RO2-Appeal Statement 2010-06-21

8/9/2019 RO2-Appeal Statement 2010-06-21

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ro2-appeal-statement-2010-06-21 1/50



53-57 The Street, Ashtead

Appeal Statement

for

Ashtead Resident’s Association in conjunction with Save Ashtead’s Village Environment (S.A.V.E)

project number: 100524

prepared by: Steve Parsonsposition: Associate Director

issue date: 21st June 2010status: Final

232 High StreetGuildford

SurreyGU1 3JF

T 01483 531300F 01483 531333

E [email protected] www.motion-uk.co.uk



Contents

Section

1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Useful Background 3 3.0 Transport Issues 3

Trip Attraction 3 Trip Distribution 3 PICADY Analysis 3 Servicing and Road Safety 3

4.0 Summary 3



Appendices

Appendix A Personal Injury Accident Records

Appendix B TRICS Outputs

Appendix C Craddocks Parade Survey and Analysis

Appendix D Drawing 12.3 rev A

Appendix E Swept Path Analysis




Appeal Statement page 1

1.0 Introduction

Qualifications and Experience

1.1 This statement has been prepared by Steven Leslie Parsons. I hold a H.N.C in Civil

Engineering, a Post Graduate Diploma in Transportation Planning and Engineering and

am a Member of the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation (M.C.I.H.T).

I am an Associate Director of Motion Transport Planning Limited and have over 20

years experience in the field of transportation planning, traffic engineering and

highway safety.

1.2 During my career I have been responsible for assessing the highway and

transportation implications of development proposals on behalf of several highway

authorities, most recently for Surrey County Council where I was employed as aPrincipal Transportation Development Control Officer for 6 years before joining Motion

Transport Planning. I have particular expertise in appraising the impact of

development proposals on the highway network and the acceptability of development

proposals in respect of highway safety and capacity.

1.3 Motion Transport Planning (MTP) specialises in advising developers and professionals

in the development field on all matters concerning transportation, highways and

traffic.

Scope of this Statement

1.4 Motion Transport Planning has been appointed by Ashtead Resident’s Association in

conjunction with ‘Save Ashtead’s Village Environment’ (S.A.V.E), in respect of the

appeal by Tesco Stores Limited against the decision, by Mole Valley District Council, to

refuse planning application MO/2009/1322. The planning application was refused on

the 10th November 2009 and the appeal is to be determined by way of a Public

Inquiry.

1.5 By way of a background to the planning history of the site an earlier planning

application (ref MO/2008/1127) to provide a Tesco’s foodstore with a GFA of 2,177

square metres (1,115 square metres of retail floor space) and 9 residential dwellings,

was refused by the Mole Valley District Council on 1st August 2008 for several reasons

including reasons on highways and transport grounds. The application was also

recommended for refusal by the Highway Authority.





1.6 The scheme was subsequently revised and submitted as planning application

MO/2009/1322, and is now the subject of this appeal. The latest scheme remains

largely similar to the previous scheme, but with a reduction in the overall GFA of the

foodstore by 809 square metres, and a reduction in the overall retail floor space by

365 square metres. Planning application MO/2009/1322 was refused by the Planning

Authority for six reasons, three of which related to highways and transport matters

and which have been duplicated below.

Reason 3

‘It has not been demonstrated that alternative off-street parking can be provided for

the existing users of long term parking spaces in the Peace Memorial car park and

sufficient provision for the staff of the development. This would result in cars being

parked on surrounding roads to the detriment of local amenity and leading to

conditions which would be prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and convenience of

other highway users. The proposals would therefore be contrary to PPS4 ‘Planning for

Sustainable Economic Growth’ policy EC18 and Mole Valley Local Plan policies ENV22

‘General Development Control Criteria’ and MOV2 ‘The Movement Implications of

Development’.

Reason 5

‘The proposed development, if permitted, would lead to a significant increase in traffic

at the difficult junction of Woodfield Lane and The Street, a busy and important road,

which is classified as the A24 and forms part of the Primary route network where sight

lines and visibility in the leading traffic direction is severely restricted by the property

adjacent to the junction, and, the close proximity of the proposed pedestrian crossing

to the junction, and with the increased traffic movement would lead to conditions

prejudicial to the safety and free flow of traffic, contrary to Mole Valley Local Plan

policy MOV2 ‘The Movement Implications of Development’.

Reason 6

‘In the absence of a completed legal agreement, under Section 106 of the Town andCounty Planning Act 1990, the proposal fails to provide an infrastructure contribution

in accordance with the Council’s adopted Code of Practice for Planning Obligations and

Infrastructure Provision February 2008 and the other negotiated developer

contributions in this case, and is therefore contrary to policy CS17 of the Mole Valley

Core Strategy’.





1.7 A Transport Assessment was produced by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited to

accompany planning application MO/2009/1322. The Transport Assessment concluded

that:

► ‘The development proposals can be accommodated on the local transport

network;

► Safety and capacity improvements to the junction of Woodfield Lane/The

Street/Grove Road/Rectory Lane are proposed, and will further reduce the

impacts; and

► An assessment of car parking availability is included in this Transport

Assessment, and the replacement Woodfield Lane car park on the development

site can accommodate the development traffic. A robust assessment of the peak

use of the car parks reveal there is sufficient capacity in the village for all users’.

1.8 This statement assesses the supporting documentation produced on behalf of Tesco

Stores Limited by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. This statement sets out the

site’s location in respect to travel and transport and provides a critique of certain

elements of the work undertaken to demonstrate the traffic impact and road safety

implications of the appeal proposal. Specifically this statement assesses the following

points, which have been explored in greater detail within Section 3 of this statement.

► Trip Attraction;

► Trip Distribution;

► PICADY Analysis; and

► Road Safety and Servicing Arrangements.





2.0 Useful Background

Existing Site

2.1

The appeal site is located at 53-57 The Street within the village centre of Ashtead.The site is bounded by the Peace Memorial Hall car park to the north, A1 and A3 land

uses to the east and west and The Street (A24) to the south. Ashtead rail station is

located approximately 1.2 kilometres north from the site.

Local Highway Network

2.2 The proposed foodstore fronts directly onto The Street (A24) which is a two-way

carriageway, approximately 8 metres wide, subject to a speed limit of 30mph. On

street parking is permitted on both sides of the carriageway with restrictions operating

Monday to Saturday.

2.3 To the northeast, The Street connects with Epsom Road (A24) providing access

towards Epsom town centre. To the southwest, The Street connects with Woodfield

Lane, approximately 110 metres from the frontage of the site, and continues to form a

link with Leatherhead Road, (A24) providing access towards junction 9 of the M25, as

well as Leatherhead.

2.4 Woodfield Lane serves as the main access point into and out of the Peace Memorial car

park. It is a two-way carriageway approximately 5.3 metres wide, subject to a speed

limit of 30mph. It is subject to parking restrictions in the form of double yellow lines

on both sides of the carriageway for the majority of its length. To the north it provides

access towards Ashtead rail station and Craddocks Parade where a Tesco Express store

is located, whilst to the south it connects with The Street (A24).

Road Safety Study

2.5 Personal Injury Accident (PIA) statistics, a copy of which has been attached as

Appendix A, have been obtained from Surrey County Council for the period of

January 2005 to February 2010. The study area includes the following sections of

road:

► The Street (A24), section between its junctions with Park Lane to the north and

the Shell petrol filling station to the south; and

► Woodfield Lane at its junctions with the Peace Memorial car park and The Street

(A24).

2.6 A total of 15 PIA’s occurred within the study area, of which three were classified as

serious and the other 12 as slight.





2.7 Specifically, a total of 10 of the identified PIA’s occurred at or within the vicinity of The

Street (A24) / Grove Road / Woodfield Lane / Rectory Lane junction, of which two

were classified as serious and eight as slight.

2.8 Six of the 15 identified PIA’s involved pedestrians of which two were classified as

serious and four were classified as slight. Five of the pedestrian PIA’s occurred at or

within the vicinity of The Street (A24) / Grove Road / Woodfield Lane / Rectory Lane

junction, of which one was classified as serious.

2.9 The PIA record demonstrates a high incidence of PIA’s at or within the vicinity of The

Street (A24) / Grove Road / Woodfield Lane / Rectory Lane junction and a high

incidence of pedestrian PIA’s. The number and severity of pedestrian PIA’s is of

particular concern and reflects the High Street nature of the study area and the

vulnerability of pedestrians when conflict occurs with vehicles.

2.10 It is concluded that it is paramount that the appeal proposal should pay particular

regard to enhancing pedestrian safety and the impact of additional vehicular trips

using the problematic junction at The Street (A24) /Grove Road / Woodfield Lane /

Rectory Lane.







3.6 Paragraph 14.6 of the Good Practice Guide discusses the correlation between GFA and

vehicle trips. It states “Figure 14.3 appears to show that food superstores do not

display any relationship between GFA and vehicle trips, therefore giving a big error

margin and limiting the accurate use of the Estimate feature (the estimate feature

provides an estimate of trips for a known GFA). Paragraph 14.6 goes on to state “It is

known that there is in fact a relationship between GFA and level of trips for food

superstores, but that other, external factors have such an influence on trip generation,

that they influence the scatterplot accordingly.”

3.7 Paragraph 14.7 states that.”Figure 14.3 shows that when a relatively small data

sample for food superstores is displayed in a rank order list, it appears that there is no

relationship between GFA (x axis) and vehicle trips (y axis)”.

3.8 For these reasons it is considered imperative that stores with a similar GFA to that now

being proposed at Ashtead are used as a basis for predicting trip rates. However

having explored the TRICS database it is apparent that no similar Tesco’s stores exist

in which case it would be reasonable to expect the appellant to survey existing

established stores that are of a similar floor area and similar in terms of location,

accessibility and parking. Such an approach would provide a realistic estimate of trip

rates compared to the flawed assessment that has been carried over into the 2009

Transport Assessment.

Department for Transport’s ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’

3.9 The above document provides guidance on quantifying development trip generation.

At paragraph 4.61 it states that “Typically trip generation assessments are based on

the identification of suitable (person or vehicle) trip rates, having regard to industry

standard databases such as TRICS, GENERATE and TRAVL. These trip rates should be

derived on the basis of site-specific details of the proposed development – for

example, proposed gross floor area, number of dwelling units, number of hotel rooms,

availability and accessibility of non-car modes of travel, provision and nature of travel

plans.”

3.10 It is considered that this guidance clarifies that trip rates should be based on similar

developments as a number of factors can influence travel behaviour. In this case it is

considered unreasonable to determine trip rates per 100 sq.m of GFA on trip rates for

larger superstores. As these larger stores have a much greater retail floor area it is

reasonable to assume that customers will be carrying out a larger shop (i.e. a weekly

shop) that will result in a greater length of time spent in the store. A smaller store by

comparison will naturally have a much quicker turn around of customers and as such is

likely to have a higher trip rate per 100 sq.m of GFA.





3.11 The DfT’s Guidance on Transport Assessments clarifies at paragraph 4.62 that “If sites

with comparable accessibility as well as scale and location cannot be found when using

a standard database system, 85th percentile trip generation rates should be considered

as a starting point for assessment of the baseline trip generation.”

3.12 It is considered that the TRICS sites used to determine trip rates (SCC2) are not

directly comparable in terms of accessibility, scale and location and as such 85 th

percentile trip rates should be used to robustly assess the impact of the appeal

proposals. By using average trip rates derived from non-comparable sites the

appellant has failed to take into account guidance contained within the TRICS Good

Practice Guide and by using 50th percentile trips rates has failed to take into account

the Department for Transports’ Guidance on Transport Assessments’. As such the

potential traffic impact of the appeal proposal appears to have been underestimated,

which has considerable, material knock on effects when considering matters of

highway capacity, road safety and car parking accumulation.

Further comments

3.13 The 2009 Transport Assessment suggests that given the GFA of the foodstore for the

appeal proposals has reduced in size compared with the previous scheme, trips

generated by the foodstore will also be reduced on a pro-rata basis.

3.14 It is considered likely for a Tesco’s foodstore, with a retail floor space of 750 square

metres, to offer a similar range of product categories to a Tesco’s foodstore which has

an additional 365 square metres of retail floor space. On this basis, the operation of a

smaller store is unlikely to result in a reduction of customer trips on a pro-rata basis as

has been claimed within the 2009 Transport Assessment.

3.15 The TRICS database has been analysed to obtain Saturday trip rates for smaller

foodstores (less than 3000 square metres) that are comparable (in GFA) to the appeal

proposals. Surveys contained within the database and undertaken prior to the year

2002 have been omitted. This search method results in a total of 12 surveys for

foodstores located within the UK. All sites located outside of England and within

London have been omitted together with those sites incorporating foodstores whereby

the nature, location or operation differs materially from the appeal proposals (for

example M&S or CO-OP stores). Three Sainsbury’s sites have been identified and a

copy of the TRICS outputs for these three sites is attached as Appendix B.

3.16 This exercise shows that with smaller stores as the GFA decreases the trip rate

increases. It is concluded that the GFA of smaller foodstores is not directly

proportional to the trip rate per 100 sq.m of GFA. It cannot be assumed that a

reduction in trips can be applied on a pro rata basis when there is a reduction in GFA.





3.17 Additionally by exploration of the TRICS database it is apparent that Tesco’s stores

have higher trip rates that those obtained at other similar food stores. Again this

points to the need to either use 85th percentile trip rates (as recommended by the

Department for Transport) or to base trip rates on a number of surveys carried out at

comparable Tesco stores.

3.18 S.A.V.E. has carried out a survey of the Craddocks Parade Tesco’s Store. This survey

suggests a much higher trip rate per 100 sq.m of GFA than that predicted within the

2009 Transport Assessment, which have been derived from much larger stores.

Indeed using the methodology suggested by S.A.V.E., where trips rates are based on

the survey results of the Craddocks parade store and factored up, pro-rata, to

represent the GFA of the appeal proposals results in trip arrivals up to 6.8 times higher

than that estimated within the 2009 Transport Assessment. A copy of the survey

results and analysis carried out by S.A.V.E. has been attached as Appendix C.

3.19 Such are the flaws in the trips analysis that has been carried over in the 2009

Transport Assessment that the traffic impact has been underestimated to a level where

the impact on the Woodfield Lane / The Street (A24) junction is likely to be in excess

of that predicted within the 2008 Transport Assessment, which was recommended for

refusal by the Highway Authority.

3.20 It is concluded that the applicant has failed to quantify the traffic impact of the appeal

proposals; has failed to demonstrate that the appeal proposals would not lead to a

significant increase in traffic at the junction of Woodfield Lane and The Street, where

sight lines in the leading traffic direction are severely restricted, and; has failed to

demonstrate that the increased traffic movement as a result of the appeal proposals

would not lead to conditions prejudicial to the safety and free flow of traffic on the

neighbouring highway.

Trip Distribution

3.21 The 2009 Transport Assessment presents at Table 5.2 a breakdown of the proportion

of vehicles (as a percentage) using each access and egress. From this table it is

possible to determine the percentage split of vehicles departing and accessing the

proposed store car park.

3.22 Vehicles can only depart from the car park via the Woodfield Lane access whilst

vehicles can gain access from the site via either Woodfield Lane or directly from the

established access from The Street.





3.23 In respect to vehicles departing the site Table 5.2 of the 2009 Transport Assessment

confirms that it is predicted that up to 56% of vehicle trips departing from the site will

turn right into Woodfield Lane to travel towards the north (i.e. towards the railway

station and residential area of Ashtead). During the pm peak only 44% of vehicles are

predicted to turn left into Woodfield Lane to travel to the south via the The Street

(A24) / Woodfield Lane junction. It appears that the distribution of traffic departing

the site is as set out within the 2008 transport Assessment, which at paragraph 11.2

confirms that the distribution is based on observed traffic turning movements although

no detail of how or when this survey was carried out has been provided within the

Transport Assessment.

3.24 Whilst it is noted that the distribution is based on observed turning movements it is

considered likely that the majority of vehicular trips departing the site will require

access to the A24 and will therefore pass through the Woodfield Lane / The Street

junction. The Street (A24) provides a principal strategic highway link between

Leatherhead and Junction 9 of the M25 (to the south) and Epsom and Ewell (to the

north). Vehicular trips to and from the appeal site are unlikely to follow the

established pattern of observed turning movements as a Tesco’s store will be likely to

attract an element of ‘pass by’ or divert trips that will be attracted to the site and will

require access back onto the A24. Additionally the presence of an established Tesco

Express store to the north at Craddocks Parade, will reduce the number of vehicle trips

to and from this part of Ashtead.

3.25 Ashtead residents have carried out a traffic survey of turning movements at the car

park egress onto Woodfield Lane. Counts were taken between 09:00 and 20:00 hours

on Friday the 14th May 2010 and Saturday 15th May 2010. The turning movements for

all vehicles departing the car park were observed as follows:

Vehicles departing car park

and turning left (Woodfield

Lane southbound)

Vehicles departing car park and

turning right (Woodfield Lane

northbound)

Friday 14th May2010

54.5% 45.5%

Saturday 15th May2010

57% 43%

3.26 The assumption that have been made within the 2008 Transport Assessment and

carried over into the 2009 Transport Assessment in respect to the distribution of traffic

departing the car park is considered flawed and results in an underestimation of the

impact at the Woodfield Lane / The Street (A24) junction.





3.27 It is considered that a much greater percentage of vehicles would turn left on

departing the car park and would therefore travel through the Woodfield Lane / The

Street (A24) junction. These additional movements have not been assessed as part of

the junction modelling carried out to assess whether the Woodfield Lane / The Street

(A24) junction can accommodate the additional trips associated with the appeal

proposal.

3.28 As a result of the flawed traffic distribution it is considered that the appellant has failed

to demonstrate that the The Street (A24) / Woodfield Lane junction can satisfactorily

accommodate the traffic impact of the appeal proposals.

PICADY Analysis

3.29 The 2009 Transport Assessment states that a junction capacity assessment has been

undertaken at the Woodfield Lane / The Street (A24) / Grove Road / Rectory Lane

junction using the industry standard software PICADY.

3.30 PICADY is a computer program for predicting capacities, queue lengths and delays at

non-signalised major/minor priority junctions. However, the software has its

limitations. It is unable to model five-arm junctions, and as such Rectory Lane has not

been included within the junction model. In addition, controlled pedestrian crossings

are located approximately 50 metres to the northeast and southwest of the junction on

The Street (A24). The effect of the operation of these crossings on the Woodfield Lane

/ The Street (A24) / Grove Road / Rectory Lane junction has not been considered.

3.31 It is acknowledged that no queue length data has been provided within the 2009

Transport Assessment and it is therefore not possible to validate the PICADY models

for the existing situation. There is no evidence that the applicant has verified the

PICADY results for the base situation to reflect observed conditions on site.

3.32 A site visit has been undertaken by MTP to measure the geometry of the junction.

Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 provide a comparison of the geometric measurements

used within the assessments undertaken by Colin Buchanan with those measurements

obtained directly on site by MTP.

Data ItemAssessment undertaken

by Colin Buchanan(metres)

Measurements Observedon Site by MTP

(metres)

Width of carriageway 6.52 5.5

Width of kerbed centralreserve

0.0 0.0

Width of right turninglane

3.0 2.8

Visibility 180 180

Major road right turnblocks traffic

NO NO

Table 3.1 Geometric Measurements of The Street (major arm opposite Grove Road) – Existing

Situation








(metres)



0.0 0.0


3.0 3.2

Visibility 86 86


NO NO

Table 3.2 Geometric Measurements of The Street (major arm opposite Woodfield Lane) –

Existing Situation




(metres)

Lane 1 width 3.17 2.5


Visibility to left 19 15

Visibility to right 16 15Table 3.3 Geometric Measurements of Grove Road (minor arm) – Existing Situation



Measurements Observed

on Site by MTP(metres)




Visibility to right 25 15Table 3.4 Geometric Measurements of Woodfield Lane (minor arm) – Existing Situation

3.33 There are many discrepancies between the geometric measurements used within the

PICADY assessment and those measured on site by MTP. It is noted that in the

majority of cases where discrepancies occur that the measurements included within

the PICADY assessment overestimate lane widths and available visibility. As such the

capacity assessment is flawed and is likely to overestimate the capacity of the

junction. It is considered that the geometry of the existing junction needs to be

revisited and remodelled using software that can model the characteristics of the

junction.

3.34 Paragraph 6.2.13 of the Transport Assessment states that the junction improvement

proposal results in an increase in capacity, which is a result of increased lane widths.

Section 6.3 of the report concludes that “the proposed modification to The

Street/Woodfield Lane junction will ensure that this junction can cater for future traffic

conditions. Most importantly, however, the junction improvement proposed offers

benefits to drivers and an enhanced pedestrian crossing facility for Woodfield Lane”.





3.35 MTP have undertaken a review of drawing number 17186-OS-001, produced by Colin

Buchanan, showing the proposed junction improvements. Tables 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8

provide a comparison of the geometric measurements used within the Transport

Assessment for ‘with junction improvement’ scenarios against those measured by MTP

directly from drawing number 17186-OS-001.




(metres)



0.0 0.0


2.7 2.7

Visibility 180 180


NO NO

Table 3.5 Geometric Measurements of The Street (major arm opposite Grove Road) – WithJunction Improvements




(metres)



0.0 0.0


3.0 2.8

Visibility 86 86

Major road right turnblocks traffic NO NO

Table 3.6 Geometric Measurements of The Street (major arm opposite Woodfield Lane) – With

Junction Improvements




(metres)




Visibility to right 16 15Table 3.7 Geometric Measurements of Grove Road (minor arm) – With Junction Improvements




(metres)




Visibility to right 26 26Table 3.8 Geometric Measurements of Woodfield Lane (minor arm) – With Junction

Improvements

3.36 Similarly, there are discrepancies between the geometric measurements used within

the assessments undertaken by Colin Buchanan for ‘with junction improvement’

scenarios and those measured by MTP from drawing number 17186-OS-001.





3.37 In particular, MTP have undertaken a review of the effective carriageway width at

Woodfield Lane on approach to its junction with The Street, with and without the

proposed junction improvements. Table 3.9 sets out the total effective width (inside

and outside lanes) at 5 metre intervals over a distance of 20 metres.

Total effective widthat Woodfield Lane


(metres)

Measured by MTP withreference to drawing

number 17186-OS-001

(metres)

Give-way 11 11

5 metre set back 5.6 5.7

10 metre set back 5.6 4.6

15 metre set back 5.6 4

20 metre set back 4 4Table 3.9 Total Lane Width at Woodfield Lane on approach to its junction with The Street

3.38 Table 3.9 suggests that at 5 metres back from the give-way line a marginal increase in

the width of the carriageway at Woodfield Lane on approach to its junction with TheStreet is proposed. However, beyond this point the proposed effective width is less

than the existing situation.

3.39 Whilst the proposals may provide a pedestrian crossing facility the implementation of a

pedestrian island and raised table reduces the overall effective width of the

carriageway, as shown in Table 3.9.

3.40 Furthermore, the introduction of formal pedestrian activity at the junction would

interfere with the free flow of traffic and overall operation of the junction.

3.41 In summary it is considered that the use of PICADY to assess the operation of the

Woodfield Lane / The Street (A24) junction is inappropriate and the PICADY

assessment that has been carried out is flawed. Additionally it appears that incorrect

geometries have been used within the PICADY assessment and the results of the base

scenario have not been verified with on-site conditions. As such it is concluded that

the PICADY analysis cannot be relied on and the applicant has failed to demonstrate

that the Woodfield Lane / The Street (A24) junction can satisfactorily accommodate

the additional traffic associated with the appeal proposal.





Servicing and Road Safety

Servicing

3.42 The Transport Assessment states that it is proposed for the servicing area to be

located at the rear of the proposed store. Service vehicles will enter from the existing

car park access on The Street (A24) and exit along the private access that runs along

the eastern boundary of the site and then back out onto The Street (A24). Swept path

analysis for an articulated vehicle (16.5 metres) is included within the 2009 Transport

Assessment (at Appendix A). However, this drawing shows the vehicle travelling on

the car park access road and then onto the private access that runs along the eastern

boundary of the site. Swept path analysis to demonstrate the manoeuvrability of the

vehicle departing at the junction of the private access and The Street (A24) has not

been included within the 2009 Transport Assessment.

3.43 The 2008 Transport Assessment included swept analysis for a 16.5 metre articulated

vehicle departing the site at the private access. Drawing number 12.3 revision A, a

copy of which is provided at Appendix D of this statement, demonstrates that there is

insufficient area to satisfactory accommodate an articulated vehicle leaving the site at

The Street (A24) in a southbound direction.

3.44 Drawing 12.3 shows that a departing articulated vehicle would encroach on the public

footway whilst travelling extremely close to the adjacent building and vehicles parked

on the southern side of the carriageway on The Street (A24). The trailer of the vehicle

appears to be dragged over circa 7.0 metres of the adjacent footway where

pedestrians are likely to be waiting for the service vehicle to depart. This is a very

serious safety flaw particularly with regard to the High Street location and the

incidence of pedestrian PIA’s that have been identified within Section 2 of this

statement. Clearly the consequences and severity of PIA’s between HGV’s and

pedestrians is of grave concern and appears to have been overlooked.

3.45 No assessment has been included of a 16.5 metre articulated vehicle turning left out of

the private site access onto The Street (A24). MTP has carried out swept path analysisof this turning movement and drawing number 100524-TK01, attached as Appendix

E, demonstrates the swept path of an articulated vehicle carrying out this manoeuvre.





3.46 It can be seen from drawing 100524-TK01 that a 16.5 metre articulated vehicle

departing the site cannot do so without using the whole width of the carriageway (i.e.

involving southbound vehicles to wait when necessary) as well as areas of the

carriageway that are designated for on-street parking. The swept path analysis that

has been carried out results in a vehicle having to manoeuvre extremely close to the

adjacent building that runs alongside the north east boundary of the narrow private

access. It is understood that this private access will also provide pedestrian access to

the flats above the proposed Tesco store as well as flats that are proposed above the

neighbouring property. This results in additional conflict between HGV’s and

pedestrians within the confines of this narrow access where physical obstructions exist

either side of the access. Again this has serious safety consequences in respect to the

safe use of this access by pedestrians.

3.47 On the basis of the above, and having regard to the PIA record, it is considered that

the appeal proposal has not been provided with adequate servicing arrangements and

the consequences of allowing the appeal proposal, in its current form, would be to

prejudice road safety on the neighbouring highway.

Junction improvements at the Woodfield Lane / The Street (A24) junction

3.48 It is claimed that the Woodfield Lane / The Street (A24) junction would be subject to

improvements that offer safety benefits to drivers and an enhanced pedestrian

crossing facility for Woodfield Lane. These improvements have been commented on

below.

3.49 It is recognised that one of the main shortfalls of the existing junction is the restricted

visibility splay that is available in the leading direction. It is alleged (as annotated on

Drawing 17186-OS-001 produced by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited) that

visibility in this direction will be improved to achieve a sight line of 2.4 metres by 30

metres. It is unclear how this improvement will be achieved as any alterations to kerb

lines appear to be limited. Furthermore from drawing 17186-OS-011, and from on site

observations, it appears that a 30 metre sight line cannot be achieved and that the

‘improved’ sight line in this direction would only be circa 2.4 metres by 28 metres.

This compares to an established sight line of circa 22 metres.

3.50 It is considered that a sight line of 28 metres (or indeed 30 metres) represents a

significant shortfall, in terms of visibility, when judged against guidance contained

within Manual for Streets or the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

3.51 In reviewing the proposed junction improvements it is also noted that the pedestrian /

vehicle intervisibility splay (to the east side of Woodfield Lane) of 19 metres appears

to pass through the corner of the existing building. It is observed that sight lines for

pedestrian crossing Woodfield Lane are restricted by this building and results inadditional safety concerns for pedestrians crossing at the proposed crossing point.





3.52 It is concluded that the appeal proposals will result in a material increase in traffic

departing via Woodfield Lane to gain access to The Street (A24). It is contended that

the increase in traffic is likely to be materially higher than that demonstrated within

the 2009 Transport Assessment. I conclude that the appeal proposals will result in a

material increase in traffic via a substandard junction, which will prejudice road safety

and the free flow of traffic on the neighbouring highway.





4.0 Summary

4.1 MTP has been appointed by Ashtead Resident’s Association in conjunction with Save

Ashtead’s Village Environment (S.A.V.E), in respect of the appeal by Tesco Stores

Limited against the decision, by Mole Valley District Council, to refuse planning

application MO/2009/1322. The planning application was refused on the 10th

November 2009 and the appeal is to be determined by way of a Public Inquiry.

4.2 This statement assesses the supporting documentation produced on behalf of Tesco

Stores Limited by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. This statement provides an

assessment of Trip Attraction; Trip Distribution; PICADY Analysis; and Road Safety and

Servicing Arrangements.

4.3 Having carried out this assessment it is concluded that:

► The Personal Injury Accident (PIA) record demonstrates a high incidence of PIA’s

at or within the vicinity of The Street (A24) / Grove Road / Woodfield Lane /

Rectory Lane junction and the high incidence of pedestrian PIA’s;

► The number and severity of pedestrian PIA’s is of particular concern and the

appeal proposal should pay particular regard to enhancing pedestrian safety and

the impact of additional vehicular trips using the problematic junction at The

Street (A24) /Grove Road / Woodfield Lane / Rectory Lane;

► By using average trip rates derived from non-comparable sites the appellant has

failed to take into account guidance contained within the TRICS Good Practice

Guide 2010;

► By using 50th percentile trips rates the Applicant has failed to take into account

the Department for Transports’ ‘Guidance on Transport Assessments’;

► The GFA of smaller foodstores is not directly proportional to the number of

vehicle trips. As such a reduction in GFA from that proposed as part of the 2008

planning application is unlikely to result in a reduction of customer trips on a

pro-rata basis as has been claimed within the 2009 Transport Assessment;

► The traffic impact of the appeal proposals have been underestimated, which has

a material knock on effects when considering matters of highway capacity, road

safety and- car parking accumulation;

► As a result of the flawed trip analysis and flawed traffic distribution the appellant

has failed to demonstrate that The Street (A24) / Woodfield Lane junction can

satisfactorily accommodate the traffic impact of the appeal proposals;





► The use of PICADY to assess the operation of the Woodfield Lane / The Street

(A24) junction is inappropriate and the PICADY assessment that has been

carried out is flawed;

► Incorrect geometries have been used within the PICADY assessment and the

results of the base scenario appear not to have been verified with on-site

conditions. As such it is concluded that the PICADY analysis cannot be relied on

and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Woodfield Lane / The Street

(A24) junction can satisfactorily accommodate the additional traffic associated

with the appeal proposal;

► the appeal proposal has not been provided with adequate servicing

arrangements and the consequences of allowing the appeal proposal, in its

current form, would be to prejudice road safety on the neighbouring highway;

and

► The appeal proposals will result in a material increase in traffic via a substandard

junction, which will prejudice road safety and the free flow of traffic on the

neighbouring highway.

4.4 It is concluded that the applicant has failed to quantify the traffic impact of the appeal

proposals; has failed to demonstrate that the appeal proposals would not lead to a

significant increase in traffic at the substandard junction of Woodfield Lane and The

Street, where sight lines in the leading traffic direction are severely restricted; and,

has failed to demonstrate that the increased traffic movement as a result of the appeal

proposals would not lead to conditions prejudicial to the safety and free flow of traffic

on the neighbouring highway. As such I respectfully request that the appeal be

dismissed.



Appendix A



SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL SAFETY ENGINEERING TEAM Page 1

ACCIDENT REPORT FOR PERIOD : 1/1/2005 TO 28/02/2010 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________Menu Selection: Accidents in Query Site-2003

Criteria: All Accidents LOCATION: Area around The Street, Ashstead - ASASHT SITE REF: DJB/MOT/ASH

______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACCIDENT DATE ROAD LOCATION ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONREF. NO. DAY/TIME NO.______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO85253/06 09/05/2006 A24 A24 THE STREET ASHTEAD - INJURED PARTY WAS WALKING ALONG

Tuesday OUTSIDE SHELL PETROL FOOTPATH FROM ASHTEAD TOWARDS1400 STATION LEATHERHEAD. HAS STEPPED INTO PATH

GRID REF: 518658 158102 OF V1 WITHOUT LOOKING JCT TYPE: ~Not at jct(or 20m from)JCT CONTROL:SPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: LIGHT-Street lights presentR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~None

SPEC COND: ~None

VEHICLES: CASUALTIES: Type Manoeuvres Dir Impact Skid Dr

Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Going ahead left hand bend E-W Front N 35 Ped S Slight F 15______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO92126/06 03/10/2006 A24 A24 THE STREET ASHTEAD - V2 TRAVELLING NORTHEAST ON A24. V1

Tuesday 60 METRES EAST OF J/W TRAVELLING IN SAME DIRECTION1330 WOODFIELD LANE OVERTAKING V2. AS V1 PASSED V2 ITS

GRID REF: 518661 158102 TRAILER HIT V2 CAUSING RIDER TOFALL OFF.

JCT TYPE: ~Not at jct(or 20m from)JCT CONTROL:SPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: LIGHT-No Street lightsR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~NoneSPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age LGV Going ahead other SW-NE O/side N 62P/C Going ahead other SW-NE Front N 72 Drv Slight M 72______________________________________________________________________________________________________

ACCIDENT selected where: TRUE 10/06/2010






______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACCIDENT DATE ROAD LOCATION ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONREF. NO. DAY/TIME NO.______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO40302/09 19/06/2009 A24 A24 THE STREET ASHTEAD - PEDESTRIAN CASUALTY HAS STEPPED OUT

Friday OPPOSITE THE BUS BEHIND STATIONARY BUS AND BEEN HIT0935 STOP(GRID EST) BY V1. CASUALTY HAS SUSTAINED A

GRID REF: 518742 158173 BROKEN WRIST. DAUGHTER OF CASUALTYHAS SAID THE DRIVER OF V1 WAS NOT

JCT TYPE: ~Not at jct(or 20m from) TO BLAME - CASUALTY HAS BEEN TOLDJCT CONTROL: MANY TIMES TO USE A PROPERSPEED LIMIT: 30 mph CROSSING. SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: LIGHT-Street lights presentR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~None

SPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age LGV Going ahead other W-E Front N 49 Ped Stat Serious M 85______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO00007/07 03/03/2007 A24 A24 THE STREET ASHTEAD - V1 TRAVELLING NORTHEAST ALONG THE

Saturday Jct AT J/W WOODFIELD LANE STREET ASHTEAD. V2 TRAVELLING0059 D2613 SOUTH ALONG WOODFIELD LANE. V2 WAS

GRID REF: 518615 158068 ATTEMPTING TO JOIN THE STREET BUTWAS DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF THE

JCT TYPE: 'T' or Staggered Jct ROAD (DRIVER IS BELGIAN VISITINGJCT CONTROL: Give Way or Uncontrolled COUNTRY) AND HE HAS HIT V1.SPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: DARK-Street lighting UnkR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~NoneSPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Going ahead other SW-NE Front N 36 Drv Slight F 36

Pas Slight F 99Car Going ahead other N-S Front N 27______________________________________________________________________________________________________







______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACCIDENT DATE ROAD LOCATION ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONREF. NO. DAY/TIME NO.______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO11909/07 14/10/2007 A24 A24 THE STREET ASHTEAD - CASUALTY 1 HIT BY UNKNOWN V1. NO

Sunday Jct AT J/W WOODFIELD LANE DETAILS OF V1 KNOWN. NO CCTV AT0100 D2613 LOCATION.

GRID REF: 518614 158067 JCT TYPE: Multiple JunctionJCT CONTROL: Give Way or UncontrolledSPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: DARK-Street lighting UnkR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~None

SPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Going ahead other W-E Front N 99 Ped Stat Slight M 22______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO87078/06 18/06/2006 A24 A24 THE STREET ASHTEAD - V1 HAS STOPPED ON THE STEET ASHTEAD

Sunday 30 METRES SOUTH OF J/W AND DRIVER HAS GOT OUT OF VEHICLE1320 WOODFIELD LANE HAVING VERBAL ALTERCATION WITH

GRID REF: 518600 158063 DRIVER OF V2. DRIVER OF V2 HASTHEN DRIVEN AWAY AND MADE CONTACT

JCT TYPE: ~Not at jct(or 20m from) WITH LEG OF DRIVER 1. DRIVER 2 HASJCT CONTROL: REPORTED INCIDENT AS DRIVER OFSPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SILVER VW PASSAT S810 PGW SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: LIGHT-Street lights presentR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: ~UnknownC/WAY HAZ: ~NoneSPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Going ahead other NW-NE Back N 24 Drv Serious M 24Car Going ahead other NW-NE Front N 99______________________________________________________________________________________________________







______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACCIDENT DATE ROAD LOCATION ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONREF. NO. DAY/TIME NO.______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO63087/05 08/01/2005 A24 A24 THE STREET 30M SOUTH V1 TRAVELLLING NORTHBOUND V2

Saturday OF WOODFIELD ROAD ASHTEAD TRAVELLING SOUTHBOUND ON V20313 APPROACHING A SLIGHT LEFT HAND BEND

GRID REF: 518587 158057 DRIVER HAS LOST CONTROL OF THEVEHICLE DUE TO THE WET CONDITIONS

JCT TYPE: ~Not at jct(or 20m from) CAUSING IT TO SWERVE ONTO THE OPPJCT CONTROL: CARRIAGEWAY INTO THE PATH OF V1 ANDSPEED LIMIT: 30 mph COLLIDING WITH IT'S OFFSIDE THIS

HAS PULLED BOTH VEHICLES TO THESITE CONDITIONS: SIDE OF THE ROAD. LIGHT: DARK-Street Lighting -LITR.S.C.: Wet/DampWEATHER: Raining with High WindsC/WAY HAZ: ~None

SPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Going ahead other SW-NE O/side Y 54 Drv Slight F 54Car Going ahead left hand bend NE-SW O/side N 19 Drv Slight M 19______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO75971/05 03/11/2005 A24 THE STREET ASHTEAD THE AGGRIEVED WAS TRAVELLING IN HIS

Thursday VEHICLE V1 ALONG THE STREET IN1550 ASHTEAD. V1 HAS JUST COME OVER THE

GRID REF: 518510 157997 BROW OF A HILL WHEN HE HAS SEEN V2

ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROADJCT TYPE: ~Not at jct(or 20m from) BEGIN TO ATTEMPT A U TURN. V1JCT CONTROL: BREAKED AND TOOTED HIS HORN BUT HITSPEED LIMIT: 30 mph THE N/S OF V2. SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: LIGHT-Lighting UnkR.S.C.: Wet/DampWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~NoneSPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Going ahead other E-SW Front N 43 Drv Slight M 43Car U Turn SW-E N/side N 81______________________________________________________________________________________________________







______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACCIDENT DATE ROAD LOCATION ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONREF. NO. DAY/TIME NO.______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO79353/06 12/01/2006 A24 A24 THE STREET ASHTEAD 85 VEH 1 WAS HEADING N/E DIRECTION ON

Thursday METRES S/W OF J/W GROVE THE A24 WHEN VEH 2 PULLED OUT FROM0956 ROAD A PARKED POSITION FACING N/E WHEN

GRID REF: 518557 158044 VEH 1 HIT VEH 2. VEH 2 THENPROCEEDED TO DRIVE FROM THE N/S TO

JCT TYPE: ~Not at jct(or 20m from) THE O/S HITTING THE SHOP PILLAR ONJCT CONTROL: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. VEH 1SPEED LIMIT: 30 mph DID BRAKE WHEN SEEING VEH 2 PULL

OUT VEH 1 LEFT FRICTION MARKS ON 19SITE CONDITIONS: METRES 20. LIGHT: LIGHT-No Street lightsR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~None

SPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Going ahead other S-N O/side Y 42Car U Turn S-E O/side Y 75 Drv Slight F 75______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO92585/06 08/10/2006 A24 A24 THE STREET ASHTEAD V1 AND V2 TRAVELLING NORTH V2

Sunday STARTED TO OVERTAKE V1 AS IT1605 CROSSED ITS PATH

GRID REF: 518542 158040

JCT TYPE: ~Not at jct(or 20m from)JCT CONTROL:SPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: LIGHT-No Street lightsR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~NoneSPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age M/C125-500 Going ahead other S-N Front N 50 Drv Slight M 50Car Going ahead other S-N Back N 20______________________________________________________________________________________________________







______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACCIDENT DATE ROAD LOCATION ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONREF. NO. DAY/TIME NO.______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO67498/05 02/05/2005 A24 A24 THE STREET ASHTEAD AT V1 TRAVELLING ALONG A24 THROUGH

Monday Jct D J/W PARK LANE ASHTEAD TOWARDS EPSOM. V2 ALSO2155 TRAVELLING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

GRID REF: 518807 158226 V1 SLOWED DOWN AND BEGAN PULLINGOVER TO PARKING SPACES ON OFFSIDE

JCT TYPE: 'T' or Staggered Jct OF ROAD. V2 HIT VEHICLE 1 FROMJCT CONTROL: Give Way or Uncontrolled BEHINDSPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: DARK-Street Lighting -LITR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~None

SPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Going ahead other SW-NE Back N 18M/C>500 O/taking moving Veh on o/side SW-NE Front N 28 Drv Slight M 28

Pas Slight F 25______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO11915/07 04/09/2007 A24 EPSOM ROAD ASHTEAD - AT V2 (CYCLIST) HAS COLLIDED WITH V1

Tuesday Jct J/W PARK LANE0847 D2628

GRID REF: 518808 158224 JCT TYPE: Multiple JunctionJCT CONTROL: Give Way or UncontrolledSPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: LIGHT-Street lights presentR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~NoneSPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Going ahead other W-S N/side N 18P/C Going ahead other N-S Front N 65 Drv Slight M 65______________________________________________________________________________________________________







______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACCIDENT DATE ROAD LOCATION ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONREF. NO. DAY/TIME NO.______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO99175/07 15/02/2007 D WOODFIELD LANE ASHTEAD - V1 HAS TURNED LEFT INTO WOODFIELD

Thursday OUTSIDE SUPERFISH"" LANE. DUE TO INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL2013 DRIVER 1 HAS LOST CONTROL OF

GRID REF: 518597 158101 VEHICLE AND HIT V2 AND V3 JCT TYPE: ~Not at jct(or 20m from)JCT CONTROL:SPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: DARK-Street Lighting -LITR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~None

SPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Going ahead other E-N Front N 36 Ped Stat Slight F 99Car Going ahead other W-N Front N 99Car Parked Parked Front N 24______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO64208/05 08/02/2005 D2502 GROVE ROAD ASHTEAD AT J/W V1 HAS BEEN DISTRACTED BY THE

Tuesday Jct A24 THE STREET MOVEMENTS OF OTHER VEHICLES ON THE0945 A24 ROAD AND NOT SEE THE PEDESTRIAN

GRID REF: 518635 158083 CROSSING FROM ONE SIDE OF GROVEROAD TO THE OTHERJCT TYPE: 'T' or Staggered JctJCT CONTROL: Give Way or UncontrolledSPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: LIGHT-Street lights presentR.S.C.: DryWEATHER: Fine (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~NoneSPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Turning Right W-E None N 40 Ped Stat Slight F 74______________________________________________________________________________________________________







______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACCIDENT DATE ROAD LOCATION ACCIDENT DESCRIPTIONREF. NO. DAY/TIME NO.______________________________________________________________________________________________________ MO83438/06 01/04/2006 D2613 WOODFIELD LANE ASHTEAD - V1 WAS TRAVELLING ALONG THE STREET

Saturday Jct D 5 METRES WEST OF J/W THE IN ASHTEAD AND TURNED INTO0835 STREET WOODFIELD LANE. AS HE ENTERED THE

GRID REF: 518608 158073 LANE HE FAILED TO SEE AN ELDERLYLADY IN THE ROAD. HE APPLIED HIS

JCT TYPE: 'T' or Staggered Jct BRAKES BUT COULD NOT STOP IN TIMEJCT CONTROL: Give Way or Uncontrolled AND COLLIDED WITH THE LADYSPEED LIMIT: 30 mph SITE CONDITIONS: LIGHT: LIGHT-No Street lightsR.S.C.: Wet/DampWEATHER: Raining (no high wind)C/WAY HAZ: ~None

SPEC COND: ~None


Age Class Pdir Sev Sex Age Car Turning Left E-W Front N 49 Ped Stat Serious F 59______________________________________________________________________________________________________

TOTAL NO. OF ACCIDENTS FOR PERIOD 1/1/2005 - 28/02/2010 = 15

***** END OF REPORT *****




Appendix B



TRICS 2010(a)v6.5.2 290310 B14.32 (C) 2010 JMP Consultants Ltd on behalf of the TRICS Consortium Tuesday 15/06/10Page 1

OFF-LINE VERSION Motion High Street Guildford Licence No: 734001

TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS:

Land Use : 01 - RETAILCategory : A - FOOD SUPERSTORE

VEHICLES

Selected regions and areas:

03 SOUTH WESTDC DORSET 1 days

Filtering Stage 2 selection:

Parameter: Gross floor areaRange: 2515 to 2515 (units: sqm)

Public Transport Provision:Selection by: Include all surveys

Date Range: 01/01/02 to 26/09/09

Selected survey days:Saturday 1 days

Selected survey types:Manual count 1 daysDirectional ATC Count 0 days

Selected Locations:Edge of Town Centre 1

Selected Location Sub Categories:No Sub Category 1


Use Class:A1 1 days

Population within 1 mile:5,001 to 10,000 1 days

Population within 5 miles:25,001 to 50,000 1 days

Car ownership within 5 miles:1.1 to 1.5 1 days

Petrol filling station:Excluded from count or no filling station 1 daysIncluded in the survey count 0 days

Travel Plan:No 1 days





LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters

1 DC-01-A-17 SAINSBURYS, SHERBORNE DORSETLUDBOURNE ROAD

SHERBORNEEdge of Town Centre

No Sub CategoryTotal Gross floor area: 2515 sqm

Survey date: SATURDAY 25/10/03 Survey Type: MANUAL





TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/A - FOOD SUPERSTORE VEHICLESCalculation factor: 100 sqmBOLD print indicates peak (bu siest) period

ARRIVALS DEPARTURES TOTALSNo. Ave. Trip No. Ave. Trip No. Ave. Trip

Time Range Days GFA Rate Days GFA Rate Days GFA Rate0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00000:00 - 01:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00001:00 - 02:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00002:00 - 03:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00003:00 - 04:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00004:00 - 05:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00005:00 - 06:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00006:00 - 07:001 2515 0.517 1 2515 0.398 1 2515 0.91507:00 - 08:001 2515 2.942 1 2515 1.511 1 2515 4.45308:00 - 09:001 2515 5.288 1 2515 3.141 1 2515 8.42909:00 - 10:001 2515 6.720 1 2515 5.089 1 2515 11.80910:00 - 11:001 2515 8.668 1 2515 6.720 1 2515 15.38811:00 - 12:001 2515 8.390 1 2515 8.429 1 2515 16.81912:00 - 13:00

1 2515 6.123 1 2515 7.197 1 2515 13.32013:00 - 14:001 2515 5.924 1 2515 6.362 1 2515 12.28614:00 - 15:001 2515 5.288 1 2515 6.481 1 2515 11.76915:00 - 16:001 2515 5.726 1 2515 6.083 1 2515 11.80916:00 - 17:001 2515 5.726 1 2515 6.561 1 2515 12.28717:00 - 18:001 2515 3.857 1 2515 5.487 1 2515 9.34418:00 - 19:001 2515 1.710 1 2515 2.744 1 2515 4.45419:00 - 20:001 2515 0.239 1 2515 0.994 1 2515 1.23320:00 - 21:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00021:00 - 22:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00022:00 - 23:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00023:00 - 24:00

Total Rates: 67.118 67.197 134.315

Parameter summary

Trip rate parameter range selected: 2515 - 2515 (units: sqm)Survey date date range: 01/01/02 - 26/09/09Number of weekdays (Monday-Friday): 0Number of Saturdays: 1Number of Sundays: 0Surveys manually removed from selection: 11







VEHICLES


07 YORKSHIRE & NORTH LINCOLNSHIRENY NORTH YORKSHIRE 1 days




Date Range: 01/01/02 to 26/09/09



Selected Locations:Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) 1

Selected Location Sub Categories:No Sub Category 1


Use Class:A1 1 days





Travel Plan:No 1 days






1 NY-01-A-05 SAINSBURY'S, NORTHALLERTON NORTH YORKSHIREHIGH STREET

NORTHALLERTONSuburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)

No Sub CategoryTotal Gross floor area: 2300 sqm









1 2300 9.000 1 2300 7.913 1 2300 16.91313:00 - 14:001 2300 7.478 1 2300 7.130 1 2300 14.60814:00 - 15:001 2300 7.217 1 2300 7.739 1 2300 14.95615:00 - 16:001 2300 7.783 1 2300 8.609 1 2300 16.39216:00 - 17:001 2300 6.565 1 2300 7.130 1 2300 13.69517:00 - 18:001 2300 4.652 1 2300 5.696 1 2300 10.34818:00 - 19:001 2300 2.130 1 2300 2.261 1 2300 4.39119:00 - 20:001 2300 0.609 1 2300 0.957 1 2300 1.56620:00 - 21:001 2300 0.261 1 2300 0.435 1 2300 0.69621:00 - 22:001 2300 0.043 1 2300 0.130 1 2300 0.17322:00 - 23:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00023:00 - 24:00

Total Rates: 80.390 80.435 160.825

Parameter summary








VEHICLES


02 SOUTH EASTWS WEST SUSSEX 1 days




Date Range: 01/01/02 to 26/09/09



Selected Locations:Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) 1

Selected Location Sub Categories: Village 1


Use Class:A1 1 days





Travel Plan:Not Known 1 days






1 WS-01-A-11 SAINSBURYS,NR PULBOROUGH WEST SUSSEXSTANE STREET

NEAR PULBOROUGHNeighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)

VillageTotal Gross floor area: 2094 sqm









1 2094 8.262 1 2094 9.169 1 2094 17.43113:00 - 14:001 2094 4.967 1 2094 6.686 1 2094 11.65314:00 - 15:001 2094 5.683 1 2094 6.399 1 2094 12.08215:00 - 16:001 2094 8.023 1 2094 6.686 1 2094 14.70916:00 - 17:001 2094 7.498 1 2094 7.593 1 2094 15.09117:00 - 18:001 2094 7.975 1 2094 8.309 1 2094 16.28418:00 - 19:001 2094 2.483 1 2094 4.202 1 2094 6.68519:00 - 20:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00020:00 - 21:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00021:00 - 22:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00022:00 - 23:000 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.00023:00 - 24:00

Total Rates: 78.367 77.697 156.064

Parameter summary




Appendix C



As a comparison to the predicted trip rates to the proposed Tesco store in The Street, visit counts

were undertaken to the Tesco store in Craddocks Parade. Two counts were undertaken, one

covering 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Friday, 12 February 2010, which included the weekday peak hour of 5

p.m. to 6 p.m. on a Friday, and the other count was for daytime on Friday 23 April 2010. The figures

are as follows.

Time Period Arrival visits16:00-17:00 135

17:00-18:00 185

Arrivals 12 February 2010

Time Period Arrival visits

08:00-09:00 76

09:00-10:00 92

10:00-11:00 99

11:00-12:00 131

12:00-13:00 125

13:00-14:00 11314:00-15:00 109

15:00-16:00 177

16:00-17:00 181

17:00-18:00 168

18:00-19:00 183

19:00-20:00 137

Arrivals 23 April 2010

The above figures are counts of individuals or groups of people visiting together, and so represent

the number of shopping visits by groups of one or more people. Due to the nature of the parking

arrangements at Craddocks Parade, it is not possible to count the number of car trips being made to

the store.

Tesco state at [reference needed] that 84% of shopping trips will be by car. Therefore, multiplying

the above figures by 84% will give the predicted car trips.

Time Period Car trips

16:00-17:00 113

17:00-18:00 155

Arrivals 12 February 2010


08:00-09:00 64

09:00-10:00 77

10:00-11:00 83

11:00-12:00 110

12:00-13:00 105

13:00-14:00 95

14:00-15:00 92

15:00-16:00 149

16:00-17:00 152

17:00-18:00 14118:00-19:00 154

19:00-20:00 115

Arrivals 23 April 2010



The gross floor area of the Craddocks Parade store is stated as 345m2

in planning application

MO/2006/0298.

For the equivalent hours, Tesco state the following arrival trip rates for the proposed store in The

Street.


08:00-09:00 68

09:00-10:00 99

10:00-11:00 108

11:00-12:00 108

12:00-13:00 113

13:00-14:00 110

14:00-15:00 109

15:00-16:00 104

16:00-17:00 111

17:00-18:00 117

18:00-19:00 11419:00-20:00 95

Application MO/2009/1322


08:00-09:00 104

09:00-10:00 151

10:00-11:00 166

11:00-12:00 165

12:00-13:00 173

13:00-14:00 168

14:00-15:00 16715:00-16:00 159

16:00-17:00 171

17:00-18:00 180

18:00-19:00 174

19:00-20:00 146

Application MO/2008/1172 (Supplementary TA appendices SCC2)

The stated Gross Floor areas are 2177m2

for application MO/2008/1172 and 1368m2

for

MO/2009/1322.

The above figures show that the equivalent car trip rates at Craddocks Parade are approximately thesame as for the MO/2009/1322 during most of the day, but during the peak hours between 15:00

and 19:00, are approximately 35% higher at the Craddocks Parade store compared to the proposed

store.

Using Tesco’s approach of a fixed trip rate per 100m2

of gross floor area, based on the trip rates

observed at Craddocks Parade, the car trips predicted for the MO/2009/1322 store would be as

follows.


08:00-09:00 305

09:00-10:00 370

10:00-11:00 398

11:00-12:00 526



12:00-13:00 502

13:00-14:00 454

14:00-15:00 438

15:00-16:00 711

16:00-17:00 727

17:00-18:00 675

18:00-19:00 735

19:00-20:00 550

Predicted trip rates for MO/2009/1322 based on Craddocks Parade observations



Appendix D





Appendix E



Documents

RO2-Appeal Statement 2010-06-21