dilworth lane, longridge - ribble valley...alex vogt bsc (hons) msc mciht associate 21 january 2015...

DILWORTH LANE, LONGRIDGE

Report: Transport Assessment

Prepared by: Curtins

Date: 21-01-2015

Dilworth Lane, Longridge

Transport Assessment

Curtins Ref: TPMA1178/TA

Revision: Final

Issue Date: 21 January 2015

Client Name: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

S

op

hos

Inte

rn

ati

on

al

Imp

eri

al

Wes

t

STRUCTURES • CIVILS • ENVIRONMENTAL • INFRASTRUCTURE • TRANSPORT PLANNING • SUSTAINABILITY • EXPERT ADVISORY SERVICES Birmingham • Bristol • Cardiff • Douglas • Edinburgh • Kendal • Leeds • Liverpool • London • Manchester • Nottingham

Curtins

Merchant Exchange

17-19 Whitworth Street West

Manchester

TPMA1178/TA Dilworth Lane, Longridge


Rev Final | Copyright © 2015 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page i

Control Sheet

Rev Description Issued by Checked Date

00 Transport Assessment AV TD 21 January 2015

This report has been prepared for the sole benefit, use, and information for the client. The liability of Curtins

with respect to the information contained in the report will not extend to any third party.

Author Signature Date

James Tate BA (Hons) MSc MCIHT Senior Transport Planner

21 January 2015

Reviewed Signature Date

Alex Vogt BSc (Hons) MSc MCIHT Associate

21 January 2015

Authorised Signature Date

Tony Dolan MCIHT CMILT FIHE I.ENG Executive Director

21 January 2015



Rev Final | Copyright © 2015 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page ii

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose of this Report ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Scope of the Report ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Structure of the Report ..................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Site Location and Highway Layout .......................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Site Location ..................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Existing Use ..................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Existing Site Access ......................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Surrounding Highway Network ......................................................................................................... 4

2.5 Highway Safety ................................................................................................................................ 5

2.6 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.0 Transport Planning Policy ....................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 National Planning Policy Framework ............................................................................................... 8

3.3 National Planning Policy Guidance .................................................................................................. 9

3.4 Core Strategy Publication Version 2008-2028 ............................................................................... 10

3.5 Lancashire Local Transport Plan 3 ................................................................................................ 10

3.6 Central Lancashire Highways and Transport (2014) ..................................................................... 11

3.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 12

4.0 Development Proposals ........................................................................................................................ 13

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Vehicular Access ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.3 Sustainable Modes of Travel .......................................................................................................... 14

4.4 Internal Layout ................................................................................................................................ 15

4.5 Parking ........................................................................................................................................... 15



Rev Final | Copyright © 2015 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page iii

4.6 Phasing .......................................................................................................................................... 15

5.0 Accessibility by Sustainable Modes of Travel ....................................................................................... 16

5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 16

5.2 Pedestrian Accessibility ................................................................................................................. 16

5.3 Cycle Accessibility .......................................................................................................................... 18

5.4 Public Transport Accessibility ........................................................................................................ 18

5.5 Accessibility Score ......................................................................................................................... 20

5.6 Accessibility Summary ................................................................................................................... 21

6.0 Traffic Forecasting ................................................................................................................................. 22

6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 22

6.2 Scope of Assessment .................................................................................................................... 22

6.3 Traffic Surveys ............................................................................................................................... 22

6.4 Assessment Years and Traffic Growth........................................................................................... 22

6.5 Committed Development ................................................................................................................ 23

6.6 Proposed Development Traffic Generation .................................................................................... 26

6.7 Proposed Development Traffic Distribution ................................................................................... 27

7.0 Highway Impact ..................................................................................................................................... 28

7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 28

7.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 28

7.3 Interpretation of Model Results ...................................................................................................... 28

7.4 Future Year Scenarios ................................................................................................................... 28

7.5 Site Access Modelling Results ....................................................................................................... 29

7.6 Local Road Network Results .......................................................................................................... 29

7.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 40

8.0 Grimsargh Corridor ................................................................................................................................ 41

8.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 41

8.2 Preston Road Existing Traffic Flows .............................................................................................. 41

8.3 Preston Road Link Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................ 42



Rev Final | Copyright © 2015 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page iv

8.4 Skew Bridge Queue Length Analysis ............................................................................................. 43

8.5 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 44

9.0 Strategic Road Network (SRN) Junctions ............................................................................................. 46

9.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 46

9.2 Percentage Impact Assessment .................................................................................................... 46

9.3 Capacity Assessments ................................................................................................................... 46

9.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 52

10.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 53

10.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 53

10.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 54



Rev Final | Copyright © 2015 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page v

Tables

Table 2.1 – Personal Injury Accident Data Summary ..........................................................................................6

Table 5.1 – CIHT Recommended Walking Distances ....................................................................................... 16

Table 5.2 – School Bus Services from Dilworth Lane ....................................................................................... 18

Table 5.3 – Local Bus Services From King Street ............................................................................................ 19

Table 5.4 – Local Bus Services From Market Place ......................................................................................... 19

Table 5.5 – Local Bus Services From Blackburn Road .................................................................................... 20

Table 6.1 – NTM Growth Factors ...................................................................................................................... 23

Table 6.2 – Development Trip Rates and Trip Generation (220 units) ............................................................. 26

Table 6.3 – Development Trip Rates and Trip Generation (220 units) ............................................................. 27

Table 7.1 – Site Access: ‘Base 2024 + Development’ Scenarios (220 units) ................................................... 29

Table 7.2 – Blackburn Road/Lower Road/Preston Road: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units) .......................... 29

Table 7.3 – Blackburn Road/Lower Road/Preston Road: ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units) ........................ 30

Table 7.4 – Blackburn Road/Lower Lane/Dilworth Lane: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units) .......................... 30

Table 7.5 – Blackburn Road/Lower Lane/Dilworth Lane ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units) .......................... 31

Table 7.6 – Berry Lane/Market Place: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units) ....................................................... 31

Table 7.7 – Berry Lane/Market Place ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units) ....................................................... 32

Table 7.8 – Market Place/Kestor Lane/Fell Brow: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units) ..................................... 32

Table 7.9 – Market Place/Kestor Lane/Fell Brow ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units) ..................................... 33

Table 7.10 – Stonebridge Roundabout: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units) ..................................................... 33

Table 7.11 – Stonebridge Roundabout ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units) .................................................... 34

Table 7.12 – Chapel Hill/Lower Lane: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units) ........................................................ 34

Table 7.13 – Chapel Hill/Lower Lane ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units) ....................................................... 35

Table 7.14 – Preston Road/Chapel Hill: Initial ‘Base 2014’ ............................................................................. 35

Table 7.15 – Preston Road/Chapel Hill: Observed and Modelled Queue Lengths........................................... 36

Table 7.16 – Preston Road/Chapel Hill: Initial ‘Base 2014’ Scenario Modelling Results (220 units) .............. 36

Table 7.17 – Preston Road/Chapel Hill: Observed and Modelled Queue Lengths........................................... 37

Table 7.18 – Preston Road/Chapel Hill ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units) .................................................... 37

Table 7.19 – Bluebell Lane/Longridge Road Roundabout: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units) ........................ 38

Table 7.20 – Bluebell Lane/Longridge Road Roundabout ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units) ....................... 38

Table 7.21 – A59/Ribchester Road: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units) ........................................................... 39

Table 7.22 – A59/Ribchester Road: ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units) ......................................................... 39

Table 8.1 – Preston Road 2014 ATC Results ................................................................................................... 42

Table 8.2 – Former Ridings Depot Preston Road 2012 ATC Results .............................................................. 42

Table 8.3 – Preston Road Existing Link Capacity ............................................................................................. 42

Table 8.4 – Preston Road Link Capacity ........................................................................................................... 43



Rev Final | Copyright © 2015 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page vi

Table 8.5 – Existing Skew Bridge Queue Lengths ............................................................................................ 43

Table 8.6 – Ridings Skew Bridge Queue Length Impact .................................................................................. 44

Table 8.7 – Proposed Development Skew Bridge Queue Length Impact (220 units) ...................................... 44

Table 9.1 – Strategic Road Network: Percentage Impact Assessment (220 units) ......................................... 46

Table 9.2 – M6 Junction 31a: M6 On Slip/Bluebell Lane ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios ............................................. 47

Table 9.3 – M6 Junction 31a: M6 On Slip/Bluebell Lane: Future Year Scenarios (220 units) .......................... 48

Table 9.4 – M6 Junction 31a: M6 Off Slip/Longsands Lane/Fulwood Row ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units) 50

Table 9.5 – M6 Junction 31a: M6 Off Slip/Longsands Lane/Fulwood Row: Future Year Scenarios (220 units)

........................................................................................................................................................................... 51

Plans

Plan 1 – Location Plan (Regional)

Plan 2 – Location Plan (Local)

Plan 3 – Pedestrian Catchment Plan

Plan 4 – Key Services Plan

Plan 5 – Cycle Catchment Plan

Plan 6 – Bus Routes (School Services)

Plan 7 – Bus Routes (Commercial Services)

Drawings

492D 03 – Randall Thorp Illustrative Masterplan

TPMA1178/010E and 011L – Proposed Site Access Arrangements

Traffic Figures

Traffic Figures – All Traffic Figures contained at the rear.

Appendices

Appendix A – Accident Data

Appendix B – Speed Surveys

Appendix C – Accessibility Questionnaire

Appendix D – Distribution Calculations

Appendix E – Modelling Outputs Local Road Network

Appendix F – Modelling Outputs Strategic Road Network



Rev Final | Copyright © 2015 Curtins Consulting Ltd Page 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

This Transport Assessment (TA) has been prepared by Curtins on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd 1.1.1

(“Taylor Wimpey”) in connection with an outline planning application for residential development of up

to 195 dwellings on land to the north of Dilworth Lane, Longridge.

A previous version of this report was originally prepared in support of an outline planning application 1.1.2

(LPA ref. 3/2014/0517) that was submitted to Ribble Valley Borough Council (RVBC) in June 2014.

The application was made for the development of up to 220 dwellings with all matters reserved, save

for access from the adopted highway at land to the north of Dilworth Lane, Longridge.

Following a recommendation for approval by Planning Officers at RVBC, the application for 220 1.1.3

dwellings was heard at RVBCs Planning and Development Committee on 13 November 2014.

Members voted in favour of refusing the application on the grounds that the proposed development

would have unacceptable landscape and visual impact implications.

Taylor Wimpey have revised the scheme by reducing the number of residential units to be delivered to 1.1.4

195 dwellings, increasing the depth of the landscape buffers that surround the site and limiting heights

to 2 storeys. The proposed site area has not altered between the previous application and the revised

scheme and all other aspects of the proposal remain unchanged.

In preparation for the submission of this application, the following revisions have been made to this 1.1.5

document from the version that was submitted in support of the application for 220 dwellings, as

follows:

The TA has been updated to take into account the post submission comments that Lancashire

County Council (LCC) Highways made with regard to the junction modelling contained in the

earlier TA;

The TA includes the latest access drawings that were agreed with Highways Officers at LCC

during post submission discussions in relation to the earlier application; and

The sensitivity test which considered the impact of 260 dwellings has been removed from the

TA.

It should be noted that the analysis within the report still relates to 220 dwellings. It was considered 1.1.6

unnecessary to update the analysis to reflect the reduction in dwellings proposed, as it represents a

scenario which would have a greater, not lesser impact. Therefore, in concluding that the




development of the site for 220 dwellings would be acceptable, it can be concluded with even greater

confidence that 195 dwellings would be acceptable.

In all other respects, the report is consistent with the originally submitted version. 1.1.7

1.2 Purpose of this Report

The TA has been prepared to inform Highways Officers at Lancashire County Council (LCC) and the 1.2.1

Highways Agency (HA) with regard to all traffic and transportation matters associated with the

development.

1.3 Scope of the Report

The information presented in this TA has been prepared following consultation with Highways Officers 1.3.1

at LCC and the Highways Agency.

Scoping discussions with LCC consisted of meetings on the 23rd January, 21st March and the 30th

1.3.2

April 2014. A formal scoping note was submitted on the 11th April and a response was received from

LCC on the 23rd April. This document has addressed all matters raised during scoping, in addition to

comments that were raised during the post submission period that related to the previous planning

application.

Scoping discussions with the HA consisted of email correspondence in March/April 2014 and post 1.3.3

submission discussions in relation to the previous planning application.

Following these discussions it was agreed that the report would include: 1.3.4

A description of the existing highway network surrounding the site;

A summary of the development proposals for the site;

Details regarding the access strategy for the site;

Consideration of relevant transport planning policy;

A review of accessibility by sustainable modes of travel;

A review of highway safety on the network surrounding the site;

An assessment of the level of traffic generation associated with the development proposals

based on TRICS;

An assessment of the highway impact at 11 junctions plus the site access;

Consideration of the B6243 ‘Grimsargh’ corridor between Longridge and the M6 Junction 31A;

and

Consideration of any mitigation measures that would be required.




1.4 Structure of the Report

Following this introduction, Section 2 of the report provides a description of the site location, the 1.4.1

highway network in the vicinity of the site, and a summary of the highway safety record.

Section 3 of the report provides details of the relevant transport planning policy and how the 1.4.2

development proposals accord with this, whilst Section 4 provides details regarding the development

proposals.

Section 5 considers the accessibility of the site by sustainable modes of travel whilst, whilst Section 6 1.4.3

considers traffic generated by the proposed development and other committed development within the

area.

Section 7 contains the results of capacity assessments for the local highway network, whilst Section 8 1.4.4

considers the impact of the development through the village of Grimsargh.

Section 9 considers the highway impact at the M6 Junction 31A, whilst Section 10 contains a 1.4.5

summary of the report and conclusions.




2.0 Site Location and Highway Layout

2.1 Site Location

The application site comprises a parcel of land, measuring 10.02 ha in area. It is situated to the north 2.1.1

of Dilworth Lane and is located immediately adjacent to the eastern extent of the built up area of

Longridge. The extent of the area to which the application relates is shown on the enclosed site

location plans (Plans 1 & 2) and is identified by the redline boundary.

2.2 Existing Use

The application site currently comprises open fields. 2.2.1

2.3 Existing Site Access

There is no existing formal access into the site, with a single gate onto Dilworth Lane providing access 2.3.1

to the fields.

2.4 Surrounding Highway Network

Dilworth Lane B5269

Dilworth Lane borders the site to the south and extends between the junction with Lower Lane to the 2.4.1

east and King Street to the west. Dilworth Lane meets Lower Lane and Blackburn Road at a priority

controlled T-junction. Dilworth Lane meets King Street and Higher Road at a priority controlled T-

junction.

Dilworth Lane is approximately 7m wide with a lit continuous footway on the northern side which 2.4.2

varies between 1.5 and 2m. The road is currently subject to a 30mph speed limit.

A new residential development is currently under construction to the south of the site. The 2.4.3

development, Dilworth Triangle, comprises c. 49 new homes and a new access point onto Dilworth

Lane approximately 280m west of the junction of Dilworth Lane/Lower Lane.

The new access junction for the Dilworth Triangle site comprises a priority controlled T-junction with 2.4.4

Dilworth Lane. As part of the developments S278/S106 works it is understood that there are proposals

to implement two variable messaging speed signs on Dilworth Lane and improve the existing gateway

feature on the approach to Longridge via Blackburn Road. The purpose of these improvements is to

reduce speeds on the corridor and it is envisaged that these measures will be successful.




Blackburn Road B6243

Dilworth Lane becomes Blackburn Road at the priority controlled T-junction with Lower Lane. 2.4.5

Blackburn Road has a carriageway width of between 7-8m with a footway on its northern side which

varies between 1.5 and 2m.

Within the vicinity of the site Blackburn Road is subject to a speed limit of 30mph for a stretch of 2.4.6

approximately 140m to the east of the junction with Lower Lane. At this point the speed limit changes

to the National Speed limit. At the point of the speed limit change there are existing red bar markings

forming a weak gateway treatment on the approach into Longridge.

Lower Lane

Lower Lane extends south from the priority controlled T-junction with Dilworth Lane and Blackburn 2.4.7

Road. Lower Lane has a carriageway width of between 7-8m in width and an existing footway of

between 1.5m and 2m on its southern side.

Lower Lane is subject to 30mph speed limit. 2.4.8

Approximately 1km south of the Lower Lane/Dilworth Lane/Blackburn Road junction, Lower Lane 2.4.9

meets Chapel Hill at a priority controlled T-junction. Chapel Hill continues south towards Preston and

the M6.

King Street

To the west of the site, Dilworth Lane becomes King Street at the priority junction with Higher Road. 2.4.10

King Street is approximately 7-8m wide and is subject to double yellow line parking restrictions. There

are footways on both sides of the carriageway.

Higher Road continues north to residential areas of Longridge and locations such as Chipping and 2.4.11

other outlying areas.

King Street becomes Market Place at the junction with Berry Lane. Berry Lane continues into 2.4.12

Longridge town centre.

2.5 Highway Safety

Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data has been obtained from Lancashire Constabulary for the period 2.5.1

between the 1st February 2009 and the end of January 2014. The study area covers the following

locations:-

The Dilworth Lane/Blackburn Road/Lower Lane junction;

Dilworth Lane within the vicinity of the site;




Blackburn Road within the vicinity of the site;

The Blackburn Road/Lower Road junction; and

King Street and Market Place.

There were 8 collisions within the study area over the most recent five year period, in which a total of 2.5.2

7 slight injuries and 1 serious injury occurred. A summary can be seen in Table 2.1 below.

Location Slight Serious Fatal Total

Dilworth Lane/Lower Lane/Blackburn Road Junction 1 1 - 2

Lower Lane 2 - - 2

Lower Lane/Chapel Hill 1 - - 1

Market Place 3 - - 3

King Street 0 - - 0

Total 7 1 - 8

Table 2.1 – Personal Injury Accident Data Summary

An analysis of the accident data has been undertaken and this is described below. 2.5.3

Dilworth Lane/Blackburn Road/Lower Lane Junction

There have been two reported PIA’s at the above junction within the vicinity of the site. The serious 2.5.4

accident occurred in June 2010 and the slight occurred in June 2009.

The serious collision occurred when a vehicle failed to obey give way markings at the junction. 2.5.5

Lower Lane

There has been two recorded PIA on Lower Lane. One occurred at the priority junction with Risedale 2.5.6

Drive and one just to the south of the junction with Highfield Drive.

The PIA at Risedale Drive was slight in nature and occurred when a vehicle turned right in front of 2.5.7

another.

The serious PIA to the south of Highfield Drive occurred in the early morning when a passenger 2.5.8

jumped out of a taxi.

Lower Lane/Chapel Hill

There has been one recorded PIA at the Lower Lane/Chapel Hill junction. This incident was recorded 2.5.9

as slight in nature.




Market Place

There have been 3 reported PIA’s on Kings Street and Market Place. Two of these incidents occurred 2.5.10

at the junction with Berry Lane and one at the junction with Fell Brow. All of these incidents were slight

in nature.

2.6 Summary

In summary, no significant correlations have been identified to suggest that highway condition, layout 2.6.1

or design were significant contributory factors in any of the collisions within the study area.

Furthermore, the frequency and severity of the accidents is not considered to be unusual and could be

considered as good when compared to accident records at other locations in Lancashire.




3.0 Transport Planning Policy

3.1 Introduction

This section of the report sets out the key national and local traffic and transport policies that are 3.1.1

relevant to this application. Later sections of the report demonstrate how the proposals accord with

these policies.

3.2 National Planning Policy Framework

The NPPF sets out national transport planning policy and from the outset the Minister for Planning’s 3.2.1

Foreword lays the foundations for the policy rationale;

‘The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development….

Development means growth. We must accommodate the new ways by which we will earn our living in

a competitive world. We must house a rising population, which is living longer and wants to make

new choices. We must respond to the changes that new technologies offer us. Our lives, and the

places in which we live them, can be better, but they will certainly be worse if things stagnate.’

Paragraph 14 states that at the heart of NPPF is: 3.2.2

‘A presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread

running through both plan making and decision making.’

For decision making a presumption in favour of sustainable development means granting permission: 3.2.3

‘Unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,

when assessed against the policies.’

In respect of supporting traffic and transportation documentation, Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states 3.2.4

that:

“All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport

Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature

and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;




Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the

significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on

transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

Paragraph 35 of the NPPF states that plans for new development should: 3.2.5

“protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of

goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to;

Accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;

Give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public

transport facilities;

Create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or

pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones;

Incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and

Consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.”

Paragraph 36 of the NPPF states: 3.2.6

“All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a

Travel Plan.”

This TA has been accompanied by an Interim Travel Plan which provides a commitment to produce a 3.2.7

full Travel Plan upon occupation of the completed development.

3.3 National Planning Policy Guidance

The Government has recently produced the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) to 3.3.1

supplement the NPPF. Within the PPG, there is a specific section clarifying the over-arching

principles on Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Transport Statements. There are also

sections advising further on each of the three discussed documents.

The guidance on Transport Assessments and Statements re-iterates the circumstances in which 3.3.2

either document would usually be required. It is clear that a development of the size and nature of

this development requires a full Transport Assessment. It also clarifies the process for establishing a

scope for the assessment, and what the document should contain. The NPPG has been considered in

the production of this TA.




The guidance on Travel Plans reinforces the requirement for a Travel Plan, the scope of the 3.3.3

document, and need for monitoring to continue the strategy into the future. The NPPG has been

considered in the production of the accompanying Interim Travel Plan.

3.4 Core Strategy Publication Version 2008-2028

From a traffic and transport perspective the Core Strategy includes two key statements. Key 3.4.1

Statement DMI2: Transport Considerations states that:

‘New development should be located to minimise the need to travel. Also it should incorporate good

access by foot and cycle and have convenient links to public transport to reduce the need for travel by

private car. In general, schemes offering opportunities for more sustainable means of transport and

sustainable travel improvements will be supported. Sites for potential future railway stations at

Chatburn and Gisburn will be protected from inappropriate development. Major applications should

always be accompanied by a comprehensive travel plan.’

Key Statement DMG3: Transport and Mobility states that: 3.4.2

‘In making decisions on development proposals the Local Planning Authority will, in addition to

assessing proposals within the context of the development strategy, attach considerable weight to:

The availability and adequacy of public transport and associated infrastructure to serve those moving

to and from the development –

The relationship of the site to the primary route network and the strategic road network;

The provision made for access to the development by pedestrians, cyclists and those with

reduced mobility;

Proposals which promote development in existing developed areas or extensions to them at

locations which are highly accessible by means other than the private car;

Proposals which strengthen existing town and village centres which offer a range of everyday

community shopping and employment opportunities by protecting and enhancing their vitality

and viability; and

Proposals which locate development in areas which maintain and improve choice for people

to walk, cycle or catch public transport rather than drive between homes and facilities which

they need to visit regularly…..’

3.5 Lancashire Local Transport Plan 3

The Lancashire Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP) presents transportation priorities for ten years from 2011 3.5.1

to 2021. It sets out a strategy which pledges to support the Lancashire economy, tackle deep-seated




inequalities in people's life chances and to revitalise communities by providing safe high-quality

neighbourhoods.

The LTP sets out the following ‘Priorities and Activities: 3.5.2

Improving Access into Areas of Economic Growth and Regeneration;

Providing Better Access to Education and Employment;

Improving People's Quality of Life and Wellbeing;

Improving the Safety of our Streets for our most Vulnerable Residents;

Providing Safe, Reliable, Convenient and Affordable Transport Alternatives to the Car;

Maintaining our Assets; and

Reducing Carbon Emissions and its Effects.

It is considered that the development proposals accord well with the priorities set out in the LTP, 3.5.3

particularly with regard to improving access and connectivity to key facilities.

3.6 Central Lancashire Highways and Transport (2014)

The Highways and Transport Masterplan for Central Lancashire is the County Council’s vision for 3.6.1

developing the transport network in South Ribble, Preston and Chorley over the next 15 years. Whilst

the document does not cover the Longridge area there are improvements proposed that are relevant

to this application.

The key improvement in relation to this application are the proposals to improve M55 Junction 1 and 3.6.2

the Broughton Bypass. According to the CLHTM, the M55 Junction 1 and Broughton Bypass

improvements would achieve the following:

Significant reduction in delay to, and so improved journey reliability for, traffic using the

Broughton junction;

A marked reduction in the amount of queuing traffic in the village, along all current approaches

to the Broughton crossroads and with it an improvement in air quality and noise levels;

Improved access and safety for vulnerable users in the village; and

Additional facilities to promote more walking and cycling in the village.

In respect of delivery of the CLHTM, the Preston and Lancashire City Deal has been approved by the 3.6.3

government, and will result in a total of approximately £434m of funding to support economic

development and housing sites within the City Deal area. This provides certainty that the infrastructure

improvements can be funded and will be delivered.




Whilst the traffic associated with the proposed development travelling through the Broughton 3.6.4

crossroads and M55 Junction 1 is envisaged to be minimal, it is worth noting that there is an identified

improvement scheme to improve the route and parts of this are already being implemented.

3.7 Summary

The key theme of sustainability is considered further in Section 5 of this report. With regard to highway 3.7.1

impact the results contained in Sections 7-9 demonstrate that the impact could not be classed as

severe.




4.0 Development Proposals

4.1 Introduction

The proposals for land to the north of Dilworth Lane comprise a residential development of up to 195 4.1.1

units with associated access, parking, landscaping and amenity space. The planning application will

be submitted in outline and an indicative layout of the development is shown on the Illustrative

Masterplan included as drawing 492D 03 to the rear of this report.

This section of the report provides information regarding the development proposals and should be 4.1.2

read in conjunction with the Design and Access Statement prepared by Randall Thorp.

4.2 Vehicular Access

In determining the location and form of the site access Curtins has liaised extensively with Highways 4.2.1

Officers at LCC and residents at a public consultation event that was held in April 2014.

As a result of the above discussions, it is proposed that a new priority controlled access will be 4.2.2

provided on Blackburn Road to the south east of the site, as shown on Drawing Number

TPMA1178/011L.

The location of the access has been chosen to minimise the traffic impact on existing residential 4.2.3

properties and Longridge town centre. The proposed location is situated well away from existing

development on Dilworth Lane and it is envisaged that a significant proportion of the development

traffic will arrive and depart the site via Lower Lane rather than Dilworth Lane and via the town centre.

As Blackburn Road has a speed limit of 30mph, is not part of the trunk road network and will become 4.2.4

an active residential frontage once the development is complete, the design of the access is based on

guidance contained in Manual for Streets 1 and 2. On this basis a 6m carriageway is provided with 2m

footways on both sides.

To determine appropriate visibility splays, speed surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the 4.2.5

proposed site access in August 2013. The results indicate wet weather 85th percentile speeds of

37mph in a westbound direction and 38mph in an eastbound direction. These speeds are potentially

higher than expected for a 30mph road, but this is due to the survey location which was in close

proximity to the point where the speed limit changes from 30mph to 60mph.

Speed surveys undertaken on Dilworth Lane in 2014, further to the west of the speed limit change, 4.2.6

indicate significantly slower 85th percentile speeds in the region of 33mph for both westbound and

eastbound traffic. All speed surveys are contained in Appendix B.




To achieve speeds at the proposed access that are comparable to the remainder of Dilworth Lane, or 4.2.7

even lower, it is proposed that the existing 30mph speed limit is relocated approximately 80m to the

east. New red bar markings, a 30 mph roundel on red surfacing, gateway signage and minor

narrowing of the carriageway will enforce the change in speed limit. It is also envisaged that the

provision of a new access itself, and the VMS signs that are to be installed as part of the Dilworth

Triangle site, will reduce speeds and ensure greater driver caution.

Whilst post development speeds cannot be determined at this stage it is envisaged that extending the 4.2.8

30mph zone will reduce speeds to a level comparable to Dilworth Lane. However, to ensure

robustness visibility has been determined using 85th percentile speeds of 37mph and as a result

splays of 2.4m x 60m are envisaged. Notwithstanding this it should be noted that visibility significantly

greater than this could be achieved subject to additional hedgerow removal.

A 3.8m wide emergency access is also proposed at the western edge of the site adjacent to Dilworth 4.2.9

Lodge. It is envisaged that this will be bollard protected to prevent general vehicular use, although it

will allow for pedestrian/cycle connectivity. The emergency access is shown on Drawing Number

TPMA1178/010E.

4.3 Sustainable Modes of Travel

The proposed vehicular access point mentioned above will include 2m footways on both sides of the 4.3.1

carriageway. However, as the footpath along Dilworth Lane and Blackburn Road does vary in width

and there is a desire to retain as much hedgerow as possible, a new 2m footway is proposed to the

rear of the existing hedgerow. This footway will extend on an east/west alignment broadly parallel to

the road and will provide regular connections to the highway to allow crossing or access to bus

facilities.

The above footway will connect with Dilworth Lane at the westernmost point of the site where existing 4.3.2

pedestrian infrastructure on the northern side of the carriageway provides a link to the town centre.

To enhance connectivity at the eastern end of the site a new pedestrian crossing facility is proposed 4.3.3

on Blackburn Road to the west of the proposed access. This will provide a connection to a new 2m

footway on the opposite side of the carriageway which will then connect to the existing footway on

Lower Lane.

New footways within the site will connect with the existing bridleway on the eastern boundary which in 4.3.4

turn provides access to PROW No35 and to Higher Lane to the north of the site. A new internal

footway will also connect the site to existing PROW No33 which extends to the north of Spade Mill

Reservoir.




With regard to public transport, two new bus stops are envisaged to maximise benefits associated 4.3.5

with the commercial services that operate along Blackburn Road. Whilst these stops are not strictly

necessary to make the development sustainable they would be beneficial. The eastbound stop is

envisaged at the eastern edge of the site and the westbound stop is envisaged on Lower Lane. Both

stops will be connected to the site via new footway and a pedestrian crossing facility.

4.4 Internal Layout

The planning application is for outline permission with access and therefore all other matters such as 4.4.1

internal layout will be subject to reserved matters applications.

Notwithstanding the above, the internal layout has been developed to a high level and further 4.4.2

information can be found in the Design and Access Statement.

4.5 Parking

Car and cycle parking for the proposed development will be provided in accordance with LCC 4.5.1

standards. This will be considered as part of the reserved matters application.

4.6 Phasing

The proposed development will be market led, but based on information provided by Taylor Wimpey it 4.6.1

is likely to take approximately 5-7 years to be fully built out. This could result in a year of opening of

2020-2022.




5.0 Accessibility by Sustainable Modes of Travel

5.1 Introduction

One of the key elements of national and local planning policy, as detailed in Section 3 of this report, is 5.1.1

to ensure that new developments are located in areas where alternative modes of travel are available.

Developments should not be isolated but located close to complementary land uses. Encouraging the

integration of planning and transport supports the aim of reducing overall travel and use of private car.

The accessibility of the proposed development is considered in this context for the following modes of 5.1.2

travel:

Pedestrian Accessibility;

Cycle Accessibility; and

Public Transport Accessibility.

5.2 Pedestrian Accessibility

Research has indicated that acceptable walking distances depend on a number of factors, including 5.2.1

the quality of the development, the type of amenity offered, the surrounding area, and other local

facilities.

The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) document entitled ‘Providing for 5.2.2

Journeys on Foot’ suggests walking distances which are relevant to this planning application. These

are reproduced in Table 5.1 below.

CIHT Category Town Centres (m) Commuting/School/ Sightseeing (m) Elsewhere (m)

Desirable 200 500 400

Acceptable 400 1,000 800

Preferred Maximum 800 2,000 1,200

Table 5.1 – CIHT Recommended Walking Distances

To assist in summarising the accessibility of the site by foot, an indicative pedestrian catchment plan 5.2.3

has been produced. Plan 003 shows distances of 500m, 1,000m and 2,000m which are termed

‘Desirable’, ‘Acceptable’ and the ‘Preferred Maximum’ by the CIHT for commuting trips and school

trips. However, it is also worth noting that the 2012 National Travel Survey states that 77% of journeys

under a mile are made by foot.




Plan 004 shows the key local services that are broadly located within these catchments. 5.2.4

Parts of the development site are located within 500m of the White Bull and the Corporation Arms 5.2.5

Public Houses, and the eastern edge of Longridge town centre. This part of the town centre includes a

dental surgery, a children’s nursery, some retail opportunities and Longridge Library.

The 1000m catchment taken from the centre of the site extends as far as Calder Avenue in the centre 5.2.6

of Longridge. The catchment includes the facilities mentioned above, plus St Lawrence and St Pauls

C of E Church, banking facilities, take-a-way facilities, retail opportunities, Longridge Church of

England Primary School, a Post Office, a Co-operative foodstore, community facilities and medical

facilities.

The 2,000m pedestrian catchment covers an even larger area of Longridge which includes the 5.2.7

Langtree Community Hospital, Sainsbury’s supermarket, Longridge High School, Saint Cecilia’s

Roman Catholic High School, Barnacre Road Primary School, Saint Wilfrid’s Roman Catholic Primary

School and a wide variety of additional retail, community and leisure facilities.

The above facilities are accessible via a network of existing footways along Blackburn Road, Dilworth 5.2.8

Lane, Lower Lane, King Street and Berry Lane. It is noted that there are numerous changes in

topography on these routes, but this is not considered to be insurmountable for the vast majority of

users.

In addition to the above routes there are also a number of additional routes in the vicinity of the site 5.2.9

which further enhance connectivity and provide leisure opportunities. This includes:

Bridleway No35 along the eastern edge of the site;

Public Right of Way No36 to the north of the site;

Public Right of Way No33 to the north east of the site;

An extensive network of new footways/cycleways through the site including a new east-west

route that could act as an alternative to Dilworth Lane/Blackburn Road; and

A footpath connection through the Dilworth Triangle site onto Lower Lane.

In summary, it is considered that there are a significant number of retail, employment, education, 5.2.10

worship, health and leisure opportunities within walking distance of the proposed development. These

are well connected to existing infrastructure and walking is therefore likely to be an attractive option

for many future residents at the site.




5.3 Cycle Accessibility

To assist in assessing the accessibility of the site by cycle, a 5km cycle catchment from the centre of 5.3.1

the site is shown on Plan 005. The 5km distance equates to a journey time of around 25 minutes,

while cycling at a speed of 12km per hour.

The 5km cycle catchment includes all of Longridge and extends to a number of surrounding areas 5.3.2

including Grimsargh, Whittingham, Goosnargh and Ribchester.

Whilst there are no formal cycle lanes in the vicinity of the site a review of the Sustrans database and 5.3.3

the LCC Maps and Related Information Online (MARIO) database indicates that Dilworth Lane and

Blackburn Road are both designated as on-road cycle routes and form part of the Northern Loop

Cycle Route.

The Northern Loop provides access to local facilities and extends through the centre of Longridge. 5.3.4

However, it also extends to Whalley in the east, Blackpool in the west and Lancaster to the north.

In summary, it is considered that cycling is likely to be a realistic mode of travel for residents wanting 5.3.5

to access Longridge, but also for residents who want to travel further afield as either a commuting or

leisure based trip.

5.4 Public Transport Accessibility

Bus

The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) document, Planning for Public 5.4.1

Transport in Developments recommends that developments should ideally be within 400m of a bus

stop.

A review of the LCC MARIO database indicates that the nearest active bus stops are located on 5.4.2

Dilworth Lane adjacent to Dilworth Lodge. The entire development is within 400m of these stops

which are utilised by 4 school bus services (Mon - Fri). A summary of the services is provided below:

Service Operator Route

Bus Arrival

Times

AM PM

106 Longridge Coaches Wilkingshire to Longridge High School 08:34 15:31

625 Pilkington Buses Billington St Augustines RC High School 08:06 15:58

876 Longridge Coaches Clitheroe Royal Grammar 07:48 16:28

995 Moving People Myerscough College 08:18 17:37

Table 5.2 – School Bus Services from Dilworth Lane




There are numerous other bus stops within the vicinity of the site, the first of which are located on 5.4.3

King Street to the west of the site. These stops are located within 300m of the western boundary of

the site. The stops are utilised by the number 4 which provides an hourly service between Longridge

and Preston as indicated below:

Service Operator Route Frequency

Weekday Saturdays

4 LCC Longridge – Whittingham – Fulwood – Preston 60 Minutes 60 Minutes

Table 5.3 – Local Bus Services From King Street

An additional bus stop is located on Market Place which is approximately 400m from the western edge 5.4.4

of the site and approximately 600m from the centre of the site. Whilst the distance to the bus stop will

exceed 400m for some residents, the stop is served by the number 1 which provides a direct service

between Longridge and Preston every ten minutes.


Weekday Saturdays Sundays

1 Stagecoach Preston – Ribbleton – Grimsargh – Longridge

10 10 30

Table 5.4 – Local Bus Services From Market Place

Guidance contained in the CIHT document, Planning for Public Transport in Developments states that 5.4.5

‘Direct simple bus services are more important than walking distances’ and therefore it is considered

that many residents will be prepared to walk over 400m to access the number 1.

To the east of the site, there are two bus stops on Blackburn Road approximately 200m from the edge 5.4.6

of the site and approximately 500m from the centre of the site . These stops are served by 4 different

services which provide connections to destinations such as Chipping, Longridge town centre,

Clitheroe, Garstang, Ribchester and Blackburn.


Weekday Saturdays

5, 5A,

5B LCC

Chipping – Longridge – Ribchester – Whalley – Clitheroe

30 Minutes AM Peak 60 Minutes PM peak

120 Minutes at all other times

30 Minutes AM Peak 60 Minutes PM peak

120 Minutes at all other times

35 LCC Blackburn – Ribchester




– Longridge – Chipping 60 Minutes AM Peak

120 Minutes at all

other times

60 Minutes AM Peak

120 Minutes at all other

times

Table 5.5 – Local Bus Services From Blackburn Road

To ensure that the site gains maximum benefit from these services two additional bus stops proposed 5.4.7

on Blackburn Road along the site frontage. This would ensure that the entire site would be within

400m of the services.

Plans 6 and 7 at the rear of this report show the routes of the various bus services and the stops that 5.4.8

they utilise in the vicinity of the site.

In summary, it is considered that the site is well served by bus with a total of 4 school bus services 5.4.9

and 6 commercial services within a reasonable walking distance of the site. The introduction of two

additional bus stops on the site frontage will further reduce walking distances and improve the

attractiveness of existing services.

5.5 Accessibility Score

To quantify the accessibility of a particular site, LCC Highways utilise a scoring methodology which is 5.5.1

contained on their website. There is an assessment for residential uses and this has been completed

for the existing site and the site post development. The full results are contained in Appendix C.

The results indicate that the site would currently score 23, with points mainly attributable to the 5.5.2

proximity of the town centre and key facilities such as a public house, Post Office and bank. The site

also scores well in relation to proximity to the cycle network and distance to nearest bus stop.

The results of the post development analysis indicate that the site could score 29 which is classed by 5.5.3

LCC as ‘medium’ accessibility. The increased score is due to the introduction of a children’s play area

within the site and the new bus stops that are envisaged at the eastern edge of the site.

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the LCC accessibility questionnaire underestimates 5.5.4

the accessibility of the site, particularly with regard to the sites proximity to schools and food shops.

For example, developments 600m or more from a primary school, 600m or more from a food store or

1km or more from a secondary school score no points. However, when comparing these distances to

Table 5.1 above, it is clear that these thresholds are well within the acceptable levels as determined

by the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT).




5.6 Accessibility Summary

In summary, it is considered that the site is well located to benefit from existing pedestrian, cycle and 5.6.1

public transport infrastructure in accordance with the key policies referenced in Section 3 of this

report. The existing infrastructure provides access to a wide variety of key facilities and destinations

both in Longridge and further afield.




6.0 Traffic Forecasting

6.1 Introduction

This section of the report details the methodology used to predict the demand associated with the 6.1.1

proposed development and derive future year traffic flows in order to test the impact of the proposed

development.

6.2 Scope of Assessment

During scoping discussions with LCC and the HA it was agreed that the following junctions would 6.2.1

require consideration;

Blackburn Rd/Lower Rd/Preston Road;

Blackburn Rd/Lower Rd/Dilworth Ln;

Lower Ln/Chapel Hill;

Chapel Hill/Preston Rd;

King Street/Berry Lane;

Market Place/Kestor Lane;

Preston Road/Whittingham Road;

B6242/B6243 Longridge Road Roundabout;

A59 Longsight Road/Ribchester Road; and

The two roundabouts that form Junction 31A of the M6 (Highways Agency).

6.3 Traffic Surveys

Traffic surveys were undertaken at 10 of the junctions listed above on Tuesday 18th March 2014. The 6.3.1

A59 Longsight Road/Ribchester Road traffic survey was undertaken on Monday 28th April 2014.

All surveys were undertaken between the hours of 0700 - 0900 and 1600-1800. 6.3.2

Following analysis of the traffic survey data, it was determined that the AM peak period on the 6.3.3

highway network occurred between 07:45 and 08:45, whilst the PM peak occurred between 16:45 and

17:45. These peak hours have been used as the basis for this assessment.

Figures 1 and 2 at the rear of the report show the observed traffic count data. 6.3.4

6.4 Assessment Years and Traffic Growth

It has been agreed with LCC that capacity assessments on the local highway network should be 6.4.1

based on the predicted build out rates and the year of completion. Whilst this is obviously dependent




on market conditions it is envisaged that the site could take between 5-7 years assuming standard

build out rates.

Notwithstanding the above, the Highways Agency has requested an assessment of the strategic 6.4.2

network for 2024 and on this basis all assessments are based on 2024. This represents a very robust

assessment that is potentially several years following completion of the development and

approximately twice that suggested in the DfT Guidance on Transport Assessment.

The observed traffic flows have been factored to the 2024 assessment year by the following methods. 6.4.3

For links and junctions within the Longridge and Grimsargh areas a growth factor has been taken from 6.4.4

the National Traffic Model (NTM) with TEMPRO for the Longridge (main) area. For the junctions within

the vicinity of the M6 Junction 31a factors have been taken from the NTM model for the Preston area.

The resultant growth factors are shown in Table 6.1 below.

Area Base Year Forecast Year AM Peak PM Peak

Longridge (main) 2014 2024 1.134 1.137

Preston 2014 2024 1.152 1.150

Table 6.1 – NTM Growth Factors

The above factors equate to a 13% increase in traffic on all links in Longridge and a 15% increase on 6.4.5

all links in Preston. The factors have been applied to the 2014 Base traffic flows and the resultant

2024 Factored traffic flows are shown in Figures 3 to 4 at the rear of this report.

6.5 Committed Development

In addition to the background growth, LCC requested that the traffic associated with recent committed 6.5.1

developments is considered as part of the 2024 assessment year. Based on a review of recent

planning consents in the vicinity of the site the following committed developments require

consideration:

1. The Former Ridings Depot site (220 Residential Units, B1 Commercial Offices, C2 Residential

Apartments with care and leisure facilities);

2. Mosses Farm, Whittingham Road (78 Residential Units);

3. Grimbledeston Farm, Preston Road (62 Residential Units);

4. Sprout Farm, Preston Road (32 Residential Units);

5. Land at Chapel Hill (52 Residential Units);

6. Dilworth Triangle (49 Residential Units);

7. Former Whittingham Hospital (650 Residential Units & 9,000m2 GFA of B1); and




8. Inglewhite Road Development (190 Unit Residential Development).

Traffic flows associated with the above committed developments have been derived from the 6.5.2

associated Transport Assessments and Statements which accompanied the above planning

applications.

Where traffic flows are not available (for example if the study area does not extend into that adopted 6.5.3

within this TA, or no trip generation data is provided), then a series of assumptions have been made in

terms of traffic generation and distribution. These are summarised below:

Former Ridings Depot

Traffic flows have been taken from the Ashley Helme Associates 2011 Transport Assessment 6.5.4

1242/2/C TA Figure E11. It is understood that these figures were agreed as part of the Ridings Appeal

(ref: APP/N2345/A/12/2169598) Statement of Common Ground with LCC.

Where junctions from the above TA match the study area these flows have been directly transposed 6.5.5

from the flow diagram. For other junctions within this study area the distribution pattern from the

proposed development traffic distribution has been used to assign the traffic.

The resultant Former Ridings Depot committed development traffic flows are shown in Figures 5 and 6.5.6

6.

Mosses Farm, Whittingham Road

Traffic flows have been taken from the PBA May 2012 Transport Assessment R001/rev01 TA Figure 6.5.7

5.8.


from the flow diagrams. For other junctions within this study area the distribution pattern from the


The resultant Mosses Farm committed development traffic flows are shown in Figures 7 and 8. 6.5.9

Grimbledeston Farm, Preston Road

No supporting TA or TS has been located for this site. On this basis the trip generation rates and trip 6.5.10

distribution pattern assumed for the proposed development have been applied to the 62 units

development quanta and assigned to the network.

The resultant Grimbledeston Farm committed development traffic flows are shown in Figures 9 and 6.5.11

10.




Sprout Farm, Preston Road

Trip generation figures have been derived from the PSA Design Transport Statement (Table 4), which 6.5.12

accompanied the planning application. As no traffic distribution pattern has been provided in the TS,

the proposed distribution pattern adopted within this Transport Assessment has been used to assign

the committed development.

The resultant Sprout Farm committed development traffic flows are shown in Figures 11 and 12. 6.5.13

Land at Chapel Hill

No supporting TA or TS has been located for this site. On this basis the trip generation rates and trip 6.5.14

distribution pattern assumed for the proposed development have been applied to the 55 unit

development quanta and assigned to the network.

The resultant Land at Chapel Hill committed development traffic flows are shown in Figures 13 and 6.5.15

14.

Dilworth Triangle

Trip generation figures have been derived from the Singleton Clamp Transport Statement (Doc ref 6.5.16

WB/11033/070211), which accompanied the planning application. As no traffic distribution pattern has

been provided in the TS, the proposed distribution pattern adopted within this Transport Assessment

has been used for this committed development.

The resultant Dilworth Triangle committed development traffic flows are shown in Figures 15 and 16. 6.5.17

Former Whittingham Hospital

Traffic flows have been taken from the Ashley Helme Associates 2011 Transport Assessment 6.5.18

1242/2/C TA Figure E7. It is understood that these figures were agreed as part of the Ridings Appeal

(ref: APP/N2345/A/12/2169598) Statement of Common Ground with LCC.


from the flow diagrams. For other junctions within this study area the distribution pattern from the


The resultant former Whittingham Hospital committed development traffic flows are shown in Figures 6.5.20

17 and 18.

Inglewhite Road Development

A TA was prepared by Ashley Helme Associates in February 2014 to support the application 6.5.21

(06/2014/0248). Curtins has obtained a copy of this report which contains traffic impact figures that

clearly set out the predicted development traffic on the surrounding highway network.




Where the Dilworth Lane TA considers the same junctions as the Inglewhite Road assessment the 6.5.22

traffic flows have been directly extracted from the Inglewhite Road TA. For other junctions that were

not considered within the Inglewhite Road TA, but were considered in the Dilworth Lane TA, the

distribution pattern from the Dilworth Lane traffic distribution has been used to assign the Inglewhite

Road traffic.

The resultant Inglewhite Road committed development traffic flows are shown in Figures 19 and 20. 6.5.23

Committed Development Summary

The committed development traffic flows have been added to the ‘2024 Factored’ traffic flows set out 6.5.24

in Figures 3 and 4 with the resultant ‘2024 Base’ traffic flows shown in Figures 21 and 22.

It should be noted that the methodology of applying TEMPRO growth and also manually adding the 6.5.25

committed development traffic is considered to include a significant degree of “double counting”. It is

highly likely that some of the numerous committed developments are already included within the

TEMPRO planning assumptions.

6.6 Proposed Development Traffic Generation

The trip generation of the proposed development has been discussed with LCC during scoping 6.6.1

discussions. LCC have requested the use of trip generation rates derived from a traffic survey

undertaken at College Close, Longridge on the 31/01/2013. College Close is a cul-de-sac of 47

dwellings.

The resultant trip generation rates and trip generation for the assessed development quanta of 220 6.6.2

units is set out in Table 6.2. It should be noted that the planning application is in support of a

development quanta of 195 units and these figures therefore represent a ‘worst case’.

AM Peak PM Peak

Arrivals Departures Total Arrivals Departures Total

Trip Rate 0.213 0.489 0.702 0.574 0.383 0.957

Trips (220 Units) 47 108 155 126 84 210

Table 6.2 – Development Trip Rates and Trip Generation (220 units)

Table 6.2 demonstrates that the proposed development is anticipated to generate in the region of c. 6.6.3

155 two-way trips in the AM peak and 210 trips in the PM Peak. However, it should be noted that the

PM Peak trip rate in particular is higher than would be expected should the trip rate be extracted from

the TRICS database using a ‘typical’ Transport Assessment methodology, as suggested in the DfT

Guidance on Transport Assessment.




For example, the TRICS database has been interrogated to provide trip rates from equivalent English 6.6.4

Houses Privately Owned sites ranging between 200-350 dwellings. Table 6.3 sets out a comparison

of the trip generation levels using mean and 85th percentile TRICS trip rates with those supplied by

LCC.

AM Peak PM Peak

Arrivals Departures Total Arrivals Departures Total

LCC Trip Rate 0.213 0.489 0.702 0.574 0.383 0.957

TRICS Mean Trip Rate 0.166 0.455 0.611 0.423 0.247 0.7

TRICS 85th Percentile Trip Rate 0.217 0.530 0.747 0.506 0.311 0.817

LCC Trips 47 108 155 126 84 210

TRICS Mean Trips 37 100 137 93 54 147

TRICS 85th Percentile Trips 48 117 165 111 68 179

Table 6.3 – Development Trip Rates and Trip Generation (220 units)

The comparison table demonstrates that the trip rates provided by LCC represent a robust 6.6.5

assessment, with a higher total traffic generation than both TRICS mean and 85th percentile trip rates.

By way of comparison, in the PM Peak the LCC trip rates result in 31 more two-way trips than the 85th

percentile trip rates and 21 additional two-way trips when the AM and PM Peak are combined.

6.7 Proposed Development Traffic Distribution

A trip distribution pattern based upon SWS census data has been derived, using Dilworth as the origin 6.7.1

ward. The distribution pattern has been agreed with LCC. A summary of the distribution and

assignment pattern is included within Appendix D and the resultant turning proportions shown in

Figure 23.

These turning proportions have been applied to the trip generation values shown in Table 6.2 and the 6.7.2

resultant AM and PM Peak Development Traffic flows are subsequently illustrated in Figures 24 and

25.

The development traffic flows have been added to the ‘2024 Base’ traffic flows to form the ‘2024 Base 6.7.3

+ Development’ scenario traffic flows. The resultant figures are set out in Figures 26 and 27.




7.0 Highway Impact

7.1 Introduction

The following section contains the results of capacity assessments at the site access and on the local 7.1.1

highway network. As above, it should be noted that all capacity assessments assume a scenario of

220 dwellings, whereas the planning application is in support of proposals for 195 dwellings.

7.2 Methodology

Each junction was modelled using an industry-standard software package relevant to the junction 7.2.1

type. The priority junctions were modelled using PICADY 5, roundabout junctions using ARCADY 7

and signalised junctions were modelled using LinSig 3.2. All models were constructed using

Ordnance Survey mapping/topographical survey data and on-site observations. Traffic signal timing

data was obtained from Lancashire County Council (TfGM) to inform all LinSig models.

The junction model outputs are included as Appendix E and the results are summarised below. 7.2.2

7.3 Interpretation of Model Results

ARCADY and PICADY results refer to the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) and the queue length 7.3.1

predicted on each arm of the junction. An RFC of 1.00 indicates that the arm in question is operating

at its theoretical capacity, whilst an RFC of 0.85 or less indicates that the arm is operating within its

practical capacity.

LinSig results refer to the Degree of Saturation (DoS) and Mean Maximum Queue (MMQ) predicted in 7.3.2

each lane of the junction. A DoS of 100% indicates that the lane in question is operating at its

theoretical capacity (point of saturation), whilst a DoS of 90% or less indicates that the lane is

operating within its practical capacity.

7.4 Future Year Scenarios

A detailed description of the traffic flows used within these assessments is set out in Section 5. To 7.4.1

summarise, the following traffic flow scenarios are used to ascertain the existing operation of the

junctions assessed and the impact of the proposed development in the future year:-

2014 Base (Figures 1 & 2);

2024 Base (Figures 21 & 22); and

2024 Base + Development (Figures 26 & 27).




7.5 Site Access Modelling Results

Site Access

The proposed site access takes the form of a priority controlled T-junction. The proposed layout is 7.5.1

described in detail within Section 3 and illustrated in drawing TPMA1178_011 Rev L.

The junction has been assessed using PICADY and the results are shown below. 7.5.2

Approach

AM Base 2024+Dev PM Base 2024+Dev

RFC Queue (PCU)

RFC Queue (PCU)

Site Access 0.387 1 0.298 0

Blackburn Road 0.03 0 0.091 0

Table 7.1 – Site Access: ‘Base 2024 + Development’ Scenarios (220 units)

The results clearly indicate that the proposed junction is predicted to comfortably accommodate the 7.5.3

proposed development during each peak period.

7.6 Local Road Network Results

Blackburn Road/Lower Road/Preston Road

Blackburn Road/Lower Road/Preston Road takes the form of a 3-arm priority junction, and has been 7.6.1

assessed using PICADY. Results for each scenario are summarised below.

Approach

AM Obs 2014 PM Obs 2014

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Lower Rd Left 0.002 0 0.005 0

Lower Rd Right 0.336 1 0.286 0

Blackburn Rd 0.012 0 0.005 0

Table 7.2 – Blackburn Road/Lower Road/Preston Road: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units)

The results clearly indicate that the junction currently operates with little or no queuing during each 7.6.2

peak period. The results derived from the queue surveys undertaken on-site indicate that queuing is

relatively minor, therefore it is considered the model used to assess the Blackburn Road/Lower

Road/Preston Road junction is suitable to assess the impact of the proposed development.




Approach

AM Peak PM Peak

2024 Base 2024 Base + Dev 2024 Base 2024 Base + Dev

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Lower Rd Left 0.002 0 0.002 0 0.006 0 0.006 0

Lower Rd Right 0.432 1 0.445 1 0.391 1 0.415 1

Blackburn Rd 0.016 0 0.016 0 0.005 0 0.005 0

Table 7.3 – Blackburn Road/Lower Road/Preston Road: ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units)

The results shown in Table 7.4 clearly indicate that the Blackburn Road/Lower Road/Preston Road 7.6.3

junction is predicted to operate within capacity during each peak period in the 2024 future year both

with and without the proposed development.

Blackburn Road/Lower Lane/Dilworth Lane

Blackburn Road/Lower Lane/Dilworth Lane takes the form of a 3-arm priority junction, and has been 7.6.4

assessed using PICADY. Results for the 2014 Base scenario are summarised below.

Approach


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Lower Ln Left 0.014 0 0.006 0

Lower Ln Right 0.379 1 0.286 0

Dilworth Lane 0.1 0 0.012 0

Table 7.4 – Blackburn Road/Lower Lane/Dilworth Lane: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units)



relatively minor, therefore it is considered the model used to assess the Blackburn Road/Lower

Lane/Dilworth Lane junction is suitable to assess the impact of the proposed development in a future

year.




Table 7.5 sets out the results of the 2024 future year assessments. 7.6.6

Approach

AM Peak PM Peak


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Lower Ln Left 0.04 0 0.046 0 0.019 0 0.024 0

Lower Ln Right 0.517 1 0.601 1 0.39 1 0.586 1

Dilworth Lane 0.02 0 0.022 0 0.037 0 0.039 0

Table 7.5 – Blackburn Road/Lower Lane/Dilworth Lane ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units)

The results clearly indicate that the Blackburn Road/Lower Road/Preston Road junction is predicted to 7.6.7

operate within capacity during each peak period in the 2024 future year both with and without the

proposed development.

Berry Lane/Market Place

Berry Lane/Market Place takes the form of a 3-arm priority junction, and has been assessed using 7.6.8

PICADY. Results for the 2014 Base scenario are summarised below.

Approach


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Berry Ln Left 0.279 0 0.464 1

Berry Ln Right 0.171 0 0.335 0

Market Place 0.603 2 0.339 1

Table 7.6 – Berry Lane/Market Place: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units)



relatively minor, therefore it is considered the model used to assess the Berry Lane/Market Place

junction is suitable to assess the impact of the proposed development in a future year.





Approach

AM Peak PM Peak


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Berry Ln Left 0.369 1 0.379 1 0.622 2 0.663 2

Berry Ln Right 0.224 0 0.229 0 0.469 1 0.499 1

Market Place 0.76 4 0.795 5 0.473 1 0.5 1

Table 7.7 – Berry Lane/Market Place ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units)

The future year assessment results presented in Table 7.7 clearly indicate that the Berry Lane/Market 7.6.11

Place junction is predicted to operate within capacity during each peak period in the 2024 future year

both with and without the proposed development. There are minor increases in queuing shown on the

Market Place and Berry Lane arms as a result of background traffic growth, committed development

and the proposed development.

Market Place/Kestor Lane/Fell Brow

The Market Place/Kestor Lane/Fell Brow junction takes the form of a 3-arm priority junction, and has 7.6.12

been assessed using PICADY. Results for the 2014 Base scenario are summarised below.

Approach


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Fell Brow Left 0.034 0 0.039 0

Fell Brow Right 0.197 0 0.292 0

Kaistor Lane 0.029 0 0.015 0

Table 7.8 – Market Place/Kestor Lane/Fell Brow: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units)

The results indicate that the junction currently operates with no queuing during each peak period. The 7.6.13

results derived from the queue surveys indicate that queuing is relatively minor, therefore it is

considered the model is suitable to assess the impact of the proposed development.





Approach

AM Peak PM Peak


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Fell Brow Left 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.049 0 0.049 0

Fell Brow Right 0.241 0 0.243 0 0.356 1 0.359 1

Kaistor Lane 0.036 0 0.036 0 0.019 0 0.019 0

Table 7.9 – Market Place/Kestor Lane/Fell Brow ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units)

The future year assessment results presented in Table 7.9 clearly indicate that the Market 7.6.15

Place/Kestor Lane/Fell Brow junction is predicted to operate within capacity during each peak period

in the 2024 future year both with and without the proposed development.

Stonebridge Roundabout

The Stonebridge Roundabout junction takes the form of a 4-arm roundabout, and has been assessed 7.6.16

using ARCADY. Results for the 2014 Base scenario are summarised below.

Approach


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Derby Rd 0.47 1 0.42 1

Kestor Lane 0.48 1 0.35 1

Preston Rd (S) 0.46 1 0.62 2

Whittingham Road 0.44 1 0.38 1

Table 7.10 – Stonebridge Roundabout: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units)



relatively minor, therefore it is considered the model used to assess the Market Place/Kestor Lane/Fell

Brow junction is suitable to assess the impact of the proposed development in a future year.





Approach

AM Peak PM Peak


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Derby Rd 0.59 1 0.58 1 0.53 1 0.53 1

Kestor Lane 0.63 2 0.64 2 0.52 1 0.53 1

Preston Rd (S) 0.58 1 0.58 1 0.86 6 0.87 5

Whittingham Road 0.6 1 0.61 1 0.59 1 0.6 1

Table 7.11 – Stonebridge Roundabout ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units)

The future year assessment results presented in Table 7.11 clearly indicate that the Stonebridge 7.6.19

Roundabout junction is predicted to operate within capacity during each peak period in the 2024 future

year both with and without the proposed development.

Chapel Hill/Lower Lane Junction

The Chapel Hill/Lower Lane junction takes the form of a 3-arm priority controlled T-junction, and has 7.6.20

been assessed using PICADY. Results for the 2014 Base scenario are summarised below.

Approach


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Chapel Hill Left 0.015 0 0.027 0

Chapel Hill Right 0.35 1 0.193 0

Lower Lane (N) 0.026 0 0.024 0

Table 7.12 – Chapel Hill/Lower Lane: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units)



relatively minor, therefore it is considered the model used to assess the Chapel Hill/Lower Lane

junction is suitable to assess the impact of the proposed development in a future year.





Approach

AM Peak PM Peak


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Chapel Hill Left 0.017 0 0.018 0 0.031 0 0.032 0

Chapel Hill Right 0.421 1 0.437 1 0.234 0 0.249 0

Lower Lane (N) 0.033 0 0.034 0 0.03 0 0.032 0

Table 7.13 – Chapel Hill/Lower Lane ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units)

The future year assessment results presented in Table 7.13 clearly indicate that the Chapel Hill/Lower 7.6.23

Lane junction is predicted to operate within capacity during each peak period in the 2024 future year

both with and without the proposed development.

Preston Road/Chapel Hill Roundabout Junction

The Preston Road/Chapel Hill junction takes the form of a 3-arm mini-roundabout, and has been 7.6.24

assessed using ARCADY. Initial results for the 2014 Base scenario, modelled using geometry scaled

from OS Base mapping and on-site observations of road markings are summarised below.

Approach


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Preston Rd (N) 0.83 5 0.63 2

Chapel Hill 0.68 2 0.37 1

Preston Rd (S) 0.72 3 0.97 16

Table 7.14 – Preston Road/Chapel Hill: Initial ‘Base 2014’

These initial modelled results indicate that queuing of approximately 16 pcu’s occur in the existing 7.6.25

situation on the Preston Road (S) arm, during the ‘peak’ 15 minute period within the peak hour. This

modelled queue length was compared against queue length observations undertaken on the day of

the traffic survey, which are summarised by arm and time period in Table 7.15 below.

Approach Preston Rd (N) Chapel Hill Preston Rd (S)

Observed Queue

Modelled Queue

Observed Queue

Modelled Queue

Observed Queue

Modelled Queue

2014 AM Peak

07:45-08:00 0 2 3 1 0 1

08:00-08:15 0 4 4 2 0 2

08:15-08:30 0 5 0 2 0 3

08:30-08:45 0 2 0 1 0 1




Approach Preston Rd (N) Chapel Hill Preston Rd (S)

Observed Queue

Modelled Queue

Observed Queue

Modelled Queue

Observed Queue

Modelled Queue

2014 PM Peak

07:45-08:00 1 1 1 0 0 3

08:00-08:15 0 2 0 1 0 12

08:15-08:30 0 2 1 1 0 16

08:30-08:45 0 1 0 0 0 4

Table 7.15 – Preston Road/Chapel Hill: Observed and Modelled Queue Lengths

It is clear from Table 7.15 that the initial ARCADY model severely underestimates capacity of the 7.6.26

junction, when the queue length outputs are compared against observed values. This is especially

prevalent on the Preston Road (N) arm in the AM Peak and the Preston Road (S) arm in the PM

Peak.

This junction was assessed as part of the former Ridings Depot planning application and subsequent 7.6.27

appeal (Ref: APP/N2345/A/12/2169598). The junction was modelled as part of the above

applications, with similar discrepancies between the observed and modelled capacity in the Base

situation.

In the above instance, an approach was taken to adjust the geometry of the model so that the queue 7.6.28

length results broadly ‘match’ the observed situation. For ‘Standard’ roundabouts this is typically

undertaken using an intercept correction value, however, this function is not available for the ‘Mini-

roundabout’ option.

On this basis and to ensure a consistent approach with other committed schemes, the geometry of the 7.6.29

ARCADY model has been amended to reflect the observed conditions. The ‘validated’ ARCADY

model results for the 2014 Base scenario are set out in Table 7.16 and the revised ‘observed and

modelled’ queue length comparison in Table 7.17.

Approach


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Preston Rd (N) 0.58 1 0.44 1

Chapel Hill 0.48 1 0.25 0

Preston Rd (S) 0.35 1 0.47 1

Table 7.16 – Preston Road/Chapel Hill: Initial ‘Base 2014’ Scenario Modelling Results (220 units)




Approach

Preston Rd (N) Chapel Hill Preston Rd (S)

Observed Queue

Modelled Queue

Observed Queue

Modelled Queue

Observed Queue

Modelled Queue

2014 AM Peak

07:45-08:00 0 1 3 1 0 0

08:00-08:15 0 1 4 1 0 1

08:15-08:30 0 1 0 1 0 1

08:30-08:45 0 1 0 1 0 0

2014 PM Peak

07:45-08:00 1 1 1 0 0 1

08:00-08:15 0 1 0 0 0 1

08:15-08:30 0 1 1 0 0 1

08:30-08:45 0 1 0 0 0 1

Table 7.17 – Preston Road/Chapel Hill: Observed and Modelled Queue Lengths

The revised model clearly offers a more valid comparison against existing observed queue lengths 7.6.30

and on this basis represents a more robust model on which to test the impact of the development in

the future year.

Table 7.18 sets out the results of the 2024 future year assessments using the revised model. 7.6.31

Approach

AM Peak PM Peak


RFC Queue (PCU)

RFC Queue (PCU)

RFC Queue (PCU)

RFC Queue (PCU)

Preston Rd (N) 0.82 4 0.84 4 0.62 1 0.65 2

Chapel Hill 0.77 3 0.87 5 0.37 1 0.43 1

Preston Rd (S) 0.44 1 0.46 1 0.62 1 0.5 2

Table 7.18 – Preston Road/Chapel Hill ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units)

The future year assessment results presented in Table 7.18 clearly indicates that the Chapel 7.6.32

Hill/Preston Road junction is predicted to operate within capacity during each peak period in the 2024

future year both with and without the proposed development.




Bluebell Lane/Longridge Road Roundabout

The Bluebell Lane/Longridge Road junction takes the form of a 3-arm roundabout, and has been 7.6.33

assessed using ARCADY. Results for the 2014 Base scenario are summarised below.

Approach


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Longridge Rd (N) 0.71 2 0.62 2

Longridge Rd (S) 0.39 1 0.43 1

Bluebell Lane 0.51 1 0.44 1

Table 7.19 – Bluebell Lane/Longridge Road Roundabout: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units)

The results clearly indicate that the junction currently operates within capacity during each peak 7.6.34

period. The results derived from the queue surveys undertaken on-site indicate that queuing is

relatively minor, with approximately 2 vehicles queuing on the Longridge Road (N) arm in the AM and

PM Peak period. It is considered that the model broadly validates and represents a sound base on

which to assess the impact of the development in the future year.


Approach

AM Peak PM Peak


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Longridge Rd (N) 0.95 14 0.98 22 0.78 3 0.8 4

Longridge Rd (S) 0.51 1 0.52 1 0.58 1 0.61 2

Bluebell Lane 0.63 2 0.64 2 0.57 1 0.6 1

Table 7.20 – Bluebell Lane/Longridge Road Roundabout ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units)

The future year assessment results presented in Table 7.20 demonstrate that the Longridge Rd (N) 7.6.36

arm of the Bluebell Lane/Longridge Road junction is shown to operate close to capacity in the AM

Peak 2024 Scenario, with the addition of background traffic growth and committed development. The

ARCADY results illustrate an RFC of 0.95 and a corresponding queue of 14 pcu’s. With the addition of

the proposed development the RFC increases to 0.98 and the queue to 22 pcu’s.

The results indicate that the development has a marginal impact upon capacity at the junction, with a 7.6.37

small increase in queuing which is only evident in the busiest 15 minute period within the AM Peak

hour. Furthermore, the assessment is very robust and the application of 15% background growth on

all arms, plus committed development equates to several hundred vehicles, which may be an

overestimation.




On the above basis it is not considered that any mitigation is required at this location as a result of the 7.6.38

proposed development.

A59/Ribchester Road

The Bluebell Lane/Longridge Road junction takes the form of a 4-arm signalised junction, and has 7.6.39

been assessed using LINSIG. Results for the 2014 Base scenario are summarised below.

Approach


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Ribchester Rd 71% 9 66% 7

A59 Longsight Road (W)

57% 11 68% 14

Oaks Brow 48% 5 53% 5


74% 17 51% 9

Table 7.21 – A59/Ribchester Road: ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units)

The results clearly indicate that the junction currently operates within capacity during each peak 7.6.40

period. The results derived from the queue surveys undertaken on-site indicate that queuing is

relatively minor. It is considered that the model broadly validates and represents a sound base on

which to assess the impact of the development in the future year.


Approach

AM Peak PM Peak


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Ribchester Rd 85.6% 13 84.2% 13 79.4% 9 77.5% 9


64.3% 13 65.6% 13 78.1% 19 79.7% 20

Oaks Brow 53.9% 6 52.6% 6 63.4% 7 63.0% 7


84.6% 22 86.4% 23 64.2% 11 68.4% 12

Table 7.22 – A59/Ribchester Road: ‘Future Year’ Scenarios (220 units)

The results demonstrate that the development has a minor impact upon the operation of the junction 7.6.42

in the future year, with a very small increase in queuing of 1 vehicle observed in the PM Peak.




7.7 Summary

The above analysis demonstrates that all junctions on the local road network can accommodate the 7.7.1

development traffic and will continue to operate within capacity in a future year of 2024.




8.0 Grimsargh Corridor

8.1 Introduction

Scoping discussions with Lancashire County Council have led to a request to assess the impact of the 8.1.1

development on the ‘Grimsargh Corridor’, which takes the form of Preston Road/Longridge Road

through the village including Skew Bridge.

The assessment of the corridor has been undertaken in the context of the recent Former Ridings 8.1.2

depot appeal (Ref: APP/N2345/A/12/2169598), which included a detailed assessment of the corridor

as part of the Appellants submitted Proof of Evidence.

This evidence demonstrated the following key points in relation to the Grimsargh corridor:- 8.1.3

The Grimsargh Corridor has sufficient geometric parameters to accommodate the observed and

predicted traffic flow;

There are no existing Personal Injury Accident data record concerns in Grimsargh;

Preston Road is currently shown to operate within its link capacity; and

The Former Ridings depot site was shown to have a negligible impact upon levels of queuing at

the Skew Bridge.

The Inspectors appeal decision then stated agreement with the findings of the study, with an extract 8.1.4

from the appeal decision set out below.

Moving to look at the existing conditions on the Grimsargh route along the B6243/B6244 through to

the employment areas north east of Preston and the City Centre itself, the Council advanced very

limited objective evidence. The Appellants addressed the main points raised by local objectors, and

my assessment of existing conditions from a number of runs made between the appeal site and

Preston City Centre largely coincides with their conclusions.

On this basis, an assessment of the existing conditions within Grimsargh have been undertaken and 8.1.5

equivalent analysis to that presented in the Ridings Appeal undertaken in order to assess the impact

of the proposed development at Dilworth Lane upon the operation of the corridor.

8.2 Preston Road Existing Traffic Flows

As part of the traffic surveys described in Section 5, an ATC was implemented on Preston Road 8.2.1

between the 19th-25

th March 2014. A summary of the average weekday peak hour flows are set out

below in Table 8.1.




Time Period Direction

NB SB TOT

AM Peak 544 739 1284

PM Peak 782 505 1287

Table 8.1 – Preston Road 2014 ATC Results

These traffic flows are very similar to those recorded as part of the Ridings Depot Proof of evidence, 8.2.2

as shown in Table 8.2 below.


NB SB TOT

AM Peak 499 805 1304

PM Peak 755 466 1221

Table 8.2 – Former Ridings Depot Preston Road 2012 ATC Results

It is therefore clear that the ATC data collected as part of the Curtins traffic surveys appear 8.2.3

representative of existing conditions within Grimsargh.

8.3 Preston Road Link Capacity Analysis

An assessment of link capacity on Preston Road has been undertaken below. 8.3.1

The DfT Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) TA 79/99 ‘Traffic Capacity of Urban Roads’ 8.3.2

sets out the capacity of different types of urban roads. From a review of the existing conditions of

Preston Road and geometric parameters it is considered that Preston Road should be classified as a

UAP3 according to Table 1 within the TA 79/99 document referenced above. This matches the

classification assumed within the Former Ridings Depot Proof of Evidence.

In terms of capacity, the one-way capacity of Preston Road is approximately 1300 vehicles, with the 8.3.3

two way capacity at 2167. Based upon the ATC flows set out above, Preston Road is currently

operating at approximately 59-60% of its capacity in the AM and PM Peak. This is summarised in

Table 8.3 below.

Scenario Time Period Direction Total

Capacity (vehicles)

Capacity

NB SB TOT

2014 Base AM Peak 544 739 1284 2167 59.3%

PM Peak 782 505 1287 2167 59.4%

Table 8.3 – Preston Road Existing Link Capacity

This estimate of capacity corresponds with the existing values set out in the Former Ridings Depot 8.3.4

Proof of Evidence.




In order to quantify the degree of development impact, the predicted flows along the Preston Road 8.3.5

corridor through Grimsargh are set out in Table 8.4 below. As above, these assessments assume a

scenario of 220 dwellings, whereas the planning application is in support of proposals for 195

dwellings.

Scenario


NB SB TOT

Proposed Development (220 Units)

AM Peak 23 54 77

PM Peak 63 42 105

Table 8.4 – Preston Road Link Capacity

Table 8.4 demonstrates that the development could potentially increase existing flows on Preston 8.3.6

Road between 5.9% in the AM Peak and 8.2% in the PM Peak depending on the scenario tested.

Taking the observed traffic flows and predicted development traffic into account, it is clear that with 8.3.7

the development, Preston Road would operate at between 62%-65% of its capacity with the addition

of the development traffic.

8.4 Skew Bridge Queue Length Analysis

The Ridings appeal Proof of Evidence included an assessment of the existing level of queuing at 8.4.1

Skew Bridge, Grimsargh. Surveys conducted as part of the evidence are summarised in Table 8.5

below.


NB SB

AM Peak 6 5

PM Peak 8 4

Table 8.5 – Existing Skew Bridge Queue Lengths

Based on the comparison of ATC data collected by Curtins with the 2012 ATC data collected by the 8.4.2

Appellant for the Ridings appeal, shown in Tables 8.1 and 8.2, it is reasonable to assume that the

levels of queuing in 2014 would be similar to those observed in 2012.

Based on analysis of the queue lengths and traffic flows through Grimsargh, the Appellant calculated 8.4.3

the number of additional queuing vehicles at Skew Bridge as a result of the Ridings development

proposals. The Ridings traffic flows and resultant increase in queuing are summarised in Table 8.6.





NB SB

AM Peak Dev Flow 27 47

Queue Increase (Vehs) 0.6 0.6

PM Peak Dev Flow 52 37


Table 8.6 – Ridings Skew Bridge Queue Length Impact

A similar exercise has been undertaken for the traffic generated by the proposed development at 8.4.4

Skew Bridge. The results for the 220 unit scenario are set out in Table 8.7.


NB SB

AM Peak Dev Flow 23 54


PM Peak Dev Flow 63 42


Table 8.7 – Proposed Development Skew Bridge Queue Length Impact (220 units)

The results demonstrate that the proposed development could result in a maximum increase of 8.4.5

approximately 1.3 vehicles at Skew Bridge, which is comparable to the impact shown by the Former

Ridings Depot.

On the above basis, it is therefore considered that the impact of the development upon existing 8.4.6

queuing at Skew Bridge is likely to be minor and would not be perceptible to existing road users at

Skew Bridge.

8.5 Summary

In summary, the impact of the proposed development at Dilworth Lane upon the operation of the 8.5.1

Grimsargh corridor has been assessed in the context of the recent Former Ridings Depot appeal

decision.

The analysis showed the following:- 8.5.2

Existing traffic flows on Preston Road are shown to be similar to those collected as part of the

Ridings Appeal;

Existing link capacity levels are shown to be at between 59-60% of capacity; and

Queue analysis at Skew Bridge revealed that the proposed development may increase levels

of queuing between 0.6 – 1.6 vehicles at Skew Bridge.




The analysis mirrors the results within the Ridings Proof of Evidence, which was considered to be 8.5.3

acceptable by the Secretary of State.




9.0 Strategic Road Network (SRN) Junctions

9.1 Introduction

During scoping discussions with the Highways Agency it was agreed that capacity assessments would 9.1.1

be undertaken at two junctions on the Strategic Road Network. The M6 Junction 31a comprises two

signalised roundabout junctions, the M6 On-Slip/Bluebell Lane and the M6 Off-Slip/Longsands

Lane/Fulwood Road.

As above, it should be noted that all capacity assessments assume a scenario of 220 dwellings, 9.1.2

whereas the planning application is in support of proposals for 195 dwellings.

9.2 Percentage Impact Assessment

Capacity assessments have been undertaken and these are described in further detail below. In 9.2.1

addition, a percentage impact analysis has been undertaken in order to demonstrate the overall small

proportion of overall traffic flow at the two junctions.

Junction AM Peak PM Peak

2024 Base Dev Flow % Impact 2024 Base Dev Flow % Impact

M6 On-Slip/Bluebell Lane 3302 25 0.8% 3580 34 0.95%

M6 Off-Slip/Longsands Lane/Fulwood Road

3353 8 0.24% 3008 21 0.7%

Table 9.1 – Strategic Road Network: Percentage Impact Assessment (220 units)

The analysis in Table 9.1 demonstrates that the development has a less that 1% impact on total traffic 9.2.2

flow at both junctions across all scenarios.

On this basis it is clear that the development will have a very minor impact upon operation of the 9.2.3

junction in percentage terms.

It should be noted that the trip rates used within this Transport Assessment have been provided by 9.2.4

LCC and represent a very robust assessment when compared to peak hour trip rates from TRICS.

Should mean trip rates from the TRICS analysis be adopted it would result in a level of two way trips

at the junctions of less than 30, which would not trigger the requirement for an assessment, as set out

in the DfT document Guidance on Transport Assessments.

9.3 Capacity Assessments

Notwithstanding the above, capacity assessments for the above two junctions have been undertaken 9.3.1

and a summary of the results is set out below. The full outputs are contained in Appendix F.




M6 Junction 31a – M6 On Slip/Bluebell Lane

The M6 On-slip/Bluebell Lane takes the form of a 4-arm signalised roundabout junction, and has been 9.3.2

assessed using LinSIG. Results for each scenario are summarised below.

Approach


Max RFC Max Queue

(PCU) Max RFC

Max Queue (PCU)

Access Ahead 47.3% 2 45.4% 2

Access Ahead 15.1% 1 15.1% 1

Bluebell Lane Left 21.7% 3 21.7% 3

Bluebell Lane Ahead 97.2% 27 99.4% 31

Link Left 93.5% 18 93.5% 18

Link Left 99.2% 27 99.9% 28

Link Left 77.2% 12 77.8% 12

Ahead 22.8% 0 22.8% 0

Right 28.3% 1 28.5% 1

Right 28.4% 7 28.6% 7

Ahead 3.2% 0 3.2% 0

Right 11.3% 1 11.3% 1

Ahead 79.6% 14 81.3% 14

Ahead 15.7% 0 15.7% 0

Ahead 38.5% 2 38.8% 2

Ahead 38.6% 1 38.8% 2

Total Junction PRC

Table 9.2 – M6 Junction 31a: M6 On Slip/Bluebell Lane ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios

The results demonstrate that the junction currently operates close to, or at capacity in both the AM 9.3.3

and PM Peak periods. This is confirmed through analysis of the queue length surveys undertaken on

the day of the traffic survey.




Approach

AM Peak

PM Peak


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Access Ahead 47.6% 2 45.5% 2 40.9% 2 43.4% 2

Access Ahead 15.1% 1 15.1% 1 20.6% 1 20.8% 1

Bluebell Lane Left 21.7% 3 21.7% 3 46.2% 6 46.2% 6

Bluebell Lane Ahead 98.6% 29 100.6% 35 120.8% 109 122.8% 117

Link Left 93.5% 18 93.5% 18 121.6% 128 121.6% 128

Link Left 99.6% 27 100.2% 29 55.1% 9 56.3% 9

Link Left 77.5% 12 77.9% 12 43.5% 7 44.6% 8

Ahead 22.8% 0 22.8% 0 12.1% 0 12.1% 0

Right 28.4% 1 28.6% 1 21.3% 1 21.8% 1

Right 28.5% 7 28.6% 7 21.3% 3 21.8% 3

Ahead 3.2% 0 3.2% 0 5.4% 1 5.4% 1

Right 11.3% 1 11.3% 1 13.4% 2 13.4% 2

Ahead 80.6% 14 81.8% 14 90.9% 18 91.0% 18

Ahead 15.7% 0 15.6% 0 9.4% 0 9.2% 0

Ahead 38.6% 2 38.8% 2 29.7% 1 30.4% 1

Ahead 38.7% 1 38.9% 2 29.7% 1 30.4% 1

Total Junction PRC -10.6% -11.8% -35.2% -36.4%

Table 9.3 – M6 Junction 31a: M6 On Slip/Bluebell Lane: Future Year Scenarios (220 units)

The results shown in Table 9.4 clearly indicate that some lanes are predicted to operate close to 9.3.4

capacity in the AM Peak period and over capacity in PM Peak both ‘with’ and ‘without’ the

development.

In the AM Peak the impact of the development is minor, with a maximum increase in queuing of 6 9.3.5

pcu’s observed on the Bluebell Lane ahead lane.

In the PM Peak the results demonstrate a maximum increase in queuing of 8 pcu’s on the same link. 9.3.6

In the context of the junctions existing operation, an increase of this magnitude is considered minor

and would not be perceptible to most road users at the junction.

In terms of the Practical Reserve Capacity at the junction, the results demonstrate that in terms of 9.3.7

overall performance this indicator shows small percentage point changes of 1.2% in the AM and PM

Peak periods respectively.




The above future year assessments have been undertaken using a ‘worst case’ set of assumptions 9.3.8

with NTM growth factors applied in addition to traffic flows associated with several committed

developments. On this basis it is expected that this would result in an element of double counting.

The NTM growth factors adopted for assessment in this location are approximately 15% and this is 9.3.9

applied to all movements at the junction. A 15% increase on top of existing committed development

traffic flows is considered to represent a highly robust method of assessment.

The results presented above can therefore be considered to represent a robust assessment of the 9.3.10

operation of the junction in the future year.




M6 Junction 31a – M6 Off Slip/Longsands Lane/Fulwood Row

The M6 Off-slip/Longsands Lane/Fulwood Row takes the form of a 5-arm signalised roundabout 9.3.11

junction, and has been assessed using LinSIG. Results for each scenario are summarised below.

Approach


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Fulwood Row Ahead 0.3% 0 0.0% 0


M6 Off Slip Ahead 46.5% 5 34.2% 3

M6 Off Slip Ahead 47.5% 5 35.5% 4

M6 Off Slip Ahead 51.2% 6 28.1% 3

M6 Off Slip Ahead 55.0% 7 31.4% 3

Bluebell Ln Ahead Left 8.5% 1 15.4% 1

Bluebell Ln Ahead 11.5% 1 16.7% 2

Fulwood Row Ahead Left 9.1% 0 2.8% 0


Longsands Lane Ahead Left 48.7% 3 65.8% 5

Right 21.9% 0 28.5% 0

Right 22.1% 3 29.0% 4

Ahead 52.4% 6 65.2% 8

Ahead 53.7% 7 67.0% 9

Ahead 39.4% 0 40.2% 0

Ahead 41.9% 6 42.0% 4

Right 21.3% 0 12.8% 0

Right 22.0% 0 12.1% 0

Right Ahead 55.0% 8 34.0% 4

Right 53.4% 9 30.5% 5

Right Ahead 5.4% 0 1.9% 0

Right 8.9% 0 2.8% 0

Ahead 32.9% 4 21.3% 1

Ahead 34.2% 4 24.6% 2

Unnamed Ped Link 0.0% - 0.0% -

Total Junction PRC 63.6% 34.2%

Table 9.4 – M6 Junction 31a: M6 Off Slip/Longsands Lane/Fulwood Row ‘Base 2014’ Scenarios (220 units)

The results demonstrate that the junction currently operates within capacity and this is confirmed 9.3.12

through analysis of the queue length survey undertaken on the day of the traffic survey. Therefore it is

considered the model used to assess the junction is suitable to assess the impact of the proposed

development in a future year.




Approach

AM Peak

PM Peak


Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Max RFC Max

Queue (PCU)

Fulwood Row Ahead 0.40% 0 0.40% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0

Fulwood Row Ahead 1.60% 0 1.60% 0 1.00% 0 1.00% 0

M6 Off Slip Ahead 55.10% 6.2 55.60% 6.3 42.70% 4.4 44.10% 4.5

M6 Off Slip Ahead 56.10% 6.8 56.60% 6.8 44.10% 4.8 45.20% 5

M6 Off Slip Ahead 59.10% 7.3 59.10% 7.3 32.30% 3.3 32.30% 3.3

M6 Off Slip Ahead 63.30% 8.1 63.30% 8.1 36.10% 3.8 36.10% 3.8

Bluebell Ln Ahead Left 10.20% 0.9 10.20% 0.9 17.90% 1.7 17.90% 1.7

Bluebell Ln Ahead 12.90% 1.3 12.90% 1.3 19.00% 2 19.00% 2

Fulwood Row Ahead Left

10.10% 0.4 10.10% 0.4 3.30% 0.1 3.30% 0.1

Fulwood Row Ahead 6.60% 0.2 6.60% 0.2 1.50% 0 1.50% 0

Longsands Lane Ahead Left

56.10% 3.7 56.20% 3.7 75.60% 6.4 75.60% 6.4

Right 25.30% 0.2 25.30% 0.2 32.90% 0.2 32.90% 0.2

Right 25.50% 3.1 25.40% 3.1 33.30% 5 33.30% 5

Ahead 60.50% 7.3 60.70% 7.4 75.20% 10.5 75.20% 10.5

Ahead 61.90% 8.2 61.80% 8.2 76.70% 11.6 76.70% 11.6

Ahead 46.10% 0.4 46.30% 0.4 47.60% 0.5 48.10% 0.5

Ahead 48.90% 7.4 49.00% 7.4 49.50% 4.6 50.00% 5.2

Right 24.60% 0.2 24.60% 0.2 14.60% 0.1 14.60% 0.1

Right 25.40% 0.2 25.40% 0.2 13.90% 0.1 13.90% 0.1

Right Ahead 63.50% 9.7 63.50% 9.7 39.00% 5 39.00% 5

Right 61.40% 10.1 61.40% 10.1 35.10% 5.3 35.10% 5.3

Right Ahead 6.60% 0.3 6.20% 0.3 1.90% 0.1 1.90% 0.1

Right 9.90% 0.5 10.30% 0.5 3.20% 0.1 3.20% 0.1

Ahead 38.20% 5.3 38.20% 5.3 24.50% 1.7 24.50% 1.7

Ahead 39.20% 5.6 39.20% 5.6 28.20% 2.1 28.20% 2.1

Unnamed Ped Link 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% - 0.00% -

Total Junction PRC 41.7% 41.7% 17.3% 17.3%

Table 9.5 – M6 Junction 31a: M6 Off Slip/Longsands Lane/Fulwood Row: Future Year Scenarios (220 units)

The results shown in Table 9.5 clearly indicate that the junction is predicted to operate within capacity 9.3.13

during each peak period in the 2024 future year both with and without the proposed development.




9.4 Summary

In summary, capacity analysis on the Strategic Road Network demonstrates that the development has 9.4.1

a minor impact upon the operation of the junctions in the future year, with a total development impact

of less than 1%.

The existing conditions at the junctions above should also be considered within the context of the 9.4.2

Broughton Corridor to the north of the M6 Junction 31a. This route provides an alternative route to

Preston from Longridge and currently experiences congestion and delay.

The Highways and Transport Masterplan for Central Lancashire is the County Council’s vision for 9.4.3

developing the transport network in Central Lancashire. As part of this Transport Masterplan the

Broughton Bypass and improvements to the M55 Junction 1 are likely to improve this route to Preston

and potentially result in increased route choice for drivers from the east approaching Preston. This

may also have a positive benefit on conditions at the M6 Junction 31a.




10.0 Summary and Conclusions

10.1 Summary

This report considers the traffic and transport implications associated with a proposed residential 10.1.1

development of up to 195 dwellings on a site at Dilworth Lane, Longridge.

A previous version of this report was originally prepared in support of an outline planning application 10.1.2

(LPA ref. 3/2014/0517) that was submitted to Ribble Valley Borough Council (RVBC) in June 2014.

The application was made for the development of up to 220 dwellings with all matters reserved, save

for access from the adopted highway at land to the north of Dilworth Lane, Longridge.

Following a recommendation for approval by Planning Officers at RVBC, the application for 220 10.1.3

dwellings was heard at RVBCs Planning and Development Committee on 13 November 2014.

Members voted in favour of refusing the application on the grounds that the proposed development

would have unacceptable landscape and visual impact implications.

Taylor Wimpey have revised the scheme by reducing the number of residential units to be delivered to 10.1.4

195 dwellings, increasing the depth of the landscape buffers that surround the site and limiting heights

to 2 storeys. The proposed site area has not altered between the previous application and the revised

scheme and all other aspects of the proposal remain unchanged.

It should be noted that the analysis within the report still relates to 220 dwellings. It was considered 10.1.5

unnecessary to update the analysis to reflect the reduction in dwellings proposed, as it represents a

scenario which would have a greater, not lesser impact. Therefore, in concluding that the

development of the site for 220 dwellings would be acceptable, it can be concluded with even greater

confidence that 195 dwellings would be acceptable.

The report has been prepared following consultation with Highways Officers at LCC, the Highways 10.1.6

Agency and members of the public at a consultation event.

A review of accident data in the vicinity of the site does not suggest an unusual highway safety 10.1.7

problem that would be exacerbated by the proposed development.

Vehicular access to the proposed development will be taken from Blackburn Road via a new priority 10.1.8

controlled junction. An emergency access will be provided onto Dilworth Lane at the western part of

the site.

New pedestrian infrastructure is proposed in the form of a new east/west footway through the site to 10.1.9

the rear of the existing hedgerow. This route will provide a connection to existing infrastructure which




in turn provides connections to Longridge town centre. A pedestrian crossing is also proposed at the

eastern part of the site to satisfy a desire line to Lower Lane.

The site’s location adjacent to Longridge town centre ensures that there are a variety of existing 10.1.10

facilities which are easily accessible via existing walking, cycling, and public transport infrastructure.

The site is well served by public transport with 4 school bus services and 6 commercial services 10.1.11

operating within a reasonable walking distance. Two new bus stops at the eastern part of the site will

further enhance public transport as a realistic mode of travel.

The traffic impact of the development proposals has been considered in detail and is summarised 10.1.12

below:

The proposed site access can comfortably accommodate the proposed development;

Analysis of nine junctions on the LCC Local Road Network revealed that the proposed

development has a minor impact in terms of junction capacity and all junctions assessed will

continue to operate within capacity;

Link capacity on Preston Road and queue length analysis at Skew Bridge has demonstrated

that the development has a relatively minor impact upon existing highway conditions within

Grimsargh; and

Capacity analysis on the Strategic Road Network demonstrates that the development has a

minor impact upon the operation of the junctions in the future year, with a total development

impact of less than 1%.

10.2 Conclusion

This Transport Assessment demonstrates that the site is located in a sustainable area with well-10.2.1

established local facilities in accordance with national and local policy.

The TA also demonstrates that the highway impact associated with the proposals is not severe and 10.2.2

therefore in accordance with national policy there are no traffic and transportation reasons why the

development proposals should not be granted planning approval.

Project:

Drg Title:

Scale:

Drawn:

Checked:

Drg No: Rev:

Curtins Consulting Ltd,

10 Oxford Court, Bishopgate, Manchester, M2 3WQ

t: 0161 236 2394

e: [email protected]

www.curtins.com

Birmingham • Bristol • Cardiff • Douglas • Edinburgh • Kendal • Leeds • Liverpool • London • Manchester • Nottingham

Structures • Civils • Environmental • Infrastructure • Transport Planning • Sustainability • Expert Advisory Services

s

This drawing is the copyright of Curtins Consulting Ltd

c

Curtins Consulting Ltd,

10 Oxford Court, Bishopgate, Manchester, M2 3WQ

t: 0161 236 2394

e: [email protected]

www.curtins.com

Birmingham • Bristol • Cardiff • Douglas • Edinburgh • Kendal • Leeds • Liverpool • London • Manchester • Nottingham

Structures • Civils • Environmental • Infrastructure • Transport Planning • Sustainability • Expert Advisory Services

s

This drawing is the copyright of Curtins Consulting Ltd

c

Project:

Drg Title:

Scale:

Drawn:

Checked:

Drg No: Rev:

dilworth lane, longridge - ribble valley...alex vogt bsc (hons) msc mciht associate 21 january 2015...

Documents