

H

1

0

7

.7

0

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.5

1

1

1

3

.4

6

S

P

S

P

S

P

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

SP

1

2

2

.

5

8

1

2

1

.

9

1

1

2

1

.

3

7

1

2

2

.

6

8

1

2

2

.

0

0

1

2

1

.

4

2

1

2

1

.

0

3

1

2

0

.

6

9

1

2

0

.3

3

1

2

0

.

1

5

1

2

0

.

1

9

1

2

0

.

0

0

1

1

9

.

7

3

1

1

9

.

5

3

1

1

3

.

9

0

1

1

3

.

8

3

1

1

3

.

7

4

1

1

3

.

6

2

1

1

3

.

4

8

1

1

3

.

2

9

1

1

3

.

0

1

1

1

2

.

6

7

1

1

3

.

8

5

1

1

3

.

9

2

1

1

3

.

9

9

1

1

3

.

9

7

1

1

2

.

4

5

1

1

2

.

8

3

1

1

3

.

1

0

1

1

3

.

5

3

1

1

3

.

6

8

1

1

2

.

2

9

1

1

2

.

3

5

1

1

2

.

7

5

1

1

3

.

0

5

1

1

3

.

3

7

1

1

3

.

5

6

1

1

3

.

6

9

1

1

3

.

7

5

1

1

3

.

8

8

1

1

3

.

9

8

1

1

4

.

0

8

1

1

4

.

1

8

1

1

4

.

2

5

1

1

4

.

2

8

1

1

4

.

5

1

1

1

4

.

6

0

1

1

4

.

6

5

1

1

4

.

6

3

1

1

4

.

5

7

1

1

4

.

4

9

1

1

4

.

3

6

1

1

4

.

1

9

1

1

4

.

0

1

1

1

3

.5

8

1

1

3

.2

7

1

1

2

.8

5

1

1

2

.3

7

1

1

1

.7

1

1

1

0

.7

6

1

1

0

.0

8

1

0

9

.4

2

1

0

8

.6

3

1

0

8

.0

0

1

0

7

.4

2

1

0

6

.8

7

1

0

6

.

4

0

1

1

5

.

4

6

1

1

4

.

7

2

114.35

1

1

4

.

0

9

1

1

3

.

9

6

1

1

3

.

8

9

1

1

3

.

8

3

1

1

3

.

7

2

1

1

3

.

6

6

1

1

3

.

6

2

1

1

3

.

5

0

1

1

3

.

3

6

1

1

3

.

0

4

1

1

2

.

7

8

1

1

2

.

3

0

1

1

4

.5

3

1

1

2

.

3

4

1

1

3

.

0

8

1

1

3

.

4

4

1

1

3

.

6

2

1

1

3

.

9

0

1

1

4

.

0

9

1

1

4

.

0

7

1

1

4

.

1

4

1

1

4

.

1

8

1

1

4

.

3

3

1

1

4

.

3

9

1

1

4

.

7

0

1

1

5

.0

5

115.39

1

1

5

.5

9

1

1

4

.

4

1

1

1

4

.

4

7

1

1

4

.

4

7

1

1

4

.

4

1

1

1

4

.

3

3

1

1

4

.

2

4

1

1

3

.

9

9

1

1

3

.8

4

1

1

3

.5

8

1

1

3

.2

6

1

1

2

.7

3

1

1

2

.2

9

1

1

4

.

5

0

1

1

4

.

5

4

1

1

4

.

6

6

1

1

4

.

5

8

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.

0

51

1

4

.

3

5

1

1

4

.

2

7

1

1

4

.

0

3

1

1

3

.8

6

1

1

3

.5

9

1

1

3

.3

3

1

1

4

.0

2

1

1

4

.

0

6

1

1

3

.

8

7

1

1

2

.8

8

1

1

2

.4

0

111.58

1

1

0

.6

6

1

1

0

.

1

7

1

0

9

.3

3

1

0

8

.5

1

1

0

7

.

9

4

1

0

7

.3

4

1

0

6

.7

8

1

0

6

.3

4

1

0

6

.3

4

1

0

6

.

8

3

1

0

7

.3

7

1

0

7

.9

7

1

0

8

.5

6

1

0

9

.4

1

1

1

0

.0

8

1

1

0

.7

2

1

1

1

.6

5

112.38

G

R

A

S

S

S

E

T

S

T

A

R

M

A

C

G

R

A

S

S

G

R

A

S

S

T

A

R

M

A

C

G

R

A

S

S

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

OH

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

1

2

.

1

0

1

1

2

.

7

1

1

1

3

.

3

3

113.75

1

1

3

.

9

9

1

1

4

.

1

0

1

1

4

.

2

4

1

1

4

.

3

5

1

1

2

.

8

3

1

1

3

.

4

9

113.85

1

1

4

.

0

7

1

1

4

.

1

9

1

1

4

.

3

9

1

1

4

.

3

7

1

1

3

.7

8

1

1

4

.0

7

1

1

4

.

2

2

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.

4

9

1

1

3

.2

6

1

1

3

.6

9

1

1

4

.

0

8

1

1

2

.

2

5

1

1

2

.

8

5

1

1

3

.

0

5

1

1

3

.

6

5

1

1

3

.9

8

1

1

3

.

9

5

1

1

3

.

8

1

1

1

4

.0

7

1

1

3

.

9

5

114.01

113.71

1

1

3

.

6

1

BE

NC

H

CA

B

CAB

P

L

A

N

T

E

R

1

1

4

.

0

7

1

1

2

.9

0

1

1

3

.3

1

1

1

3

.6

7

1

1

4

.0

3

1

1

4

.

2

0

1

1

4

.

3

3

1

1

4

.

4

2

1

1

4

.

4

9

1

1

4

.

5

5

1

1

4

.

5

9

1

1

4

.

5

5

1

1

4

.

4

3

1

1

4

.

3

5

1

1

4

.2

2

1

1

4

.

2

4

1

1

4

.

5

1

1

1

5

.

2

5

1

1

5

.

7

7

1

1

5

.

7

1

1

1

4

.

9

2

1

1

4

.

3

8

1

1

4

.

2

2

1

1

4

.

2

9

1

1

4

.7

5

1

1

4

.6

2115.00

1

1

5

.

8

8

1

1

5

.

3

1

1

1

5

.

3

0

115.5

0

115.46

1

1

5

.7

6

1

1

6

.

1

3

1

1

6

.

5

6

1

1

6

.

8

2

1

1

7

.

8

8

1

1

9

.

0

5

1

1

9

.8

4

1

2

0

.8

8

R

S

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

OH

W

OH

W

109.20

110.75

111.22

111.54

111.83

114.04

113.59

113.07

112.58

112.36

113.24

113.85

114.36

114.67

114.89

115.13

115.53

116.24

115.81

115.51

115.37

114.98

116.16

116.48

117.00

117.24

116.60

116.63

117.34

117.28

116.55

116.43

117.17

117.38

117.55

117.53

117.38

117.32

117.11

116.69

117.28

117.67

117.97

118.19

118.34

118.36

118.28

118.04

117.81

117.95

118.03

117.90

117.74

123.26

122.26

123.05

122.05

121.08

121.24

121.52

120.55

120.28

119.23

119.59

118.53

118.10

118.78

118.88

119.01

119.09

119.20

119.03

118.71

118.71

118.73

118.81

118.66

119.69

119.52

119.50

119.77

120.02

119.97

119.89

119.90

119.76

120.58

120.70

120.78

120.82

120.78

120.69

120.32

121.68

121.82

121.73

121.63

121.54

122.37

122.57

123.35

122.67

122.72

1

2

2

.2

2

121.83

121.44

1

2

0

.

9

5

1

2

0

.

4

0

1

1

9

.

6

6

1

1

8

.

9

4

1

1

8

.

2

8

1

1

7

.

4

2

1

1

6

.

8

9

1

1

6

.

4

7

116.1

6

1

1

6

.3

2

1

1

6

.4

4

1

1

6

.

5

3

1

1

6

.

6

6

1

1

6

.

7

2

1

1

6

.

7

5

1

1

6

.

6

0

1

1

6

.

6

7

1

1

6

.

5

2

1

1

6

.

2

8

1

1

6

.

0

8

1

1

6

.

2

0

1

1

6

.

1

8

1

1

6

.1

5

115.89

115.23

1

1

4

.9

0

1

1

4

.4

3

1

1

4

.2

6

113.93

1

1

3

.2

8

1

1

2

.6

9

1

1

1

.7

8

1

1

1

.2

1

1

1

0

.4

8

1

1

0

.4

9

1

0

9

.9

9

1

0

9

.

5

2

1

0

9

.

1

2

1

0

8

.7

8

1

0

9

.

3

9

1

0

9

.

7

1

1

0

9

.

6

6

1

1

0

.

1

4

1

2

2

.

9

3

1

2

3

.

4

0

T

O

W

:

1

2

3

.

1

3

T

O

W

:

1

2

4

.

1

7

O

H

W

O

H

W

P

E

P

P

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

O

H

W

G

R

A

S

S

GRASS

4

0

SLO

W

STO

P

2.4x43.0m forward

visibility.

1

.

5

m

x

7

0

.

0

m

P

e

d

e

s

t

r

ia

n

v

is

ib

ilit

y

t

o

t

a

n

g

e

n

t

1

.5

m

x

1

2

0

.0

m

P

e

d

e

s

tr

ia

n

v

is

ib

ility

s

p

la

y

1

.

5

m

x

1

2

0

.

0

m

P

e

d

e

s

t

r

i

a

n

v

i

s

i

b

i

l

i

t

y

s

p

l

a

y

1

.

5

m

x

9

7

.

0

m

P

e

d

e

s

t

r

ia

n

v

is

ib

ilit

y

s

p

la

y

1

.

5

m

x

1

2

0

.

0

m

P

e

d

e

s

t

r

ia

n

v

is

ib

ilit

y

s

p

la

y

SEE INSET A

Existing road sign to be

relocated and mounting

height increased to 2.3m.

2.0m footway onto site.

Turnpike Road

New precast concrete kerb.

New precast concrete edging.

Key

New grass verge.

New footway construction.

New blister tactile paving coloured

yellow. 400mmx400mm flags.

Forw

ard visibility

at bend

Forw

ard visibility

at bend

OFFSET

GROUND LEVEL

FEATURE LEVEL

Align 1

CHAINAGE 10.000

120.000

2.852

117.517

0.000

117.845

6.292

119.942

1:8

1

:

3

117.584

117.517

119.173

119.942

119.926

OFFSET

GROUND LEVEL

FEATURE LEVEL

Align 1

CHAINAGE 20.000

120.000

6.156

118.816

0.000

119.148

5.011

120.818

1:18

1

:

3

118.923

118.816

120.905

120.818

120.783

OFFSET

GROUND LEVEL

FEATURE LEVEL

Align 1

CHAINAGE 30.000

DATUM 119.000

120.000

6.092

120.365

0.000

120.640

3.050

121.657

1:22

1

:

3

120.362

120.366

121.720

121.657

121.614

Forw

ard visibility

at bend

New secondary contours (0.020m intervals).

New primary contours (0.200m intervals).

Cross section references.

10.000

Key


SCALE @ A1

REVISION

HYDROCK PROJECT NO.

STATUS

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

Notes

STATUS DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS

OVER COURT BARNSOVER LANEALMONDSBURYBRISTOLBS32 4DFt: +44 (0) 1454 619533e: [email protected]

PLACE LAND LLP


C-06685-C AS SHOWN

INFORMATION S2

06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-D-0001 P05

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESSSOUTH WEST CORNERGENERAL ARRANGEMENT

OS NORTH

Rev Date Description By Ckd App

P01 20/02/2020 First Issue. FR RAP RAP

P02 28/02/2020

Footpath link design with steps added.

JD RJP RJP

P03 28/02/2020

Footpath link realigned.

JD RJP RJP

P04 02/03/2020 OS tile removed. JD RJP RJP

P05 24/03/2020

Verge increased to 2.5m and earthwork cutting

amended.

JD RJP RJP

1. Topographical survey information taken from 4D CEC Ltd.

drawing number 1703006, dated March 2017.

2. Design speed for Turnpike Road is 40mph.

Design speed for site access is 30mph.

3. All works shall be carried out to local authority standards for

adoptable roads.

CROSS SECTIONS

Scale 1:100

INSET A - CONTOURS

Scale 1:250

New profile

Existing ground profile.

Key

Bottom of sight lines.

AutoCAD SHX Text

3B/6P 2 St 104sqm

CHAINAGE

EXISTING GROUND LEVEL

ALIGNMENT LEVEL

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

FW_01

11

4.9

51

0.0

00

11

6.7

04

1.8

15

11

7.0

37

11

7.2

50

11

7.3

18

11

7.3

18

11

.3

33

R= 10.000

40

.5

99

DATUM 113.000

115.000

11

4.3

84

11

7.3

17

G= 8.000%

1: 12.5

10

.0

00

11

5.1

84

20

.0

00

11

5.9

84

30

.0

00

11

6.7

84

Back of footway Level

OFFSET

GROUND LEVEL

FEATURE LEVEL

ALIGNMENT FW_01

CHAINAGE 10.000

DATUM 114.000

115.000

120.000

3.5

00

11

5.2

09

1.0

00

11

5.2

09

0.0

00

11

5.1

84

0.0

00

11

5.1

84

1.0

00

11

5.1

59

2.0

00

11

5.2

59

1:4

0

1:1

0

11

9.4

90

11

7.0

63

11

6.8

06

11

6.7

04

11

6.5

96

11

6.4

88

11

6.2

66

2.5m

Verge

2.0m

Footpath

1.0m

Verge

1

:5

23

.7

50

11

9.2

58

11

9.2

58

OFFSET

GROUND LEVEL

FEATURE LEVEL

ALIGNMENT FW_01

CHAINAGE 15.000

DATUM 114.000

115.000

120.000

3.5

00

11

5.6

09

1.0

00

11

5.6

09

0.0

00

11

5.5

84

1.0

00

11

5.5

59

2.0

00

11

5.6

59

4.2

65

11

6.4

14

1:4

0

1:1

0

1

:

3

11

9.2

73

11

7.2

30

11

6.9

74

11

6.8

71

11

6.7

69

11

6.6

66

11

6.4

14

11

5.7

39

OFFSET

GROUND LEVEL

FEATURE LEVEL

ALIGNMENT FW_01

CHAINAGE 20.000

DATUM 114.000

115.000

120.000

17

.0

78

11

8.7

24

3.5

00

11

6.0

09

1.0

00

11

6.0

09

0.0

00

11

5.9

84

1.0

00

11

5.9

59

2.0

00

11

6.0

59

3.7

32

11

6.6

36

1

:5

1:4

0

1:1

0

1

:

3

11

8.9

28

11

8.7

24

11

7.3

94

11

7.1

39

11

7.0

37

11

6.9

35

11

6.8

32

11

6.6

36

11

6.2

61

1

:5

2.5m

Verge

2.0m

Footpath

1.0m

Verge

20

.8

02

11

9.0

69

11

9.0

69

2.5m

Verge

2.0m

Footpath

1.0m

Verge

OFFSET

GROUND LEVEL

FEATURE LEVEL

ALIGNMENT FW_01

CHAINAGE 25.000

DATUM 115.000

120.000

13

.6

53

11

8.4

39

3.5

00

11

6.4

09

1.0

00

11

6.4

09

0.0

00

11

6.3

84

1.0

00

11

6.3

59

2.0

00

11

6.4

59

3.1

32

11

6.8

36

1

:5

1:4

0

1:1

0

1

:

3

11

8.6

30

11

8.4

39

11

7.4

98

11

7.2

74

11

7.1

83

11

7.0

81

11

6.9

71

11

6.8

36

11

6.5

97

OFFSET

GROUND LEVEL

FEATURE LEVEL

ALIGNMENT FW_01

CHAINAGE 30.000

DATUM 115.000

120.000

10

.3

48

11

8.1

78

3.5

00

11

6.8

09

1.0

00

11

6.8

09

0.0

00

11

6.7

84

1.0

00

11

6.7

59

2.0

00

11

6.8

59

2.4

35

11

7.0

04

1

:5

1:4

0

1:1

0

1:3

11

8.3

58

11

8.1

78

11

7.5

63

11

7.3

40

11

7.2

50

11

7.1

56

11

7.0

50

11

7.0

04

11

6.7

91

2.5m

Verge

2.0m

Footpath

1.0m

Verge

2.5m

Verge

2.0m

Footpath

1.0m

Verge


SCALE @ A1

REVISION

HYDROCK PROJECT NO.

STATUS

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

Notes

STATUS DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS


PLACE LAND LLP


C-06685-C AS SHOWN

INFORMATION S2

06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-D-0002 P03

PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESSSOUTH WEST CORNERFOOTPATH SECTIONS


P01 28/02/2020 First Issue. JD RJP RJP

P02 28/02/2020

Section information updated to suit new footpath

alignment.

JD RJP RJP

P03 24/03/2020

Sections updated to reflect revised earthwork.

JD RJP RJP






adoptable roads.

CROSS SECTIONS

Scale 1:100

New profile


Key

LONG SECTION

Scale 1:500 HORIZ, 1:100 VERT


APPENDIX I: POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ONTO HIGHER TOWN

New precast concrete kerb.

New precast concrete edging.

Key

New grass verge.

New 2.5m wide cyclepath.

New retaining wall.

Maximum height 1.0m.

OFFSET

GROUND LEVEL

FEATURE LEVEL

ALIGNMENT CW1_CL

CHAINAGE 3.000

DATUM 114.000

115.000

120.000

11.822

117.004

1.939

116.539

1.745

116.550

1.730

115.747

1.250

115.699

0.000

115.730

1.250

115.761

2.430

115.879

2.450

116.809

2.700

116.809

14.239

118.575

1:21

1:18

1:10

1:401:40

1:1

0

1

:6

116.795

117.071

117.729

117.779

117.870

117.934

117.993

118.007

118.549

118.631

OFFSET

GROUND LEVEL

FEATURE LEVEL

ALIGNMENT CW1_CL

CHAINAGE 10.000

DATUM 115.000

120.000

4.742

117.757

1.980

117.090

1.730

117.091

1.720

116.089

1.250

116.042

0.000

116.074

1.250

116.105

2.430

116.223

2.450

117.223

2.700

117.213

6.428

118.317

1

:3

1:10

1:401:40

1:1

0

1:26

1

:3

117.653

117.781

117.926

117.959

118.015

118.070

118.119

118.130

118.285

118.375

New secondary contours (0.050m intervals).

New primary contours (0.200m intervals).

Cross section references.

10.000

Key

S

P

S

P

P

P

C

V

R

C

V

R

C

V

R

1

1

6

.4

0

1

1

6

.1

6

1

1

6

.0

1

1

1

5

.8

5

1

1

5

.6

8

1

1

5

.3

8

1

1

4

.

9

1

1

1

4

.4

9

1

1

4

.2

7

1

1

3

.9

9

1

1

3

.

8

2

1

1

3

.

5

4

M

H

:

1

1

4

.

0

5

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

1

1

5

.1

6

1

1

5

.2

5

M

H

1

1

3

.

7

3

1

1

3

.

9

7

1

1

4

.3

7

1

1

4

.7

5

1

1

4

.8

8

115.05

1

1

5

.

3

2

1

1

5

.

6

9

1

1

5

.

8

6

1

1

5

.9

7

1

1

6

.2

5

1

1

6

.3

6

F

H

1

1

5

.1

3

S

P

S

P

O

H

W

OH

W

O

H

W

120.09

119.48

118.98

118.73

118.70

118.97

119.28

120.00

120.39

120.10

119.88

119.17

118.78

118.61

118.24

118.33

117.89

117.75

117.32

117.16

117.68

118.13

118.37

118.45

118.83

119.43

119.64

119.80

119.06

118.89

118.42

117.97

117.87

117.71

117.40

116.94

116.46

116.89

117.15

117.25

117.43

117.75

116.56

116.50

116.40

115.97

115.68

115.45

115.76

1

1

7

.

1

4

1

1

7

.

2

1

1

1

7

.

0

2

1

1

6

.

8

1

1

1

6

.

5

9

1

1

6

.

1

3

1

1

5

.

7

1

1

1

9

.4

5

1

1

9

.1

0

1

1

8

.9

1

1

1

8

.8

2

1

1

8

.5

3

1

1

8

.1

9

1

1

7

.8

7

1

1

7

.4

4

116.92

P

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

Refer to drawing 06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-P-04

for full Higher Town traffic calming details.

NOTE: Retaining walls to be a minimum of

450mm set back from carriageway. End of

wall to tie-in with existing earth embankment.

17.0m forward visibility.

Refer to drawing 06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-P-04

for extension of cyclepath.

1

.5

m

x

4

5

.0

m

P

e

d

e

s

tria

n

v

is

ib

ility

1

.

5

m

x

4

5

.

0

m

P

e

d

e

s

t

r

ia

n

v

is

ib

ilit

y

0m 10m

SCALE BAR (1:250)

5m

2

6

.1

m

h

e

d

g

e

r

e

m

o

v

a

l

CHAINAGE

EXISTING GROUND LEVEL

ALIGNMENT LEVEL

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

CW1_CL

11

5.5

01

11

8.0

15

11

7.9

92

0.0

00

11

7.9

95

11

7.8

30

11

7.6

99

28

.0

07

11

7.6

93

11

7.7

37

50

.0

83

R= 21.250

63

.1

68

DATUM 114.000

115.000

120.000

11

5.6

55

G=

2.500%

1:

40.0

4.0

00

11

5.7

55

L=

4.500

KF=

1.0

8.5

00

11

5.9

69

G= 7.000%

1: 14.3

10

.0

00

11

6.0

74

20

.0

00

11

6.7

74

22

.8

52

11

6.9

73

L= 12.000

KF= -2.0

30

.0

00

11

7.3

46

34

.8

52

11

7.4

53

11

7.7

37

G= 1.000%

1: 100.0

40

.0

00

11

7.5

05

50

.0

00

11

7.6

05

60

.0

00

11

7.7

05

Back of build-out Level

S

P

S

P

P

P

C

V

R

C

V

R

C

V

R

1

1

6

.4

0

1

1

6

.1

6

1

1

6

.0

1

1

1

5

.8

5

1

1

5

.6

8

1

1

5

.3

8

1

1

4

.

9

1

1

1

4

.4

9

1

1

4

.2

7

M

H

:

1

1

4

.

0

5

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

1

1

5

.1

6

1

1

5

.2

5

1

1

4

.3

7

1

1

4

.7

5

1

1

4

.8

8

115.05

1

1

5

.

3

2

1

1

5

.6

9

1

1

5

.

8

6

1

1

5

.9

7

1

1

6

.2

5

1

1

6

.3

6

F

H

1

1

5

.1

3

S

P

S

P

O

H

W

OH

W

O

H

W

120.09

119.48

118.98

118.73

118.70

118.97

119.28

120.00

120.39

120.10

119.88

119.17

118.78

118.61

118.24

118.33

117.89

117.75

117.32

117.16

117.68

118.13

118.37

118.45

118.83

119.43

119.64

119.80

119.06

118.89

118.42

117.97

117.87

117.71

117.40

116.94

116.89

117.15

117.25

117.43

117.75

116.56

116.50

116.40

1

1

7

.

1

4

1

1

7

.

2

1

1

1

7

.

0

2

1

1

9

.4

5

1

1

9

.1

0

1

1

8

.9

1

1

1

8

.8

2

1

1

8

.5

3

1

1

8

.1

9

1

1

7

.8

7

1

1

7

.4

4

1

1

6

.9

2

P

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

1

5

.

8

0

116.0

0

116.20

116.4

0

116.6

0

116.8

0

117.0

0

1

1

7

.2

0

1

1

7

.

4

0

1

1

7

.

6

0

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

0m 10m

SCALE BAR (1:250)

5m

C

h

1

0

.0

0

0

C

W

_

0

1

C

L

C

h

3

.0

0

0

C

W

_

0

1

C

L

1

in

3

1

in

3

1

in

3

1

in

3


SCALE @ A1

REVISION

HYDROCK PROJECT NO.

STATUS

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT

Notes

STATUS DESCRIPTION

REVISIONS


PLACE LAND LLP


C-06685-C AS SHOWN

INFORMATION S2

06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-D-0003 P03

PROPOSED CYCLIST ACCESSNORTH EAST CORNERGENERAL ARRANGEMENT

OS NORTH


P01 28/02/2020 First Issue. JD RJP RJP

P02 02/03/2020 OS tile removed. JD RJP RJP

P03 10/03/2020

Retaining heights amended to 1m with 1in3 banks in

proximity of cycle access. Sections updated.

JD RJP RJP






adoptable roads.

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

Scale 1:250

New profile


Key

LONG SECTION

Scale 1:500 HORIZ, 1:100 VERT

CONTOURS

Scale 1:250

CROSS SECTIONS

NTS

AutoCAD SHX Text

72sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

51sqm

AutoCAD SHX Text

2 St

AutoCAD SHX Text

1B/2P

AutoCAD SHX Text

2 St

AutoCAD SHX Text

2B/4P

AutoCAD SHX Text

72sqm


1. APPENDIX J: CYCLE ACCESSIBILITY

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 As noted previously, there is no record of any cycle accidents in the vicinity of the appeal site within the

last 20 years.

1.1.2 Figure J.1 shows the Strava Heatmap for cycle movements in the vicinity of the site, the brightness of

the lines indicating the most popular routes used by cyclists. As can be seen, Turnpike is especially well

used by cyclists, carrying a greater number of cycle movements than National Cycle Network (NCN)

Route 3 along the canal. Higher Town and the Link Road carry similar levels of cycle traffic to the NCN.

Figure J.1: Strava Cycling Heatmap

1.1.3 Given Strava's focus towards leisure/sporting users, it is of note that most or all of the movements

shown on the heatmap are therefore by choice - users are choosing to cycle on these roads as part of

an enjoyable activity.

1.1.4 Figure J.2 is an excerpt from Sustrans' Devon Interactive Cycle Map83, showing the National Cycle

Network (NCN) in the vicinity of the appeal site. The objective of the NCN is to provide a route which

benefits a wide variety of cyclists, with a design suitable for use by an unaccompanied 12-year-old, and

therefore attractive for use by a wide range of cyclists.

83 https://fourpointmapping.sustrans.org.uk/devoncyclemap/devon.html


Figure J.2: Excerpt from Sustrans Devon Interactive Cycle Map

1.1.5 Of particular note is the on-carriageway section of NCN along Lower Town, in the centre of the village,

as well as its overall proximity to the appeal site with links via existing quiet country lanes. The on-

carriageway section on Lower Town is shown in Figure J.3:

Figure J.3: NCN3 - Lower Town, Sampford Peverell

1.1.6 Whilst it is a less direct route into the village, the NCN along the canal provides for off-carriageway cycle

movements to/from Sampford Peverell. This facility also provides for off-carriageway trips to Halberton

in the west and Tiverton beyond.


1.1.7 More widely, the NCN runs on-carriageway through the centre of nearby Halberton, and also through

Tiverton town centre, as shown in Figure J.4 which is an excerpt from DCC's Tiverton & Culm Valley

Cycle Map:

Figure J.4: Excerpt from DCC Tiverton & Culm Valley Cycle Map

1.1.8 Figure J.4 also shows parts of the on-carriageway Exe Valley and Lowman Valley Cycle Routes.

1.1.9 Examples of on-carriageway sections of the NCN nearby are shown in Figures J.5 and J.6:

Figure J.5: NCN3 - Bampton Street, Tiverton


Figure J.6: NCN3 - High Street, Halberton

1.1.10 The on-carriageway NCN section through Lower Town, Sampford Peverell is similar to Turnpike

between the village centre and the appeal site, albeit it is busier than Turnpike toward the site, due to

the village facilities, parking (on- and off-street) and a number of side-roads.

1.1.11 Through Tiverton town centre, the NCN runs on busier, narrower streets, with on-street parking and

significant pedestrian movements. In Halberton, the NCN follows the main street through the village,

again with side roads, pedestrians (on limited footway or virtual footway), 'give way' features and a

higher volume of traffic than on Turnpike near to the appeal site.

1.1.12 Paragraph 6.4.1 of Manual for Streets states 'Cyclists should generally be accommodated on the

carriageway. In areas with low traffic volumes and speeds, there should not be any need for dedicated

cycle lanes on the street'. Traffic volumes and speeds on Turnpike and Higher Town are low, noting also

the proposed extension of the 30mph speed limit to incorporate the site accesses on Turnpike and the

Link Road, and the proposed traffic calming feature adjacent to the Higher Town site entrance.

1.1.13 Both Turnpike and Higher Town already accommodate significant levels of cycling and have done so

without incident for at least the last 20 years. The appeal site proposals would introduce measures

which would further enhance those routes for cycling, providing safe and convenient accessibility for

cyclists.

1.1.14 Turnpike is similar to on-carriageway sections of the NCN locally - sections which operate without issue

for cyclists - which confirms my view that its combination of low vehicle speeds and volumes makes it

suitable for cycling by a range of users.

1.1.15 Higher Town is considerably quieter in terms of the volume and speed of traffic, again providing an ideal

cycle route to/from the appeal site for a variety of cyclists.

1.1.16 I note in particular that Tiverton Parkway rail station is accessible by non-car modes on the basis of the

above.


APPENDIX K: DCC CORRESPONDENCE - BEND ON LINK ROAD

1

James McKechnie

From: Ian Sorenson <[email protected]>Sent: 30 March 2020 09:56To: James McKechnieSubject: RE: SP2 site, Sampford Peverell - Link Road

That’s fine James we control a significant section of the verge looking at Land charges and a hatched scheme should work provided we can still get Tractors and Trailers to pass 0ver the hatching Ian Sorenson Planning, Transport and Environment Service Highways Development Management Officer (Mid Devon District) Lucombe house County Hall Topsham road Exeter EX2 4QD 01392 381301 07968230944 General Data Protection Regulations Notice: https://new.devon.gov.uk/privacy/privacy-notices/privacy-notice-for-highways-development-management/

From: James McKechnie <[email protected]> Sent: 30 March 2020 09:14 To: Ian Sorenson <[email protected]> Subject: SP2 site, Sampford Peverell - Link Road Morning Ian Hope you’re doing ok. I’m just finalising my proof of evidence for submission to PINS and wanted to double-check you are happy with the following please. We discussed the forward-visibility envelope through the bend on Link Road, between the site’s vehicular access and the junction of Link Road / Turnpike. Whilst you and I remain happy with the drawing which we have already agreed, showing an improved forward-visibility envelope through that bend, we also felt that there were potential alternatives should the Inspector be so-minded (e.g. due to other considerations including ecology, landscape, etc) including:

1. A more limited forward-visibility improvement using land within the Highway only 2. Or simply a lining scheme to improve the path of vehicles through the bend, benefitting its operation in

terms of vehicles passing in opposing directions. I’ve been out and taken further measurements – the carriageway opens up to 7.9m through the bend, so any of the approved / reduced / lining schemes would seem to provide an improvement if required? Thanks again James

2

James McKechnie BA (Hons) PGDip FCIHT CMILT Director | Transportation Following government advice, I am currently working from home. If we need to speak, drop me a line and I’ll get straight back to you. For wider information on working with Hydrock during COVID-19 visit hydrock.com/coronavirus. Hydrock Tel: 07921 264955 hydrock.com

Five consecutive years in the top 40 ‘Sunday Times 100 Best Companies to Work For’ listing, and winner of the NCE100 ‘Health and Wellbeing Leader of the Year’ award, 2019.

Hydrock Consultants Limited, company number 3118932 registered in England and Wales at Over Court Barns, Over Lane, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4DF. Before printing this e-mail, please think about the environment. Disclaimer: The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be read, copied or used only by the intended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any perusal, use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise us immediately by return e-mail to [email protected] and delete the e-mail document without making a copy. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure this email is virus free, no responsibility is accepted for loss or damage arising from viruses or changes made to this message after it was sent.


APPENDIX L: EXTRACT FROM HIGHWAY RISK & LIABILITY CLAIMS

Registered charity number 210252 Charity registered in Scotland number SC038629

Highway Risk and Liability Claims

A practical guide to Appendix C of The UK Roads Board

Report ‘Well Maintained Highways: Code of Practice for

Highway Maintenance Management’

Second edition

July 2009

Highway Risk and Liability Claims – Second Edition

7

2 Background to Highways Claims

and Risks

2.1 HIGHWAY OPPORTUNITY

Highways are a phenomenal benefit to the community: normal life would not be possible

without them. It is important to remember this when considering highway risk and liability.

The objective is to maximise the overall benefit to the community.

2.2 NORMAL USE OF THE HIGHWAY

Manual for Streets (Department for Transport 2007) stresses the role of highways as

providing for both movement and place to varying degree. The objective of the Highway

Authority is to obtain the maximum benefits for the community. It is a task that is wholly

different to that of minimising risk.

2.2.1 The rights to use a highway

The freedom to come and go is one of the most basic of human rights, and is something that

has developed over the centuries. Historically highways have been used for other activities

also including games of football, public executions, markets and so forth. There was for a

time a commonly held view that the public held only the right to pass and repass; however

the position has been clarified through DPP v Jones 2000

“the public highway is a public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose,

provided the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct

the highway by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass” Lord

Chancellor, DPP v Jones 2000

Periodically there are new cases that explore the extremities of the rights: for example roller-

blading is not a reasonable use of the footway, but playing leapfrog over bollards is; and a

bollard should be safe to use for that purpose.

2.2.2 Highway Code

The use of the Highway is governed by the Highway Code. It may be used in evidence in

court cases, and is also a guide to reasonable use.

Key guidance and instruction from the Highway Code includes:

General Advice

144

You MUST NOT

• drive dangerously

• drive without due care and attention

• drive without reasonable consideration for other road users

[Law: Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988 sects 2 & 3 as amended by RTA 1991]


9

2.3 INCIDENTS ON THE HIGHWAY

Each year there are over 4 million incidents on the highway, ranging from fatal accidents, to

minor falls or damage. Research conducted by TRL in the 1980s found that over three

quarters of accidents were solely due to human error. (TRRL Report 567) A small proportion

of these incidents involve individuals who believe that the highway authority is wholly or

partly responsible.

Overall accidents on the roads / footways

The combined effect of under-reporting, under-recording and misclassification suggests that

there may be 2.76 times as many seriously injured casualties than are recorded in the

national casualty figures and 1.70 slight casualties, according to TRL Report 173 Comparison of hospital and police casualty data: a national study by H F Simpson.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_507487.h

csp

Type of incident Typical

Numbers per

annum

Fatalities 3,000 Around 70 pedestrians die each year

following injuries sustained on the

footway.

Serious Injury Casualties

30,000 Misclassification owing to the difficulty in

assessing internal injuries at the scene

of an accident may hide a total casualty

figure of near 100,000 per annum

Slight Injury Casualties 250,000 Two thirds of slight injury accidents are

thought to go unreported, suggesting

actual casualties are in excess of

400,000 per annum

Damage only accidents 3-4 million Cost of these is £5 billion per annum

Total number of incidents Over 4 million

It is important to be aware of statistical and probabilistic phenomena when considering

highway incidents. At a local authority level the number of fatalities can vary significantly

from one year to the next, without implying any particular trend. This is even more the case

at a site level where effects such as regression to the mean can paint a misleading picture of

what is happening on the highway.

“Research carried out in the preparation of Manual for Streets indicated that many of the criteria routinely applied in street design are based on questionable or outdated practice.”

Much practice in highways is based on before and after studies which are susceptible to

“selection bias”. Evidence based design and safety practice is now being developed, using

case-control studies, and fully randomised studies. Practitioners should be aware of the

quality of the evidence on which practice is based and endeavour to make balanced

decisions about highway design, maintenance and inspection that are in the overall interests

of the community.

2.4 CLAIMS

Highways risks are just one of many risks that the local authority needs to manage. Other

examples include arson, long-term claims for abuse of children in the local authority’s care,

and so on. These have at times resulted in massive claims. Local authorities should not

however become locked into a risk management mentality: their role is to seek out


10

advantage for the community, and this will necessarily involve some risks. A balance is

needed.

2.4.1 Claims Statistics

Highway related claims, especially those associated with footways, are a major element in

national and local government’s third party public liability claims. Footway defects produce

most of the third party highway related claims. The drain placed on public funds is

considerable. Local authorities are thought to spend £100-500 million a year managing

highway claims. A local authority with an efficient maintenance regime, maintaining roads

according to the Code of Good Practice, and backed by rigorous systems for inspection and

claims handling will pay very few claims. However there are some local authorities where

the amount paid out in claims has been similar in size to the footway maintenance budget.

It is important to consider claims from the individual’s perspective. The outcome of an

incident on the highway is influenced by the health of the individuals involved. Falls can

have serious consequences for elderly people.

2.4.2 Trends

The trend over recent years has shown dramatic increases both in claims lodged and the

cost of claims: -

An 88% increase in the number of claims over the past ten years. (AIA – ALARM

Survey 2003)

In 2003/2004 there was a 40% plus increase in Public Liability Insurance premiums

for both Public and Private sectors.

A substantial claims industry has developed, and there have been concerns that this is diverting public funds from public services, not just in the highways and public realm sector but in other areas such as the National Health Service. However in recent years at least one major claims company has gone bankrupt and a firm of solicitors has been discredited.

2.4.3 Impact of claims on local authorities

Cost of handling a claim

Cost of inspecting site of alleged incident and

filing report

£200

Claim Administration - Simple Claim £300 - £1000

Cost of Claim Going to Sheriff Court or

County Court

£7,500 - £15000 legal fees alone

Queen’s Counsel £1000-£4,000 per day

Many local authorities have opted for significant excesses to keep the premium costs down.

The size of these excesses has led many highway authorities to self-fund liability claims up

to an amount for catastrophic damages, for example self-insuring claims up to £250,000. In

order to adapt to these changes highway authorities have had to arrange internal funding for

most highway related claims.

2.4.4 Risk aversion

The fear of receiving a claim has caused some highway authorities to adopt an

unnecessarily defensive position over what are quite reasonable innovations. This cannot

be in the public interest.


APPENDIX M: SPEED SURVEYS NEAR CANAL BRIDGE

1.1 Problems with PBA Turnpike speed survey

1.1.1 CA185 Vehicle Speed Measurement84 describes some of the usual methods of capturing vehicle

speeds85, noting (2.14) that when using ATCs there can be difficulties relating to the axle spacing of

vehicles - it may be unclear to the counter what type/number of vehicles have passed across the tubes.

1.1.2 Typical levels of error in tube-count ATCs have been assessed as between 4% and 12%86, which is

consistent with my own professional experience. Research suggests that 'Errors in speed and

classification were much greater' than these percentages87.

1.1.3 In relation to speeds, these are calculated by an ATC based on the time difference between two wheels

(on the same axle) compressing the first and then the second tube attached to the counting device. If

the counter is skewed at an angle to the traffic, wheels on the same axle compress the tubes at

different times which can result in a single vehicle being counted as multiple vehicles.

1.1.4 Research88 indicates that even a 5-10 degree skew away from the perpendicular can lead to an 11-18%

error rate in the data captured by a counter, and that 'skewed tubes recorded higher speeds, which is

likely another effect of each wheel being counted as an axle'. Evidence suggests that tubes installed at

an angle of 5 degrees or greater to the traffic flow 'do not provide accurate or useful information about

traffic volumes or vehicle classification' - given that classification and speed measurement is intrinsically

linked, it is my view that the same conclusion would apply to the accuracy of speed data.

1.1.5 I am of the view that Figure 10.3, backed up by my own observation of the counter installation onsite,

indicates that the skew away from perpendicular is significantly greater than 5 degrees.

1.1.6 The PBA Turnpike counter is consequently in the incorrect place to inform visibility requirements, and

was installed incorrectly, affecting its accuracy to the extent that it is unreliable for the purposes of

measuring speeds.

1.2 Hydrock Speed Survey: Methodological Details

1.2.1 In order to avoid affecting traffic speeds, and to ensure that the surveys recorded actual speeds at the

end of the visibility splay, I used a hand-held radar which has the appearance of a mobile phone and can

be operated from much the same position as someone examining their phone. I wore casual clothing

and, standing at the eastern end of the pedestrian bridge over the canal, neither myself nor the radar

would have been visible to drivers on approach or created any cause for them to alter their speed.

1.2.2 For robustness, I did not count any vehicles exiting westbound from Higher Town, nor any vehicles

which were slowed behind traffic turning right into Higher Town. It would be legitimate to survey both

of these movements, which were undertaken at very low speeds and would consequently have reduced

the observed speeds.

84 CD9.8. 85 It should be noted that, as part of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), CA185 is relevant only in terms of the survey methodology - its approach to deriving the Design Speed is for high-speed Trunk Roads, whereas Manual for Streets is the relevant design guidance for this appeal site. 86 Accuracy of Pneumatic Road Tube Counters, McGowen & Sanderson (2011) - Abstract. CD9.6. 87 Accuracy of Pneumatic Road Tube Counters, McGowen & Sanderson (2011) - Abstract. CD9.6. 88 Investigating the Impact of Skewed Pneumatic Traffic-Counting Tubes on Accuracy, Weible (2016). CD9.7.


1.2.3 The radar emits a cone of radio waves. My survey position gave me clear line-of-sight onto the rear of

vehicles travelling across the canal bridge and onwards westbound at the point at which they reached

the eastern end of the proposed visibility splay; this is comfortably within the 800m range of the radar

and within its tolerances in terms of the path of vehicles moving along Turnpike89.

Figure M.1: Position of radar relative to path of traffic

89 My position meant that the radar was within 2 degrees of the vehicle path, requiring no correction to the observed speeds. For the model of radar used, even an 8 degree angle would only lead to 1% change in the observed speed.


APPENDIX N: PLANNING PRECEDENTS

1.1 Relevant Appeal Decisions

Former Fremington Army Camp, North Devon90

1.1.1 The Inspector for APP/X1118/A/12/2188898 found that:

• Historic context needs to be taken into account when prescribing accessibility requirements;

• Lengths of footway 1.0m wide would not 'give rise to any significant harm'…'It is clear that this

footway would be below the width generally seen as desirable, but it does not automatically follow

that the provision should be seen as unsafe or unsuitable';

• 'I am not persuaded that "meetings" [between pedestrians] necessarily equate to "conflict";

• 'If a pedestrian felt it necessary to step onto the carriageway to pass another pedestrian or

wheelchair user, I am satisfied that the relatively low traffic flows and the good visibility would

ensure that such manoeuvres could be undertaken safely';

• Footways would generally be 1.2m-1.35m, with up to 1.8m closer to the site.

APP/A1720/W/19/3230015 – Land to the East of Downend Road, Portchester91

1.1.2 PBA's Hearing Statement cites this appeal decision92 and I consider its context below. I note:

a. The development was for 350 residential units to the immediate north of a railway line which is

crossed by a bridge in order to access the adjacent residential area of Portchester. The

development would generate a potential 700 pedestrian movements per day (by the

appellant's estimation) - a very substantially-greater number than would result from the current

appeal site;

b. The Inspector took significant account of the 22% increase in traffic across the railway bridge on

Downend Road due to the development, and the increased level of pedestrian demand, when

considering the suitability of pedestrian provision at that location. These figures are very

significantly greater than the changes in demand which would arise as a consequence of the

current appeal proposals; and,

c. The Portchester Inspector was concerned about the potential for opposing pedestrian

movements at the railway bridge, citing concerns about assumptions regarding pedestrian

behaviour. In the case of the current appeal, I have demonstrated the very low probability

(demand) and realistic practicability of pedestrians passing along Turnpike.

1.1.3 These points are not mentioned in PBA's Hearing Statement. I consider them to be fundamental to a full

understanding of the case, on which basis I consider paragraph 6.7 of that document to be misleading.

1.1.4 On that basis, I conclude that the Portchester decision is not directly relevant to the consideration of

the current appeal as its scale, location, traffic generation, pedestrian trip generation and level of

supporting evidence regarding pedestrian impacts are all considerably different.

90 CD3.5. 91 CD3.7. 92 Paragraph 6.6.


APP/D0840/W/17/3171249 – Land between Amanda Way and Pensilva Industrial Estate93

1.1.5 This appeal decision has been refenced by PBA94 in its Hearing Statement. I consider that decision to be

unrelated to the present appeal for reasons including:

d. The current appeal site has two pedestrian access routes and it is agreed that pedestrian trips

would be split between them, whereas the Pensilva site had only one pedestrian access route;

e. Along Turnpike, much of the footway route is significantly wider than 1.2m;

f. The Pensilva appeal Inspector was concerned about maintenance issues (overgrowing

vegetation) constraining the width of the footway, whereas that is not an issue for the current

appeal;

g. There were concerns at Pensilva regarding the effect of passing traffic on the perception of

safety for footway users, whereas in this case my evidence has demonstrated that no such

issues would exist; and,

h. There were concerns that the carriageway width would lead to wing-mirrors overhanging the

footway, creating a potential safety concern at Pensilva. There are no such issues in relation to

the current appeal site, as Turnpike is significantly wider than St Ive Road, Pensilva.

1.1.6 On that basis, I do not believe that the Pensilva decision undermines the Sampford Peverell appeal

proposals.

1.2 Other Relevant Footway Schemes

1.2.1 More generally, the use of 'virtual' and other footways which achieve improvements to previous

provision in constrained locations is commonplace.

1.2.2 For example, at Creech St Michael, Somerset County Council (SCC) introduced a new 'virtual' facility of

1.0m-1.2m width as show in Figure N.1 and Appendix P.

93 CD3.8. 94 Hearing Statement 6.8.


Figure N.1: 1.0m-1.2m 'virtual' footway at Creech St Michael.

1.2.3 There are multiple comparators nationally, details of which can be provided to the Inquiry if helpful. The

relevance to the appeal site is that existing provision between the site and the village centre, along

Turnpike, is generally of a better standard (physical footway) and meets or exceeds these common

dimensions. Furthermore, the DCC-requested canal bridge improvement represents betterment via the

introduction of a wider (than the existing 'virtual' footway) physical footway.

Halberton Village Centre

1.1.4 Halberton High Street carries up to 717 vehicles per hour. DCC has installed Give Way features to

enforce single-lane operation in a number of locations on the road through the village centre.

1.1.5 There are property accesses directly onto the road along its length through the village, many of which

have no pedestrian provision (pedestrians walk in the carriageway). Where formal footways do not exist

within the centre of the village, 'virtual' footways have been provided in some locations. In 2009, DCC

agreed to install physical footways in areas of 'virtual' footway where widths permitted.

New footway serving Tiverton Parkway Station

1.2.4 On 13th September 2017, DCC approved the construction of a new 1.5m wide footway over a length of

410m, connecting Lower Town with the existing footway along the link road serving Tiverton Parkway

station. It was determined by DCC that there were no equality considerations arising from the proposal,

which would enhance access to the station in a section where no footway previously existed.

MDDC Planning Decisions

1.2.5 I note the following planning decisions in Sampford Peverell:

• 19/01206/FULL - Wedding venue at Muddifords Court, Sampford Peverell - served by country lanes

to the south of Sampford Peverell. No adverse comments by MDDC regarding access/sustainability.


Also, 16/01058/FULL - Change of use of Dutch barn to function space - also no access/sustainability

comments raised by MDDC.

• 18/01296/FULL - New dwelling at 2 Boobery, Sampford Peverell - no accessibility/safety concerns

raised regarding pedestrian/cycle movements to/from the site along Boobery (no footway at its

western end and 1.1m-1,9m footway elsewhere) and Higher Town. Site deemed by MDDC to be

sustainable in accessibility terms by virtue of being within the settlement boundary.

• 18/00921/FULL - Conversion of two barns to holiday let and extension of main dwelling, 10

Turnpike, Sampford Peverell - considered by MDDC to be sustainable development. Located 170m

west of the canal bridge. No pedestrian access issues raised by MDDC.

• 18/00052/FULL - B1 use, The Firs, Sampford Peverell - B1 use of site accessed via country lanes to

south of the village. No access/sustainability issues raised by MDDC.

• 16/01943/FULL - Change of use to include erection of two new dwellings, 22 Lower Town,

Sampford Peverell - no sustainability/accessibility issues raised by MDDC in relation to walking,

cycling or public transport.

• 16/00995/FULL - Four new dwellings, Land West of Paullet, Sampford Peverell - revised application

(Approved with no adverse comments regarding sustainability or access) further to previous

applications including 15/01422/FULL (also for four new dwellings) and 12/0213/OUT (for three

dwellings) - Decision Notice for 15/01422/FULL confirms 'there are no highways objections'.

The original application (12/0213/OUT) was tested against the then-current Structure Plan policy

TR10 which required that development should not adversely affect the safe operation of the

highway network. The related Committee Report states that the application 'is therefore unlikely to

result in additional dangers to all users of the road or interfere with the free flow of traffic'.

No offsite mitigation measures were required in relation to any of the above applications, nor any

planning conditions applied in respect of accessibility/sustainability (e.g. requiring a Travel Plan).

MDDC and DCC consequently accepted via this application that pedestrian access to/from the

village centre via both Higher Town and Turnpike (via the Public Footpath from Blackdown View)

was acceptable in safety and sustainability terms, and that the addition of development traffic onto

Higher Town would have no adverse safety or operational impact. No specific requirements were

imposed regarding cycle access.

This is relevant to the current appeal, given that MDDC and other objectors have cited access via

Turnpike and Higher Town as problematic for pedestrians and cyclists in relation to the appeal site.

By comparison, access to/from the appeal site involves only 175m additional distance along Higher

Town, or 230m further along Turnpike (where there is existing footway).

1.2.6 My review of recent planning applications shows that MDDC has granted a variety of planning consents

for developments which are variously outside of the settlement boundary, or in locations where users

of those developments would need to utilise parts of the highway network which are also routes

to/from the appeal site.

1.2.7 In none of these cases has MDDC or DCC raised issues relating to sustainability, nor to the acceptability

of access routes including via Higher Town and Turnpike for pedestrians, cyclists or motor vehicles.


1.3 Other Relevant Precedents

1.3.1 I have reviewed a number of planning applications where similar matters have been addressed, as

described subsequently.

Land East of Farleigh Road, Cliddesden95

1.3.2 40 new dwellings were proposed on this site, the Transport Statement (TS) for which concludes that the

'vehicular site access and additional pedestrian access…fully comply with relevant design guidance and

will provide safe and suitable access for all modes' of transport.

1.3.3 In reaching this conclusion, the TS also notes the relevant of locational context in the assessment of

sustainability, by reference to the NPPF (2.8.2).

1.3.4 Points of relevant to the appeal site include:

• The road passing the site has a 30mph speed limit, observed 85th %ile speeds of 32.6mph/30.1mph

(per direction) and traffic flows of 340 (AM peak hour), 320 (PM peak hour)96, and 2,940 (24 hours),

being described in the TS as 'relatively lightly trafficked' (3.4.7).

• Within the site, the proposed estate roads comprise 5.0m wide shared surface routes, used by

motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

• The development was predicted to generate 26 vehicle movements per hour in the AM and PM

peaks, with the TS stating that the development traffic flows 'are therefore within observed peak

hour flow variations and will not have any noticeable impact on the safety or operation of the local

highway network' (6.2.5)

• The existing footway network serving the site is 'between 1-1.5m' wide (3.2.1), with cyclists

accommodated on-street. A new footway of 1.2m-2.0m width is proposed on the adjacent road,

beyond which a 1.0m wide 'virtual footway' is proposed in order to connect with existing footways.

• At 4.3.5, the TS cites precedents in support of the above footway provision, including Appeal

decisions confirming their acceptability. It would appear that the 'virtual' footway was ultimately

removed from the scheme proposals, in favour of pedestrians walking in the carriageway.

• Pedestrian visibility is measured to points offset from the nearside kerb, or to the carriageway

centre line.

• There is a 'regular' bus service (3.5.2) with four buses per day serving the development site (none

on Sundays).

1.3.5 No highways or sustainability issues were advanced by the LPA nor the LHA at planning application

stage, and I consider that the promoters of the site, the LPA and LHA consequently accepted that the

pedestrian, cycle and public transport provisions described above were suitable in a more rural context.

1.2 Previous Appeal Decisions

Gardener's Hill Road, Farnham (APP/R3650/W/15/3023031)97

95 Ref: JCB/EP/RH/ITB11393-001B R, dated 9th December 2016. 96 Compared with 259 (AM) and 238 (PM) for Turnpike. 97 CD3.4.


1.3.6 The appeal related to the construction of 43 new homes (planning application reference

WA/2014/2028). Highways matters were not contested by the LPA at the appeal.

1.3.7 Points of note in relation to the current appeal include:

• Pedestrian connectivity achieved via a non-continuous coloured pedestrian 'strip' on the

carriageway;

• Local revisions to the highway layout, including visibility improvements at junctions.

1.3.8 The Appeal Decision notes that 'It is appreciated that there would be some gaps in the pedestrian

strip…but it would nevertheless largely segregate pedestrian and vehicular traffic' (paragraph 29).

1.3.9 At paragraph 30, the Decision goes on to deal with the existing highway layout, stating 'The sub-

standard visibility…is an existing situation but the proposed highway works include alteration

to…increase visibility. On this basis, I am not persuaded that any increase in traffic using this junction

arising from the development would significantly hinder highway safety'.

1.3.10 Paragraph 31 of the Decision states:

'The proposed works have also been subject to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit which has not identified any

fundamental issues. Therefore, I have no reason to disagree with the comments of the Highway

Authority who has indicated that the proposed access and movement strategy for the development

would enable all highway users to travel to/from the site with safety and convenience. Indeed, in

addressing the highway requirements of the proposed development, they also offer wider community

benefits for other users of the surrounding highways.'

1.3.11 And paragraph 32 states:

'In terms of transport accessibility, the provision of a pedestrian strip would provide an opportunity for

residents to walk to local facilities and services, including a local bus stop. Indeed, the proposed

highway works also involve updating bus stop infrastructure, consisting of new bus shelters, flag poles

and bus timetable information. In term of facilities, the appellant’s highway statement has identified a

GP Surgery on Boundstone Road and Public houses on Bat and Ball Lane and Sandrock Hill Road.

Farnham railway station is also within reasonable cycling distance of the appeal site. Taking into these

considerations into account, the development would make satisfactory provision towards providing

opportunities for residents to travel by means other than private motor car.'

1.3.12 The relevance of this application/appeal to the current appeal site is that:

• Its pedestrian provision (on-carriageway pedestrian strip) mirrors the existing provision around the

canal bridge. Whilst the Farnham appeal Inspector found such provision to be acceptable, the

Sampford Peverell appeal proposals include enhanced pedestrian provision (footway) at this

location.

• Whilst I have presented evidence to demonstrate that the canal bridge improvements would

provide visibility in line with current guidance, the Farnham appeal makes it clear that, even if they

did not accord with current guidance, they would still represent an acceptable improvement over

the existing layout.

• The overall accessibility of the Sampford Peverell appeal site, with regard to the location of goods

and services, and in terms of its pedestrian access options (via Turnpike or Higher Town) is

significantly better than that of the Farnham appeal. Nonetheless, the Farnham appeal site was

deemed to be acceptable in accessibility terms.


1.4 Local Plan Review

1.4.1 I note the response of Sampford Peverell Parish Council to the Local Plan Review: Options Consultation

January 2014 (first draft), which states that 'Members of Sampford Peverell Parish Council are of the

opinion that the Higher Town site [the appeal site] is the best situated of those offered in terms of

access for limited development'. I make no comment on the Parish Council's views regarding the

quantum and mix of dwellings which might be accommodated on the site, as this has no bearing upon

the overarching view that the appeal site is the 'best situated' in terms of access.

1.4.2 Whilst my proof of evidence necessarily focusses upon the appeal site, given the comments of the LPA

and some objectors, it is relevant to consider the situation with regard to alternative sites which have

been considered through the Local Plan Review process.

1.4.3 Given the scope of my evidence, I comment only upon accessibility/sustainability and other

highways/transportation matters.

Mountain Oak Farm

1.4.4 Located on the east side of Sampford Peverell, this greenfield site is not contiguous with the village

boundary, being separated by a sports field. The potential to deliver a suitable access has been

questioned in the LPA's representations to the Local Plan Review98. A more extensive area, extending

to the Grand Western Canal, has also been promoted.

1.4.5 In respect of the views of other parties to the appeal, I refer to the Response to Sustainability Appraisal

[SA] Consultation: April 2018 by a member of the Rule 6 party99. Paragraph 35 of that document that

'There is a continuous pavement of an appropriate width and direct access to the canal path/cycleway

can easily be achieved to the smaller site at Mountain Oak Farm', going on to state (paragraph 39) that

'the site on land off Whitnage Road and at Mountain Oak Farm are better options…than Higher Town'.

1.4.6 I have reviewed the accessibility of Mountain Oak Farm and would note:

• The ability to construct an appropriate access has not been demonstrated, mindful of the extent of

Highway/land within the control of the site's owner;

• Between the site and the village shop there are frequent footway narrowings (to 0.9m-1.2m) and

there is the need to cross Whitnage Road en route;

• The site access is 365m from the village shop, 575m from The Globe pub, 810m from the church,

and 950m from the school. There are multiple side-road crossings en-route and the church/school

are both accessed via Higher Town.

1.4.7 I further note the comment (paragraph 48) that 'the site at Mountain Oak Farm would allow

prospective residents to walk to J27 via the new lit footway that Devon County Council is about to

commission, which will connect the end of the village with Tiverton Parkway station'.

1.4.8 I am not wholly clear to what route this refers to but I measure this walking distance as around 3.4km

from the site access to the B3181. The route includes two pedestrian overbridges and lengths which are

presently unsurfaced.

98 MDDC Statement for Hearing 2: 27th September 2017. 99 Response of Mr Drew, dated April 2018.


Whitnage Road

1.4.9 Abutting the A361 to the north and the Grand Western Canal to the south, MDDC has cited potential

amenity issues arising as a consequence of the proximity of the A361100.

1.4.10 I note the comments of local objectors to the appeal site, as set out in 11.4.4 above, suggesting that

Whitnage Road is a better site for development than the appeal site.

1.4.11 Footways on Whitnage Road are 1.1m-2.0m wide (generally 1.5m-1.7m wide), connecting with the

footways into the village centre referenced in 11.4.5 above. There is no footway just north of the

junction with Boobery, and there is no footway across the 4.4m wide canal bridge.

1.4.12 The most southerly part of the Whitnage Road site boundary is 515m from the village shop, 730m from

The Globe pub, 720m from the church, and 760m from the school. Both the church and school are

accessed via Boobery (which has narrow bends and no footway at the western end) and Higher Town.

Venn Farm and Morrells Farm

1.4.13 The site plans which I have seen suggest that forming an acceptable vehicle access may be problematic.

1.4.14 The nearest extents of the Morrell's Farm site are close to the village centre, 235m from the church and

375m from the school - access to both of which would be via a crossing of Lower Town, across the canal

bridge, and walking along Higher Town. The extent of the wider site means that distances to the village

centre would be considerably further.

SP1 Site

1.4.15 For completeness, I also refer to the SP1 site. The site is adjacent to the settlement boundary and has

previous planning consent for a nursing home.

1.4.16 Given its location at the southern end of Whitnage Road, conditions for those walking or cycling into the

village centre would generally be as per the Mountain Oak and Whitnage Road sites reviewed above.

1.4.17 I note that Sampford Peverell Parish Council was supportive of the SP1 site.101

Conclusion: Sites considered via Local Plan Review

1.4.18 From its nearest site access, the appeal site is 760m from the village shop, which compares well with

sites to the east of the village - e.g. the Whitnage Road site is only 245m closer. Similarly, The Globe pub

is 555m from the site access, compared with 575m (Mountain Oak Farm) and 730m (Whitnage Road). In

relation to facilities closer to the site, the school is 300m from the appeal site, which contrasts with

950m (Mountain Oak Farm) and 760m (Whitnage Road).

1.4.19 Given that facilities including the school and two churches are located on Higher Town, there is no

overall sustainability advantage for sites in the eastern part of the village, compared with the appeal

site.

1.4.20 Similarly, footway widths are less than 2.0m and, given the distribution of traffic to/from the A361/M5,

pedestrian and cycle movements on-street would be on busier roads than those around the appeal site.

100 MDDC Statement for Hearing 2: 27th September 2017. 101 Local Plan Review: Representation by Sampford Peverell Parish Council dated 12th February 2017, p.2.


1.4.21 Away from Lower Town, access to facilities on Higher Town would of course require pedestrians to walk

along that road. From the Whitnage Farm site, access would best be achieved via Boobery, parts of

which also have no footways.

1.4.22 In summary, the sustainability and accessibility of these alternative sites is no better than that of the

appeal site - indeed, they are further away from the village school in particular. Nevertheless, they have

been referred to by objectors as better options than the appeal site, and as having appropriate footway

access.


APPENDIX O: VEHICLE TRACKING DRAWINGS - HIGHER TOWN ACCESS

C

V

R

C

V

R

C

V

R

1

1

6

.

1

6

1

1

6

.

0

1

1

1

5

.

8

5

1

1

5

.

6

8

1

1

5

.

3

8

1

1

4

.

9

1

1

1

4

.

4

9

1

1

4

.

2

7

1

1

3

.

9

9

M

H

:

1

1

4

.

0

5

W

V

W

V

W

V

W

V

1

1

5

.

1

6

1

1

5

.

2

5

1

1

3

.

7

3

1

1

3

.

9

7

1

1

4

.

3

7

1

1

4

.

7

5

1

1

4

.

8

8

1

1

5

.

0

5

1

1

5

.

3

2

1

1

5

.

6

9

1

1

5

.

8

6

1

1

5

.

9

7

1

1

6

.

2

5

F

H

1

1

5

.

1

3

S

P

S

P

OHW

O

H

W

O

H

W

1

1

8

.

9

8

1

1

8

.

7

3

1

1

8

.

7

0

1

1

8

.

6

1

1

1

8

.

2

4

1

1

8

.

3

3

1

1

7

.

8

9

1

1

7

.

7

5

1

1

7

.

3

2

1

1

8

.

1

3

1

1

7

.1

4

1

1

7

.2

1

1

1

8

.

9

1

1

1

8

.

8

2

1

1

8

.

5

3

1

1

8

.

1

9

1

1

7

.

8

7

1

1

7

.

4

4

1

1

6

.

9

2

P

P

O

H

W

O

H

W

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

TRAFFIC CALMINGMEASURES - SWEPT PATH

ANALYSIS

Drawn: Checked: Scale @ A1:

Drawn:

Drawing No.

S2

Revision06685-HYD-XX-XX-DR-TP-

Drawn Date: First Issue:

Purpose of Issue INFORMATION

P

Drawing Title:

Notes:All dimensions are to be checked on site before the commencement of works.Any discrepancies are to be reported to the Architect & Engineer forverification. Figured dimensions only are to be taken from this drawing.Thisdrawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant Engineers' and ServiceEngineers' drawings and specifications. This drawing is copyright.

Client:

Project:

C-06685-CProject Number:

DescriptionDateRev CkdBy

Place Land LLP / Mr & Mrs GCotrell, Mr T Burns, Mrs CPearce and Mrs W Upham

LAND AT SAMPFORD PEVERELL,DEVON

2 East Pool, Tolvaddon Energy Park,Camborne TR14 0HX.Tel:01209 719037 Fax:0870 838 1078 or visitwww.hydrock.comThis drawing is the copyright of Hydrock Ltd. No liability will beaccepted for any amendments to this drawing either printed ordigital by parties other than Hydrock. MP MJ 1:200 24/02/2020 24/02/2020

P-07 1

OS NORTH

B REFLECTIVE BOLLARD

First issue24/02/20P1 MJMP


APPENDIX P: CREECH ST MICHAEL VIRTUAL FOOTWAY DRAWING

Provide 8m length of continuous edge line to TSRGDDiagram Number 1012.1, 150mm wide (to protect opendrainage channel and residential property exterior wall)

Existing carriageway surfacein poor condition. Localisedresurfacing required.

Virtual Footway to befinished in buff colouredsurfacing

Edge of carriageway marking providedadjacent to edging detail, 600mm line,300mm gap, 100mm wide to TSRGDDiagram Number 1009

Pedestrian symbol road marking(non-prescribed marking) to berepeated every 20m (approx.)

4.1m wide carriageway -narrowest section of thescheme

Remove 90m of existing carriagewaycentre line road marking fromlocation A to B.

Provide 1 no. marker post (bolt down) with redreflector adjacent to property. Somerset CountyCouncil Structures Team to be consulted due to closeproximity of culvert.

4.2m wide carriageway

Virtual Footway edge lineto TSRGD Diagramnumber 1004, 4m line 2mgap, 100mm wide

1.2m wide Virtual Footway

Existing Road Hump edge lineto be retained

Existing dropped kerbing and transitionkerbs to be relaid so that drop kerbs areflush with the running carriageway.

Existing Road Hump triangular roadmarkings to be removed.Road Hump to be remarked to suit newrunning lane arrangement as shown inInset A


Virtual Footway may needto narrow to 1.0m wideover a 6.0m length due topinchpoint. To beconfirmed oncetopographical surveyinformation obtained.

Virtual Footway may needto narrow to 1.0m wideover a 6.0m length due topinchpoint. To beconfirmed oncetopographical surveyinformation obtained.

Illuminated traffic signs to TSRGD Diagram Number 517'Road narrows on the right ahead' and 544.1 withsupplementary plate 547.3 'Pedestrians in the roadahead'/"No footway for 90 yds"Warning signs to be 600mm high, x-height 62.5, mountingheight 2.1m to the lower edge of the supplementary plate.Sign face to have 450mm lateral clearance to the edge ofthe carriageway.Sign to be located approximately 20m in advance of theVirtual Footway. This is to minimise sign clutter on themini-roundabout approaches if the signs were located 45min advance of the hazard in accordance with the TrafficSigns Manual.

B

SEE INSET A

NO

RTH

END

To A38

SLOW road markings to TSRGDdiagram number 1024

Illuminated traffic signs to TSRGD Diagram Number517 (R) 'Road narrows on the left ahead' and 544.1with supplementary plate 547.3 'Pedestrians in theroad ahead'/ "No footway for 90 yds". Warningsigns to be 600mm high, x-height 62.5, mountingheight 2.1m to the lower edge of the supplementaryplate.Sign face to have 450mm lateral clearance to theedge of the running carriageway.Sign to be located 45m minimum from the start ofthe Virtual Footway. Sign to be located at the backof the footway on an offset bracket over thefootway.

Illuminated traffic signs to TSRGD DiagramNumber 517(R) 'Road narrows on the leftahead' and 544.1 with supplementary plate 573('Pedestrians in the road ahead'/40 yds to theleft).Warning signs to be 600mm high, x-height 62.5,mounting height 2.1m to the lower edge of thesupplementary plate.Sign to be located at the back of the existing1.8m wide footway on an offset bracket.

Virtual Footway to commence with taperroad marking to TSRGD Diagram Number1009, 600mm line, 300mm gap, 100mmwide.

Existing full height kerbs to bereplaced with drop kerbs flush withthe carriageway for a 1.8m length.Provide appropriate transition kerbsbetween new dropped kerbs andadjacent existing full height kerbs.

1.2m wideVirtual Footway

4.8m wide carriageway

Existing road hump triangularroad markings to be removed.Road Hump to be remarkedto suit new running lanearrangement as shown inInset A

SEE INSET A

NORTH END

WES

T V IEW

A

Pedestrian symbol road marking(non-prescribed marking) to berepeated every 20m (approx.)

SLOW road markings to TSRGDdiagram number 1024

Inset A - Not to scale

1.2m wide VirtualFootway


Existing Road Humpedge line to beretained

Two triangle road humpmarkings to TSRGDDiagram Number 1062.Installed in accordancewith Chapter 5 of theTraffic Signs Manual

Project Number: Revision:

Date: Scale: Sheet:

Designed:

Drawn:

Approved:

Checked:

© Copyright Parsons Brinckerhoff

Drawing Number:

Tel: 44-(0)1823-281190

A1

Riverside Chambers,Castle Street,Taunton TA1 4AP

05/12/2012

Pro

ject

Num

ber:

Rev

isio

n:D

raw

ing

Num

ber:

Plo

t Dat

e:07

/12/

2012

13:

30:3

8C

reec

h S

t Mic

hael

Pro

pose

d.dw

gFi

le N

ame:

Nic

hols

on, N

eil

Logi

n:

Title:Project:AppChkByDescriptionDateRev

© Crown Copyright and database right (2011). Ordnance Survey 100038382Client:

Somerset County CouncilJPLS

LSSW

1:250 1 of 1

285333FH-HLT -

PRELIMINARY

2853

33FH

-HLT

-

Proposed Layout -Outline Design

Virtual Footways - Pilot SchemeCreech St Michael

Key

Existing lamp column

Existing telegraph pole

Existing footway

Existing sign post

Proposed traffic sign

Existing road marking tobe removed

Proposed road marking

Virtual Footway typically1.2m wide

Notes

1. Do not scale from this plan asthere is a discrepancy betweenon-site measurements and the OSmapping.

2. All gully covers located in theVirtual Footway to be replaced with'pedestrian friendly' covers.

3. 45m clear visibility to be providedto new warning signs.

- 12/12 For initial consultation JP LS SW

appendix a: locational sustainability review · holiday / day trip 19.4 20.9 31.2 33.6 ... whilst...

Documents