galliard (cheltenham) ltd and pye homes...

Galliard (Cheltenham) LTD and Pye Homes Limited

Land at Morris Hill, Cheltenham

Land West of Cheltenham and North-West Cheltenham

Highways and Transportation Review

March 2017

Galliard (Cheltenham) Ltd and Pye Homes Limited



DOCUMENT REGISTER

CLIENT: GALLIARD (CHELTENHAM) LTD AND PYE HOMES LIMITED

PROJECT: LAND AT MORRIS HILL, CHELTENHAM

PROJECT CODE: CTP-16-272

REPORT TITLE: HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW

PREPARED BY: MICHAEL GLAZE DATE: MARCH 2017

CHECKED BY: ADAM PADMORE DATE: MARCH 2017

REPORT STATUS: Issue 02

Prepared by COTSWOLD TRANSPORT PLANNING LTD

121 Promenade

Cheltenham

Gloucestershire

GL50 1NW

Tel: 01242 370283

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.cotswoldtp.co.uk

Registered Company Address: 121 Promenade, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

Company Number: 9228763

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cotswoldtp.co.uk/




Cotswold Transport Planning Ltd

List of Contents

Sections

1 Introduction……………………………………...…………………...……………..1

2 Land West of Cheltenham…………...……………………………………………2

3 Land at North-West Cheltenham………………………………..……………....11

4 Land at North-West Cheltenham Planning Application ……..……….……....20

Appendices

APPENDIX A: Site Location Plan – Land West of Cheltenham

APPENDIX B: Site Location Plan – North-West Cheltenham




Cotswold Transport Planning Ltd Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Cotswold Transport Planning Ltd has been instructed by Galliard

(Cheltenham) Ltd and Pye Homes Limited to provide a high-level

transportation appraisal of two emerging strategic allocations; Land West of

Cheltenham and Land at North-West Cheltenham (hereto referred as `the

Strategic Sites’), the latter of which is also subject to a live planning application

(ref: 16/02000/OUT).

1.2 Land West of Cheltenham has been included in the most recent Joint Core

Strategy (JCS) modifications for approximately 1,100 dwellings and 45

hectares of employment. Land at North-West Cheltenham has been promoted

through the JCS for approximately 4,285 dwellings, together with 10.5

hectares of employment land. In addition to the latter site being promoted

through the JCS, a planning application has been submitted for 4,115

dwellings, 200 care units, 40,000sq.m business park and a 100-bed hotel plus

other ancillary uses.

1.3 This document will review the transport modelling that been undertaken to

date by the JCS authorities, Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) and

AMEY in relation to the Strategic Sites, along with a review of the current

transport position with the North-West Cheltenham planning application.

1.4 The main modifications to the JCS have been agreed by the three JCS

authorities, which is subject to a six-week public consultation between the 27th

February 2017 and 10th April 2017.

1.5 The following JCS documents have been reviewed as part of this appraisal:

• JCS Submission Document November 2014;

• Infrastructure Funding Gap Analysis – September 2016;

• JCS IDP – Additional Allocations Issue – September 2013;

• JCS TN DS5 2016 AMEY – October 2016;

• Emerging JCS Transport Strategy Final – October 2016;

• JCS Transport Evidence Base Final – October 2016; and

• Additional Strategic Site Report Final – September 2016.





2 Land West of Cheltenham

2.1 Land West of Cheltenham has been promoted through the JCS process, and

is a late addition to the JCS as a strategic allocation. Approximately 1,100

dwellings are proposed, together with 45 hectares of employment, equating

to 7,500 jobs.

2.2 The JCS Transport Evidence Base demonstrates that the main access points

to the site will be via an existing junction accessing Telstar Way and Arle Court

on the A40 and the B4634 Old Gloucester Road. It is proposed to connect

these two points of access via a new link road. At this stage, it is not clear

when each access will be delivered and when the link road will be in place.

2.3 For ease of reference, a location plan is provided at Appendix A.

Transport Modelling

Introduction

2.4 On behalf of the JCS authorities and managed by GCC, Amey have produced

a transport modelling report; Proposed New Strategic Allocations, Mitigation

Scenario 5 / 5a, October 2016. This report has tested a revised quantum of

housing and employment for strategic allocation sites and compares the

impact against the previous ‘Do Something’ (DS3a) option.

2.5 The brief to Amey in undertaking this work stated “the scope of this work is to

not review or critique existing evidence, but to build upon existing work within

the tight time constraints”.

2.6 The most recent model runs, DS5 and DS5a are included within the October

2016 Amey report. The mitigation package included within DS3a has been

carried forward to the DS5a modelling, with the addition of further highway

mitigation. There are a number of important caveats included within the

Amey October 2016 report which are important to note and cast doubt

on the overall results produced in terms of their reliability, mitigation

package, timescales and overall deliverability:

i. No restriction on scheme costs, or preparation of cost estimates;

ii. All or nothing assessment for the proposed changes to the

network, therefore all schemes added at same time;





iii. No plans or alignments were available for proposed highway

network improvement schemes, which have been based on

broad ‘A-B’ routes and capacity of roads (i.e. dual carriageway,

grade separated junction etc.)

iv. Major link roads were added for both Cheltenham and

Gloucester to create high quality corridors and provide relief for

existing network;

v. Addition of known major schemes that can be funded from other

sources; e.g. A417 Missing Link, and M5 J10 full movements;

vi. As the 2008 CSV SATURN Model is not a multi-modal model,

an additional 2% matrix reduction has been applied to represent

improved Public Transport, consistent with the approach

adopted by Atkins previously; and

vii. The mitigation schemes included in DS3a have not been

reassessed for DS5.

2.7 The DS5 and DS5a modelling included further modifications to the preferred

land use scenario, as requested by the JCS authorities. In summary, this

included the removal of the Fiddington and Leckhampton strategic allocations,

and changes in the scale of the residential and employment land use

parameters at land West of Cheltenham, Twigworth, Mitton and Ashchurch. It

should be noted that this report includes the MoD Ashchurch strategic

allocation, which has subsequently been removed from the JCS, therefore the

overall modelling results cannot be considered to be valid.

2.8 The DS5 modelling is the only assessment to include the proposed additional

transport schemes and mitigation measures, in addition to those tested for

DS3a. Overall, the DS5 Transport Strategy consists of approximately 105

mitigation measures, which can be categorised as follows;

i. Sustainable transport measures;

ii. Local growth fund schemes;

iii. Junction improvements;

iv. Traffic management measures;





v. New offline highway improvement for the A46 at Ashchurch; and

vi. New bypass for west Cheltenham.

2.9 The future forecast year for the modelling work that has been undertaken is

2031. No modelling of interim horizon years has been undertaken, therefore

it is not possible to assess the impacts of the strategic allocations as they are

being built out. On this basis, it is not known when the mitigation packages

that have been tested within the model will be required, when they will be

delivered and the interim development impact cannot be established.

Modal Shift Assumptions

2.10 The DS5 and DS5a modelling includes an overall assumption of modal shift,

although this level of modal shift is not specified. This modal shift has been

based on an assumption that due to the high level of traffic on the highway

network by 2031 that car drivers will be encouraged to use public transport. It

therefore appears that Amey have used future congestion as way to

encourage modal shift.

2.11 The assumption in paragraph 2.10 is not considered to be realistic and

potential modal shift must be considered on a site by site basis, given that the

availability of public transport varies between sites. Applying an overall level

of modal shift due to the high level of traffic in 2031 would not appear

reasonable without the supporting evidence that each site will be able to

achieve this level of modal shift. The level of modal shift to public transport

should be set out clearly in the Amey report.

2.12 It is understood that the previous model runs included an overall reduction in

car use across the highway network, however this is not specified in the AMEY

report and it is not clear if the modal shift referred to in paragraph 2.10 is

included within this or is in addition.

2.13 It is stated in the AMEY report that an assumption of an overall reduction in

trips of 2% has been applied to account for modal shift, which is in addition to

the modal shift assumptions included within the DS3a model runs.

2.14 It would therefore appear that there has been an unspecified number of car

trips that have been removed from the highway network to take account of

modal shift to public transport, an overall 2% reduction in trips from the





network to take account of all types of modal shift, together with the

assumptions included within DS3a and previous model runs regarding modal

shift

Area Wide Statistics

2.15 A review of the impact of the DS5 scenario has been undertaken by Amey.

The DS5 scenario, which includes the mitigation measures included in DS3a,

together with additional mitigation measures, considers the amended

development quantum, and assumes the same network as DS3a and DS4.

2.16 The area wide statistics demonstrate that the ‘over capacity queued time per

vehicle (in seconds)’ increases by approximately 78 and 119 seconds

between the DS3a and DS5 scenarios in the AM and PM peak hours

respectively. This is generally to be expected given the increase in

development quantum contained within DS5. Overall, the remaining area wide

statistics are generally consistent between the DS3a and DS5 scenarios.

Mitigation

2.17 Further mitigation measures have been included within the DS5 assessment

that have not been included in any previous model runs. The additional

mitigation measures have been included to account for the increased traffic

resulting from the amended development quantum and mix.

2.18 The mitigation measures included within DS5 include major highway

infrastructure improvements, such as the A417 ‘Missing Link’, M5 Junction 10

‘all movements’ and a new bypass between the M5 Junction 9 and the

Teddington Hands roundabout. These infrastructure works would have a far-

reaching impact on the operation of the local highway network in the Central

Severn Vale (CSV) area and beyond.

2.19 The junction improvements that have been included within the DS5

model runs have, in most cases, been based on preliminary sketches

produced by Amey. No detailed design work has been undertaken of the

additional mitigation measures to determine if they can be

accommodated within the extent of the existing public highway or

whether any third-party land is required to accommodate these

schemes. Furthermore, no detailed costing of these works has been

undertaken to determine if the works are realistic and deliverable.





2.20 The following additional mitigation measures have been included within the

DS5 model run:

Cheltenham

i. New grade separated junction on A40 to the west of Arle Court;

ii. New dual carriageway linking A40 to A4019 – new access to West of

Cheltenham development;

iii. New grade separated junction on A4019 to the west of Homecroft Drive;

iv. M5 Junction 10 all movements – including upgrading of existing slips

and junction on the A4019 corridor to Coombe Hill – proposals in line

with recently submitted Large Local Major Transport Schemes bid;

v. New link road linking A4019 to Hyde Lane – upgrade of existing route

to A435 Evesham Road;

vi. Upgrade junction on Hyde Lane;

vii. New link road from new grade separated junction on A40 to Grovefield

Way;

viii. Upgrade of Grovefield Way and Up Hatherley Way; and

ix. Upgraded junction on A46 Shurdington Road.

Gloucester

i. New link road linking new Access road from A40 to A38 Tewkesbury

Road;

ii. New link road linking new Access road from A40 to Innsworth Lane;

iii. Full signalisation of A38 Cross Keys roundabout;

iv. Upgrade of A38 St. Barnabas roundabout; and

v. M5 – Junction 12 – Full Improvement Scheme.

Tewkesbury and Ashchurch

i. New link road linking Teddington Hands roundabout to M5 J9 – 1993

alignment;

ii. Extended junction on M5 linked to new link road;





iii. Northern Tewkesbury Bypass; and

iv. New feeder route linking Mitton site with Shannon Way.

Other schemes

i. A417 Missing Link scheme – brown route; and

ii. Junction improvement at Barrow Hill and Brockworth Road.

2.21 It can be seen that the highway infrastructure improvements that have been

included within the DS5 model run are significant compared to the previous

DS3a and DS4 model runs. These include a number of grade separated

junctions, new bypass routes and works on the motorway. No categorical

evidence has been put forward to demonstrate that the proposed

schemes can be delivered from an overall cost perspective. The schemes

included within the DS5 scenario are extremely expensive and it is considered

unlikely that these can be funded by developers or via third party funding.

Given the uncertainty regarding the funding mechanism for these schemes, it

is unlikely that these will be in place by 2031.

2.22 There is no certainty from a funding or construction perspective as to

whether these schemes will be open for use by 2031. Furthermore,

chapter 7 of the Amey report is clear that schemes have been included that

may not be open for use in 2031, schemes that may have funding available

or schemes where funding has been applied for have been included within

the DS5 scenario, “strategic improvements that are anticipated to be

implemented on the network before 2031, and for which funding is likely to be

available and/or has been applied for. This includes M5 J10 full movements

and the A417 Missing Link”.

2.23 The mitigation packages have not been tested through an iterative process,

nor have they tested any interim scenarios. The entire mitigation package

included within DS3a, together with the mitigation works listed in paragraph

2.20, have been added as a whole, therefore the merits of each scheme has

not been assessed to determine the best scheme and the impacts of each

scheme.

2.24 The DS5 testing has assessed a 2031 horizon year, consistent with the

previous JCS modelling. There is no certainty as to whether the highway





improvements can be delivered from a cost and land perspective, and there

are few details provided regarding the dates that each scheme will be in place.

On this basis, and if the JCS Strategic Site promotions were to proceed in its

current form, developments could be partially or fully built out prior to suitable

mitigation packages being in place. This could result in severe issues on the

local highway network in the interim period prior to 2031, when all of the

schemes are presumed to be in place. At this stage, and with no iterative

approach, it is not known what mitigation measures are required to mitigate

the impact of each particular development and when these works are

required.

2.25 Overall, the proposed mitigation package does not consider any

detailed cost estimates and there are no restrictions on the type of

schemes included within the DS5 model run. There has been no

assessment as to whether the works can be undertaken within the existing

public highway or whether third party land will be required. The costs for the

potential compulsory purchase of land required to accommodate these

schemes have not been considered. There has been no assessment as to

whether the works can be physically constructed, as no plans have been

drawn up. The mitigation package has been included in its entirety as part of

a 2031 model run, no interim assessment years have been assessed to

determine the development impact in the event that the mitigation proposals

are not in place prior to a partial or full build out of the developments. Schemes

have been included within the model that may only have applied for funding.

2008 CSV SATURN Model

2.26 The completion of the 2013 base CSV SATURN model has been delayed,

therefore all modelling has been undertaken using the 2008 model. Although

manual changes have been made to the 2008 model, to take account of new

development and changes in traffic flows, these cannot truly represent the

existing (2013) scenario on the local highway network.

2.27 It is considered that the proposed strategic developments cannot be approved

in transportation terms until modelling has been undertaken using the 2013

model, with the short comings regarding the modal shift evidence base and

the mitigation measures being suitably resolved.





Viability

2.28 The JCS Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) September 2016, considers the

impact of the Strategic Sites. The IDP considers the deliverability and the risk

to this delivery of all critical infrastructure that is likely to be required to make

the development acceptable. It is noted that the off-site improvements to the

highway network have an amber rating, which means that there is uncertainty

regarding the delivery of these works. It is not clear if the IDP has considered

the likely costs of the transport infrastructure contained within the DS5 model

run.

2.29 The Additional Strategic Sites Report (September 2016) has reviewed the

viability of the strategic allocations, including Land West of Cheltenham. A

standard cost per dwelling for infrastructure costs has been applied, with all

sites, (other than the now removed MoD Ashchurch), being considered to be

viable in planning terms. However, no detailed assessment of each site has

been undertaken in terms of the highway mitigation required, therefore it is

not considered that setting standard costs for viability is reasonable, given the

uncertainty regarding mitigation as discussed in this report.

2.30 The JCS Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – Infrastructure Funding Gap

Analysis (September 2016), considers the funding gap which may restrict the

strategic allocations in terms of providing the necessary infrastructure. This

document does not consider any transport infrastructure costs, other than the

site access, associated with Land West of Cheltenham. This is likely to be due

to the lack of certainty regarding the schemes that are necessary to be

implemented to support the development.

Future Work Required

2.31 In order to satisfactorily assess the impact of the JCS and the strategic

allocations, it is considered that the modelling work needs to be undertaken

on the 2013 SATURN model, when available. The mitigation package should

be considered on an iterative basis, with the schemes and developments

impact considered against interim horizon years. Schemes should be fully

costed and drawn up to determine whether they are realistic and deliverable,

within the existing land constraints and funding methods. Evidence should be





provided for the global modal shift assumptions. This work would provide

more confidence that the strategic allocations can come forward with a

realistic mitigation package which can be delivered.

Conclusions

2.32 At this stage is it not considered that there is insufficient evidence available

that demonstrates that the Land West of Cheltenham can be delivered in

transport terms. Without further detailed modelling and mitigation work being

undertaken, there is an extremely high level of uncertainty as to whether the

mitigation package is realistic, given the type of schemes that have been

proposed. Furthermore, the current work has included mitigation schemes

which it is acknowledged may not be in place prior to 2031.





3 Land at North-West Cheltenham

3.1 Land at North-West Cheltenham has been promoted through the JCS for

approximately 4,285 dwellings, together with 10.5 hectares of employment

land. In addition to the site being promoted through the JCS, a planning

application has been submitted for the Land at North-West Cheltenham for

4,115 dwellings, 200 care units, 40,000sq.m business park and a 100-bed

hotel plus other ancillary uses.

3.2 The JCS Transport Evidence Base demonstrates that the main access points

to the site will be via the A4019 Tewkesbury Road.

3.3 The planning application (reference 16/02000/OUT), demonstrates that there

will be a number of vehicular, pedestrian, cycle and public transport access

points to the site. A site location plan is enclosed at Appendix B.

Joint Core Strategy Transport Modelling

Introduction

3.4 It should be noted that the majority of the same transport constraints and

uncertainties exist with the transport assessment work that has been

undertaken for Land at North-West Cheltenham, as the Land West of

Cheltenham. The overall modelling and mitigation assessment for the

strategic sites is broadly similar, therefore it is considered necessary to also

include this information as part of the Land at North-West Cheltenham

strategic assessment.

3.5 Land at North-West Cheltenham has been promoted since the early stages of

the JCS process. The site has been included in all model runs that have been

undertaken by firstly Atkins, and now Amey, on behalf of the JCS authorities

and GCC.

3.6 The quantum of development has been amended throughout the JCS

modelling process. The most recent modelling undertaken by Amey, DS5 and

DS5a, considered a development scenario of up to 4,285 dwellings and 10.5

hectares of employment. The previous model run, DS4 considered the same

number of dwellings, with 23.4 hectares of employment, whilst DS3a included

4,785 dwellings and 23.4 hectares of employment.





3.7 The most recent model runs, DS5 and DS5a are included within the October

2016 Amey report. The mitigation package included within DS3a has been

carried forward to the DS5a modelling, with the addition of further highway

mitigation. There are a number of important caveats included within the

Amey October 2016 report which are important to note and cast doubt

on the overall results produced in terms of their reliability, mitigation

package, timescales and overall deliverability:

i. No restriction on scheme costs, or preparation of cost estimates;

ii. All or nothing assessment for the proposed changes to the

network, therefore all schemes added at same time;

iii. No plans or alignments were available for proposed highway

network improvement schemes, which have been based on broad

‘A-B’ routes and capacity of roads (i.e. dual carriageway, grade

separated junction etc.)

iv. Major link roads were added for both Cheltenham and Gloucester

to create high quality corridors and provide relief for existing

network;

v. Addition of known major schemes that can be funded from other

sources; e.g. A417 Missing Link, and M5 J10 full movements;

vi. As the 2008 CSV SATURN Model is not a multi-modal model, an

additional 2% matrix reduction has been applied to represent

improved Public Transport, consistent with the approach adopted

by Atkins previously; and

vii. The mitigation schemes included in DS3a have not been

reassessed for DS5.

3.8 The DS5 and DS5a modelling included further modifications to the preferred

land use scenario, as requested by the JCS authorities. In summary, this

included the removal of the Fiddington and Leckhampton strategic allocations,

and changes in the scale of the residential and employment land use

parameters at land West of Cheltenham, Twigworth, Mitton and Ashchurch. It

should be noted that this report includes the MoD Ashchurch strategic





allocation, which has subsequently been removed from the JCS, therefore the

overall modelling results cannot be considered to be valid.

3.9 The DS5 modelling is the only assessment to include the proposed additional

transport schemes and mitigation measures, in addition to those tested for

DS3a. Overall, the DS5 Transport Strategy consists of approximately 105

mitigation measures, which can be categorised as follows;

i. Sustainable transport measures;

ii. Local growth fund schemes;

iii. Junction improvements;

iv. Traffic management measures;

v. New offline highway improvement for the A46 at Ashchurch; and

vi. New bypass for west Cheltenham.

3.10 The future forecast year for the modelling work that has been undertaken is

2031. No modelling of interim horizon years has been undertaken, therefore

it is not possible to assess the impacts of the strategic allocations as they are

being built out. On this basis, it is not known when the mitigation packages

that have been tested within the model will be required, when they will be

delivered and the interim development impact cannot be established.

Modal Shift Assumptions

3.11 The DS5 and DS5a modelling includes an overall assumption of modal shift,

although this level of modal shift is not specified. This modal shift has been

based on an assumption that due to the high level of traffic on the highway

network by 2031 that car drivers will be encouraged to use public transport. It

therefore appears that Amey have used future congestion as way to

encourage modal shift.

3.12 The assumption in paragraph 3.10 is not considered to be realistic and

potential modal shift must be considered on a site by site basis, given that the

availability of public transport varies between sites. Applying an overall level

of modal shift due to the high level of traffic in 2031 would not appear

reasonable without the supporting evidence that each site will be able to





achieve this level of modal shift. The level of modal shift to public transport

should be set out clearly in the Amey report.

3.13 It is understood that the previous model runs included an overall reduction in

car use across the highway network, however this is not specified in the AMEY

report and it is not clear if the modal shift referred to in paragraph 3.10 is

included within this or is in addition.

3.14 It is stated in the AMEY report that an assumption of an overall reduction in

trips of 2% has been applied to account for modal shift, which is in addition to

the modal shift assumptions included within the DS3a model runs.

3.15 It would therefore appear that there has been an unspecified number of car

trips that have been removed from the highway network to take account of

modal shift to public transport, an overall 2% reduction in trips from the

network to take account of all types of modal shift, together with the

assumptions included within DS3a and previous model runs regarding modal

shift

Area Wide Statistics

3.16 A review of the impact of the DS5 scenario has been undertaken by Amey.

The DS5 scenario, which includes the mitigation measures included in DS3a,

together with additional mitigation measures, considers the amended

development quantum, and assumes the same network as DS3a and DS4.

3.17 The area wide statistics demonstrate that the ‘over capacity queued time per

vehicle (in seconds)’ increases by approximately 78 and 119 seconds

between the DS3a and DS5 scenarios in the AM and PM peak hours

respectively. This is generally to be expected given the increase in

development quantum contained within DS5. Overall, the remaining area wide

statistics are generally consistent between the DS3a and DS5 scenarios.

Mitigation

3.18 Further mitigation measures have been included within the DS5 assessment

that have not been included in any previous model runs. The additional

mitigation measures have been included to account for the increased traffic

resulting from the amended development quantum and mix.





3.19 The mitigation measures included within DS5 include major highway

infrastructure improvements, such as the A417 ‘Missing Link’, M5 Junction 10

‘all movements’ and a new bypass between the M5 Junction 9 and the

Teddington Hands roundabout. These infrastructure works would have a far-

reaching impact on the operation of the local highway network in the Central

Severn Vale (CSV) area and beyond.

3.20 The junction improvements that have been included within the DS5

model runs have, in most cases, been based on preliminary sketches

produced by Amey. No detailed design work has been undertaken of the

additional mitigation measures to determine if they can be

accommodated within the extent of the existing public highway or

whether any third-party land is required to accommodate these

schemes. Furthermore, no detailed costing of these works has been

undertaken to determine if the works are realistic and deliverable.

3.21 The following additional mitigation measures have been included within the

DS5 model run:

Cheltenham

i. New grade separated junction on A40 to the west of Arle Court;

ii. New dual carriageway linking A40 to A4019 – new access to West of

Cheltenham development;

iii. New grade separated junction on A4019 to the west of Homecroft Drive;

iv. M5 Junction 10 all movements – including upgrading of existing slips

and junction on the A4019 corridor to Coombe Hill – proposals in line

with recently submitted Large Local Major Transport Schemes bid;

v. New link road linking A4019 to Hyde Lane – upgrade of existing route

to A435 Evesham Road;

vi. Upgrade junction on Hyde Lane;

vii. New link road from new grade separated junction on A40 to

Grovefield Way;

viii. Upgrade of Grovefield Way and Up Hatherley Way; and

ix. Upgraded junction on A46 Shurdington Road.





Gloucester

i. New link road linking new Access road from A40 to A38 Tewkesbury

Road;

ii. New link road linking new Access road from A40 to Innsworth Lane;

iii. Full signalisation of A38 Cross Keys roundabout;

iv. Upgrade of A38 St. Barnabas roundabout; and

v. M5 – Junction 12 – Full Improvement Scheme.

Tewkesbury and Ashchurch

i. New link road linking Teddington Hands roundabout to M5 J9 – 1993

alignment;

ii. Extended junction on M5 linked to new link road;

iii. Northern Tewkesbury Bypass; and

iv. New feeder route linking Mitton site with Shannon Way.

Other schemes

i. A417 Missing Link scheme – brown route; and

ii. Junction improvement at Barrow Hill and Brockworth Road.

3.22 It can be seen that the highway infrastructure improvements that have been

included within the DS5 model run are significant compared to the previous

DS3a and DS4 model runs. These include a number of grade separated

junctions, new bypass routes and works on the motorway. No categorical

evidence has been put forward to demonstrate that the proposed

schemes can be delivered from an overall cost perspective. The schemes

included within the DS5 scenario are extremely expensive and it is considered

unlikely that these can be funded by developers or via third party funding.

Given the uncertainty regarding the funding mechanism for these schemes, it

is unlikely that these will be in place by 2031.

3.23 There is no certainty from a funding or construction perspective as to

whether these schemes will be open for use by 2031. Furthermore,

chapter 7 of the Amey report is clear that schemes have been included that





may not be open for use in 2031, schemes that may have funding available

or schemes where funding has been applied for have been included within

the DS5 scenario, “strategic improvements that are anticipated to be

implemented on the network before 2031, and for which funding is likely to be

available and/or has been applied for. This includes M5 J10 full movements

and the A417 Missing Link”.

3.24 The mitigation packages have not been tested through an iterative process,

nor have they tested any interim scenarios. The entire mitigation package

included within DS3a, together with the mitigation works listed in paragraph

3.21, have been added as a whole, therefore the merits of each scheme has

not been assessed to determine the best scheme and the impacts of each

scheme.

3.25 The DS5 testing has assessed a 2031 horizon year, consistent with the

previous JCS modelling. There is no certainty as to whether the highway

improvements can be delivered from a cost and land perspective, and there

are few details provided regarding the dates that each scheme will be in place.

On this basis, and if the JCS were to proceed in its current form, developments

could be partially or fully built out prior to suitable mitigation packages being

in place. This could result in severe issues on the local highway network in

the interim period prior to 2031, when all of the schemes are presumed to be

in place. At this stage, and with no iterative approach, it is not known what

mitigation measures are required to mitigate the impact of each particular

development and when these works are required.

3.26 Overall, the proposed mitigation package does not consider any

detailed cost estimates and there are no restrictions on the type of

schemes included within the DS5 model run. There has been no

assessment as to whether the works can be undertaken within the existing

public highway or whether third party land will be required. The costs for the

potential compulsory purchase of land required to accommodate these

schemes have not been considered. There has been no assessment as to

whether the works can be physically constructed, as no plans have been

drawn up. The mitigation package has been included in its entirety as part of

a 2031 model run, no interim assessment years have been assessed to

determine the development impact in the event that the mitigation proposals





are not in place prior to a partial or full build out of the developments. Schemes

have been included within the model that may only have applied for funding.

2008 CSV SATURN Model

3.27 The completion of the 2013 base CSV SATURN model has been delayed,

therefore all modelling has been undertaken using the 2008 model. Although

manual changes have been made to the 2008 model, to take account of new

development and changes in traffic flows, these cannot truly represent the

existing (2013) scenario on the local highway network.

3.28 It is considered that the proposed strategic developments cannot be approved

in transportation terms until modelling has been undertaken using the 2013

model, with the short comings regarding the modal shift evidence base and

the mitigation measures being suitably resolved.

Viability

3.29 The JCS Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) September 2016, considers the

impact of the additional strategic allocations, including land West of

Cheltenham. The IDP considers the deliverability and the risk to this delivery

of all critical infrastructure that is likely to be required to make the development

acceptable. It is noted that the off-site improvements to the highway network

have an amber rating, which means that there is uncertainty regarding the

delivery of these works. It is not clear if the IDP has considered the likely costs

of the transport infrastructure contained within the DS5 model run.

3.30 The Additional Strategic Sites Report September 2016 has reviewed the

viability of the strategic allocations, including land West of Cheltenham. A

standard cost per dwelling for infrastructure costs has been applied, with all

sites, other than the now removed MoD Ashchurch, being considered to be

viable in planning terms. However, no detailed assessment of each site has

been undertaken in terms of the highway mitigation required, therefore it is

not considered that setting standard costs for viability is reasonable, given the

uncertainty regarding mitigation as discussed in this report.

3.31 The JCS Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) – Infrastructure Funding Gap

Analysis - September 2016, considers the funding gap which may restrict the

strategic allocations in terms of providing the necessary infrastructure. This

document does not consider or has identified the need for any transport





infrastructure costs, other than the site access, associated with land West of

Cheltenham. This is likely to be due to the lack of certainty regarding the

schemes that are necessary to be implemented to support the development.

Future Work Required

3.32 In order to satisfactorily assess the impact of the JCS and the strategic

allocations, it is considered that the modelling work needs to be undertaken

on the 2013 SATURN model, when available. The mitigation package should

be considered on an iterative basis, with the schemes and developments

impact considered against interim horizon years. Schemes should be fully

costed and drawn up to determine whether they are realistic and deliverable,

within the existing land constraints and funding methods. Evidence should be

provided for the global modal shift assumptions. This work would provide

more confidence that the strategic allocations can come forward with a

realistic mitigation package which can be delivered.

Conclusions

3.33 At this stage is it not considered that the evidence is available through the

JCS which demonstrates that the land at North-West Cheltenham can be

delivered in transport terms. Without further detailed modelling and mitigation

work being undertaken, there is an extremely high level of uncertainty as to

whether the mitigation package is realistic, given the type of schemes that

have been proposed. Furthermore, the current work has included mitigation

schemes which it is acknowledged may not be in place prior to 2031.





4 Land at North-West Cheltenham

Planning Application

Introduction

4.1 A planning application (reference 16/02000/OUT) has been submitted to

Cheltenham Borough Council for 4,115 dwellings, 200 care units, 40,000sq.m

business park and a 100-bed hotel plus other ancillary uses.

4.2 The planning application was validated in October 2016. A review of

Cheltenham Borough Council’s public access planning portal indicates that

the local highway authority has not yet made any comments on the planning

application.

Transport Assessment

4.3 Phil Jones Associates, the transport consultant working on behalf of the Land

at North-West Cheltenham consortium, have been working with GCC and

their consultants for a number of years to determine the appropriate

assessment methodology of the development site. A number of transport

modelling methods have informed the detailed assessment of the planning

application.

4.4 The multi-modal trip generation for each land use within the development

proposal have been calculated, with the development traffic flows assigned to

specific access points. The resultant vehicular trips have then been input into

the SATURN model to determine the impact of the development for a number

of horizon years.

4.5 Highway England’s Paramics model (a micro simulation traffic model) of the

M5 has been used to assess the impact of the development on the strategic

road network. The SATURN modelling outputs from the 2008 model and the

associated horizon years have been input into Highway England’s Paramics

model.

4.6 Paramics has also been used to assess the impact of the development on the

Tewkesbury Road corridor. The primary focus of this work was to determine

the impact on public transport journey times as a result of the development.

This work provided a detailed review of the impact on journey times across





the Tewkesbury Road corridor, of both public transport and general traffic.

The SATURN modelling outputs from the 2008 model and the associated

horizon years have been input into the Paramics model.

4.7 Standalone junction modelling has been undertaken of a number of road

junctions that are not covered by the Paramics models. The SATURN outputs

discussed above have been input into the standalone junction models.

4.8 The following mitigation measures have been included within the 2026

horizon years that have been reviewed:

i. New western signalised access at the Tewkesbury Road/Homecroft

Drive junction;

ii. New Toucan Crossing on Tewkesbury Road, adjacent to Sandpiper

Drive.

iii. New eastern signalised access in the vicinity of No. 9 Tewkesbury

Road, incorporating bus priority measures, and with carriageway

widening on Tewkesbury Road between the western and eastern

junctions;

iv. Significant improvements to the signalised junction of Tewkesbury

Road/Old Gloucester Road incorporating bus priority measures;

v. New four-arm access roundabout at the stub end of the Gallagher

Retail Park access;

vi. Improvements to the Hayden Road/Manor Road signalised junction,

with bus priority measures on both eastbound and westbound

approaches;

vii. Replacement of the PE Way/Tewkesbury Road roundabout with a

signalised junction, incorporating bus priority measured on the

eastbound approach;

viii. Replacement of the Wymans Lane/Kingsditch Lane mini-roundabouts

with a new four-arm signalised junction; and

ix. Replacement of the Staverton Bridge signals with a new four-arm

roundabout.





4.9 It can be seen that the mitigation measures included for the Land at North-

West Cheltenham planning application differ significantly from the mitigation

measures that have been included with the most recent JCS modelling.

Transport Modelling Considerations

4.10 The Paramics modelling of the Tewkesbury Road corridor has only

considered a horizon year of 2026. It is stated within the Transport

Assessment that 2026 and 2031 forecast years have been considered,

however the modelling results are based on 2026 only.

4.11 The Transport Assessment considered a development of up to 4,785

dwellings, the original allocation identified at the site. This has now been

amended to 4,285 dwellings through the JCS, with 4,115 dwellings applied for

as part of the planning application.

4.12 The development phasing set out within the Transport Assessment states that

75 dwellings will be completed by the end of 2017, with 4,050 dwellings built

out by 2029, this is a suggested build rate of 338dpa, over 12 years. Based

on the quantum of development set out within the planning application, the

Transport Assessment considers it likely that the development will be built out

by approximately 2029. This build rate, even with four outlets on site is

considered to be overly ambitious and 200-225dpa is more appropriate,

therefore taking completion on site to 2035.

4.13 The year of commencement and build out date of the development is not

considered to be realistic. It is necessary to consider the likely date that the

planning application will be determined. In the event that the outline planning

permission is granted by Cheltenham Borough Council, notwithstanding the

potential of any appeal or Judicial Review, reserved matters approval and pre-

commencement conditions will need to be satisfied. It is also likely that a

certain level of highway works to form an access(s) will be required to

commence works on site, which will require a highway works agreement with

GCC. It is therefore considered that a more realistic development opening

year would be 2019/2020. To meet the identified 2029 completion, this would

increase build rates to 412dpa.

4.14 Assuming this new build rate is unobtainable, in the event that a realistic date

for commencement of the development is to be 2019/2020, the development





of 4,115 dwellings, against a more realistic build rate, would be built out by

approximately 2037/2038. This is an important factor to note as the Paramics

and standalone junction modelling has considered a 2026 horizon year. On

this basis, approximately ten years of background growth has not been

included within the modelling, which could have a significant impact on the

residual cumulative impact of the development.

4.15 In terms of the overall horizon years, no interim Paramics modelling has been

undertaken. The majority of the mitigation package has been included within

the 2026 modelling scenario, therefore it is not known when the impact of the

development will trigger each element of the mitigation. At this stage, it is not

considered that GCC would be able to determine the point in the build out of

the development that the mitigation measures are required. It is also not

known what the impact of the development will be during the overall build out.

4.16 In the event that the majority of the mitigation measures are not in place until

2026, and notwithstanding the comments made in paragraphs 4.13 and 4.14,

the Transport Assessment estimates that 2,925 dwellings will be constructed,

together with 30,000sq.m of employment floor space, by 2026. Setting aside

questions regarding deliverability by this timescale, this is considered to be

a significant level of development to be completed, prior to the majority

of mitigation measures being in place.

4.17 The modelling work that has been undertaken was informed by the overall

JCS land use parameters and housing numbers at that time, given that the

land use parameters have altered significantly since the modelling for this site

was undertaken, the modelling is no longer considered valid.

4.18 The modelling that has been undertaken has used link flow data and zones to

distribute traffic from the 2008 SATURN model. Given the age of this model,

and despite the local improvements that have been made to the 2008

SATURN model, it is considered that to understand that overall impacts of the

development, particularly regarding the re-assignment of traffic, that further

modelling work should be undertaken using the 2013 SATURN model, when

this becomes available for use.





Transport Modelling Results

4.19 As discussed previously, the main modelling tool that has been used to

assess the impact of the development is a Paramics model. The Paramics

model has reviewed the impact on journey times across the Tewkesbury Road

corridor. The impact of the development on journey times for public transport

and all vehicles has been considered.

4.20 The Paramics model demonstrates the delay in seconds for vehicles that

travel along the Tewkesbury corridor within the modelled extent. The extent

of the model is approximately 3.3km, which begins slightly west of the ‘The

Green’ in Uckington and ends at Poole Way, which is west of Cheltenham

Town Centre.

4.21 Although the Paramics model provides a useful review of the impact on

journey times across the corridor, the Paramics model itself cannot consider

the re-assignment of traffic. The SATURN modelling outputs have been

included within the Paramics model, which will have accounted for some level

of re-assignment of traffic.

4.22 The Paramics model has primarily been used to assess the impact on public

transport journey times and the impact of the mitigation measures along the

Tewkesbury Road corridor. The Paramics model only considers the journey

times of vehicles that are travelling along the Tewkesbury Road and does not

consider the impact of traffic on roads adjoining the Tewkesbury Road.

4.23 Standalone junction modelling has only been undertaken for two road

junctions within the Paramics model, where significant mitigation measures

are proposed. On this basis, it is not possible to determine the impact of

the development and the mitigation measures on the roads that adjoin

the Tewkesbury Road. For example, due to additional traffic using the

Tewkesbury Road, queues on ‘side’ roads may increase. In addition, traffic

has re-assigned to residential routes outside of the model, due to increased

congestion on the Tewkesbury Road, this impact is not considered.

4.24 The results of the Paramics modelling has been categorised into a number of

base (do minimum) and future year (do something) modelling scenarios, they

are as follows:

i. Do Minimum (DM) – Base + GCC JCS Assumptions;





ii. Do Something 1 (DS1) – DM + Elms Park + PJA Interventions;

iii. Do Something 2 (DS2) – AS DS1 but no mode shift; and

iv. Do Something 3 (DS3) – 95% DM + Elms Park + PJA Interventions.

4.25 DS1 includes the proposed development, the mitigation package referred to

in paragraph 4.19, together with a projected level of mode shift. DS2 includes

the same assumptions as DS1, but with no mode shift. DS3 includes the same

assumptions as DS1, but removes 5% of background traffic from the existing

highway network.

4.26 The Transport Assessment presents two trip generation scenarios, DS1 and

DS2. The DS1 trip generation scenario includes the following assumptions

with reference to modal shift:

i. A doubling of the proportion of trips undertaken by bus;

ii. A doubling of the proportion of trips undertaken by bicycle; and

iii. A 25% increase in the proportion of trips undertaken on foot.

4.27 The DS2 scenario includes no modal shift as a result of the development. It

should however be noted that the SATURN model includes a global level of

modal shift for the future years.

4.28 The modal shift set out within the DS1 trip generation scenario is

considered to be ambitious, given the location of the site. In the event

that the level of modal shift is not achieved, the DS1 trip generation and

modelling results cannot be considered to be robust.

4.29 The detailed Paramics modelling assessment presented with the

Transport Assessment does not compare the impact of DS2. The

Transport assessment compares the 2013 and 2026 base situation against

the DS1 and DS3 scenarios. On this basis, and to achieve the results set out

in DS1 and DS3, the development is wholly reliant on achieving its mode shift

targets for DS1 and the mode shift targets and 5% reduction in background

traffic growth of DS3.

4.30 As no detailed comparisons, have been included which compare the impact

of the 2026 base with the DS2 scenario, it is not possible to assess the





impact of the development, in the event that the modal shift set out

within the Travel Plan and the Transport Assessment is not achieved.

4.31 The Paramics modelling includes an assumption that ‘peak spreading’ will

occur in the future years. This refers to drivers deciding to travel before and/or

after the traditional peak hours, due to the level of congestion on the highway

network. Although it is considered reasonable to apply a certain level of ‘peak

spreading’, there is no evidence to suggest that the levels applied are

reasonable.

4.32 The Transport Assessment sets out that only 35% of trips during the AM

period will occur during the central peak hour, 08:00 – 09:00. It is assumed

that this approach has also been taken for the PM peak hour, however no

information has been presented. Overall, it is considered that impact of

peak spreading could have been overestimated, culminating in

unrealistic future year modelling results.

4.33 It is stated in the TA that the future year model results are presented for 2026

and 2031, as these horizons match those from the SATURN modelling.

However, the Paramics modelling results only include a 2026 future year.

Given that the development will not be completed until approximately 2031, it

is considered that this would be a more appropriate horizon year. At this

stage, it appears as though approximately five years’ worth of

background growth, 2026 – 2031, has not been included within the

Paramics model. This point should be clarified.

4.34 As stated previously, Paramics modelling results have only been presented

for the DS1 and DS3 modelling scenarios, and not the DS2 scenario. The DS1

and DS3 results have been compared against the 2013 base situation and

the 2026 base situation.

4.35 The Tewkesbury Road eastbound journey times for all vehicles in the AM and

PM peaks are considerably higher in the 2013 base, than in the 2026 base. It

is explained in the Transport Assessment that this is due to the impact of peak

spreading. This is not considered realistic, given that the 2026 base (should

also consider more realistic delivery timeframe) includes 13 years of traffic

growth and assumptions relating to the build out of some of the other JCS





strategic allocations. This further illustrates that the impact of peak

spreading may have been overestimated.

4.36 During the AM peak, journey times for all vehicles travelling eastbound along

the Tewkesbury Road corridor increase by a maximum of approximately

200 seconds, when comparing the 2026 base with the DS1 scenario. In the

PM peak, journey times for all vehicles travelling eastbound along the corridor

increase by a maximum of approximately 400 seconds, when comparing

the 2026 base with the DS1 scenario.

4.37 During the AM peak, journey times for buses only travelling eastbound along

the corridor increase by a maximum of approximately 100 seconds, when

comparing the 2026 base with the DS1 scenario. In the PM peak, journey

times for buses only travelling eastbound along the corridor generally

decrease when comparing the 2026 base and the DS1 scenario. This is due

to the bus priority measures that are proposed. It should be noted that journey

times will increase by between approximately 100 and 200 seconds between

the 2013 base and the DS1 scenario.

4.38 The Tewkesbury Road westbound journey times for all vehicles in the AM

peak is generally consistent across all scenarios. However, in the PM peak,

the DS1 journey times for all vehicles are considerably higher than the 2026

base, with a maximum journey time increase of approximately 150

seconds.

4.39 During the AM peak, journey times for buses only travelling westbound along

the corridor are generally consistent between the DS1 and 2026 scenario,

however this does represent an approximate 200 second journey time

increase for buses from the 2013 base. In the PM peak, journey times for

buses only travelling westbound significantly increase between the 2026

base and the DS1 scenario by a maximum of approximately 150 seconds.

4.40 A comparison has been undertaken of the journey time of buses and cars

between the development and Cheltenham town centre in the AM peak hour

and vice versa in the PM peak hour. In the AM peak hour, the journey times

between the site and Cheltenham town centre are broadly consistent, with the

PM journey from the site to Cheltenham town centre being considerably

quicker by bus.





4.41 In the AM peak hour, the journey times between Cheltenham town centre and

the site are significantly quicker by car, with the PM journey from Cheltenham

town centre to the site also being considerably quicker by car.

4.42 On the basis of the comparison results between the car and bus, the pertinent

scenarios are considered to be the AM journey from the site to Cheltenham

town centre and in the PM peak the journey between Cheltenham town centre

and site. In the AM peak, the journey times are broadly similar, whilst in the

PM peak, the car journey is considerably quicker.

4.43 It is therefore considered that the mode shift applied to double bus

journeys is not reasonable, given that residents can still drive into the town

centre and back for employment purposes at the same rate or considerably

quicker than the bus. It is considered that there is little incentive for

residents travelling into Cheltenham and back in the peak hours to use

the bus, rather than their car. This further illustrates the point that the overall

modelling comparisons should include a consideration of DS2, which

assumes no mode shift.

Conclusions

4.44 At this stage, it is considered that there are a number of significant deficiencies

with the transport work that has been undertaken to determine the impact of

the North-West Cheltenham planning application.

4.45 The impact of the development should be tested on the 2013 SATURN model,

when this is available. The future modelling work that is to be undertaken

should include the most recently agreed JCS land use parameters. The

Paramics model will need to account of the 2013 SATURN modelling outputs

and revised JCS assumptions.

4.46 The Paramics modelling should be revised to consider the impact of the DS2

scenario. The modal shift and peak spreading assumptions should be

evidenced to ensure that they are robust, ‘double counting’ of modal shift

between the SATURN global assumptions and the PJA assumed mode shift

should be avoided. The overall mode shift assumptions relating to public

transport usage should be re-considered against the comments raised

regarding the comparison of bus and car journey times.





4.47 Clarification over the horizon years for the Paramics modelling should be

provided, with a horizon year consistent with the full development build out

chosen. Standalone junction modelling for those junctions with the Paramics

model should be undertaken to determine the impact on ‘side roads’ of the

bus priority measures and the overall increase in traffic along the Tewkesbury

Road corridor.

4.48 No interim modelling of the development has been provided to determine

when the proposed mitigation package is required. The overall increase of

journey times along the corridor is considered to be significant, which will have

a negative impact on the operation of public transport along this corridor.





APPENDIX A: Land West of Cheltenham Site Location Plan





APPENDIX B: Land at North-West Cheltenham Site Location Plan

Copyright

The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Cotswold Transport Planning Ltd.

Copyright © Cotswold Transport Planning Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Registered Office: 121 Promenade, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL50 1NWRegistered in England and Wales No. 9228763.

Cotswold Transport Planning Ltd

Please visit our website at:www.cotswoldtp.co.uk

Office locations in:BristolCheltenham (HQ)Stratford-upon-AvonRutland

galliard (cheltenham) ltd and pye homes...

Documents