Town & Country Planning Act 1990

CEREDIGION COUNTY COUNCIL

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

APPEAL BY BOURNE LEISURE LIMITED

SITE AT QUAY WEST HOLIDAY PARK, NEW QUAY, SA45 9SE

REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF THE PROOF OF EVIDENCE

prepared by: Ian McGranePCert, MCIHT

PREPARED BY -

MARGARET G. JAMES

SENIOR ENGINEER (PLANNING LIAISON)

TECHNICAL SERVICES

CEREDIGION COUNTY COUNCIL

PLANNING INSPECTORATE REF:APP/D6820/A/15/3134757

LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REF:A130830

MARCH 2016

1. INTRODUCTION

The Local Highway Authority (LHA) notes the statements made in the introduction.

1. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

2.1Error – ‘Transport Advisory Note 18’ should read ‘Technical Advice Note 18’

2.2-2.11The LHA note the statements made.

3.SITE LOCATION AND CONTEXT

For clarification,the roadway referred to in the evidence as ‘Cei Bach Lane’ is the County Class III Road No C1035. The Class III Road extends from the junction of the Class II Road B4342 at Cnwc Y Lili Cross roads to the Trunk Road A487, east of Llanarth. The roadway is open to all traffic and is subject to the National Speed limit of 60mph.

3.6-3.7The LHA note the statements made.

3.8-3.9Fig 7.1 of Manual for Streets 1 (MfS1) illustrates that a 4.8m wide paved carriageway ‘provides sufficient width for two cars to pass one another with lateral clearance between each vehicle’.

At 4.7m the carriageway will allow a wide car to pass a large service vehicle with an overall tolerance of 0.4m. Hence whilst being restrictive, a width of 4.7m will provide two-way flow for the majority of residential traffic with a tolerance of 1.1m.However, a4.7m width does not provide refuge within highway limits forpedestrians/cycliststo step clear of two-way traffic flows.

Fig 6.8 illustrates width of footways and pedestrian areas for a range of functions.

Appendix 1(p79, Fig.7.1 - MfS1)

Appendix 2(p68, Fig.6.8 - MfS1)

Highway Gradient

3.10-3.14The LHA note the statements made.

Forward Stopping Sight Distance (FSSD)

3.15 No plan has been provided to the LHA to indicate the location of the (FSSD) measured.

3.16The LHA note the statements made.

Access to Public Transport

3.17-3.18The LHA note the statements made.

3.19The bus shelter is located at Cnwc Y Lili Crossroads; adjacent to the Class II Road No B4342. The pedestrian desire line from the appeal site junction to the bus shelter is alongthe Class III Road. The Class III Road is de-restricted, is unlit and devoid of footway/verges to allow pedestrian to step clear of passing vehicles.

Fig 3.1 ‘Cei Bach Lane-Carriageway Width Profile from jct with B4342’ illustrate that the section of roadway between the B4342 and the appeal site junction has 6no pinch points, with a width of below 5m.

3.20The LHA note the statements made.

4.DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 Disagree. Should the appellant decide to operate the pitches as ‘holiday lets’ it may materially alter the traffic profile that is contained in Chapter 5. Unlike ‘owner-occupier’ caravans, ‘holiday lets’may be likely to generate peak ‘Arrival and Departure Traffic Flows within the busiest hour (11am-12pm) and thereby likely alter the traffic flow profile. As a broad guide the Assembly Government would regard an increase in turning movements in the order of 5% as material in most cases, that is, a 5% increase of traffic using any link of the junction.

4.2-4.4The LHA note the statements made.

5.PLANNING APPLICATION HISTORY (HIGHWAYS RELATED)

5.1-5.7The LHA note the statements made.

Assessment and Quantification of Baseline Conditions

5.8-5.11The LHA note the statements made.

Pedestrians Counts along Cei Bach Lane

5.12The pedestrian counts are not daily counts; they are restricted between the hours of 10am and 6pm.

5.13-5.14The LHA note the statements made.

Volumetric Vehicle Surveys within Quay West Holiday Park

5.15Disagree. As a broad guide the Assembly Government would regard an increase in turning movements in the order of 5% as material in most cases, that is, a 5% increase of traffic using any link of the junction.

Appendix 3: Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 18: Transport. (p.55/56)

5.16Disagree. A survey to record vehicle volumes at the entrance to the ‘Traeth Gwyn’ area of the existing site does not provide an acceptable method for calculating the potential level of vehicle movements along the Class III Road.

Appendix 4:

Photograph of path between caravans No 42 No 43at ‘Traeth Gwyn’ that connects to the coastal path.

Photograph of path near ‘Traeth Gwyn’that connects to the B4342.

5.17No evidence provided of the ’proportion of units which are ‘owner occupied’or ‘holiday let’ within the ‘Traeth Gwyn’ area of the existing complex.

5.18The LHA note the statements made.

5.19Disagree. ‘Using the traffic data associated with the ‘Traeth Gwyn’ area of the existing holiday park does not provide an acceptable method for calculating the trip generation associated with the proposed development for the following reasons:

Geographically, the ‘Traeth Gwyn’ area is located at the western side of the site near to New Quay. ‘Traeth Gwyn’ has inclusive safe pedestrian links to all leisure facilities with the Quay West complex and to the beach. The local amenities at New Quay are located within a 700m radius of ‘Traeth Gwyn’. Within the ‘Traeth Gwyn’ area there is a path leading between caravans No.42 and No.43 to the coastal path;that leads to New Quay. Therefore, there is reduced demand for car use once the visitors have arrived on-site.

In comparison, the Appeal Site is located at a remote location to the east of the Main Complex and is bisected by the County Class III Road. The local amenities at New Quay are located a distance of some 1.5km away; this would result in increased reliance on travel by private car to access these local amenities.

Consequently, using the traffic data associated with the ‘Traeth Gwyn’ area within the main site to derive vehicular trip generation figures, where walking would be the dominant mode of transport, is not comparable with the proposed site.

Notwithstanding the above, no data has been provided to the LHA to validate the vehicle trips.

Trip Generation from the Proposed Development

5.20- 5.21Disagree. As detailed in 5.19 above.

No data has been provided to the LHA to validate the survey results.

Cei Bach Lane – Baseline Traffic and Development Traffic Flow

5.22Disagree. The base line traffic from the ‘Traeth Gwyn’ area does not provide an acceptable method for calculating the trip generation associated with the proposed development.

5.23Disagree. The vehicular trip generation from the ‘Traeth Gwyn’ area does not provide an acceptable method to calculate that the proposed development will, ‘during the peak season, generate a daily traffic flow that is significantly lower than corresponding baseline conditions.

Vehicle Speed Survey – Cei Bach Lane

5.24Agreed.

The TS does not include data to validate the survey results.

5.25-5.29The LHA note the statements made.

Cei Bach Lane – Application of Appropriate Design Guidance

5.30-5.36The LHA note the statements made.

5.37The ‘Stage 1 Road Safety Audit’ does not confirm that ‘the positioning and measurement was correct bearing in mind the horizontal alignment of Cei Bach Lane’.

The Audit reads: ‘you asked for comment on the visibility spays; specifically whether the positioning and measurement of was correct bearing in mind the horizontal alignment of Cei Bach Lane. We advised that it would not be appropriate to include such advice as part of the Audit Report and we agreed to make some general comments to assist you with this matter.’

5.38The LHA note the statements made.

Cei Bach Lane – Proposed Vehicular and Pedestrian Access Design

5.39-5.40Disagree. Drawing No DWG/1336/001 Rev A referred to as the ‘preliminary engineering design’ for the vehicular and pedestrian access prepared as part of the Transport Statement does not provide vertical levels. A topographic surveyis required, to determinevisibilityenvelopes in both the horizontal and vertical plane.

MfS1 (page 91, para 7.6.4) reads ‘The Stopping Site Distance (SSD) figure relates to the position of the driver and the front of the vehicle is typically up to 2.4m , which is a significant proportion of shorter distances. It is therefore recommended that an allowance is made by adding 2.4m to the SSD’.

Accordingly, there is a requirement to adjust the SSD from 43m to 45 m.

Drawing No 1336/001 Rev A doesnot contain visibility splays to the south of the proposed junction and to the south of the proposed pedestrian access to the site. Due to the curvature of the Class 111 Road, visibility in the southern direction would cross over the carriageway. When this occurs, an additional visibility splay should be shown plotted from the “x” point, to the nearside carriageway edge on the tangent of the curve in line with MfS1 (page 92, para 7.7.4). The LHA maintain that the additional inter-visibility splay areas to the south of the proposed site junction and proposed pedestrian access would cross over third-party land outside the application site.

The height within the visibility envelope for the site junction shall be measured at an eye height of 1.05m (for car drivers) down to a point 600mm above the carriageway, to ensure small children can be seenMfS1 (page 91, para 7.6.3 and Figure 7.17 - Vertical visibility envelope).The visibility envelope shall extend for distances of 45m, measured along the nearside edge of carriageway in each direction.

The height within the visibility envelope for the pedestrian access site shall be measured from a 2m ‘x’ distance to a ‘y’ distance of 43m. The visibility envelope shall be measured 600mm above the carriageway, to ensure shall children can be seen.

Visibility should be checked at junctions and along the street. Visibility is measured horizontally and vertically,MfS1 (page 91, para 7.6.1)

Appendix5: MfS1 (p92, para 7.7.4)

Appendix6: MfS1 (p91, para 7.6.3 Figure 7.17 Vertical visibility envelope and para 7.6.1)

5.41No evidence presented to the LHA of appropriate ‘design checks’undertaken.

5.42-5.44The LHA note the statements made.

5.45Disagree.Drawing No 1336/001 Rev A submitted as part of the Transport Statement clearly showsthe alignment of the Class IIIRoad to be curved. The site junction and pedestrian access join the Class III Road on the outside of a bend.

MfS1 ( page 92, para 7.7.4) states ‘when the main alignment is curved and the minor arm joins on the outside of a bend, another check is necessary to make sure that an approaching vehicle on the main arm is visible over the whole of the Y distance. This is done by drawing an additional sight line which meets the kerb line at a tangent.’ The LHA maintain that this further design check was necessary.

A site survey carried out by the LHA identified that visibility in the southerly direction at the proposed site junction and proposed pedestrian access are restricted by third party land, not identified within the applicant’s ownership/control.

Measured Vehicle Speed and Achievable Visibility: Junction of B4342 / Cei Bach Lane

5.46-5.49The LHA note the statements made.

5.50Disagree. A visibility splay of 90m should be provided as per Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Technical Advice Note (TAN)18 Table A.

Appendix 7: Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 18: Transport (p44, Table A)

5.51The survey has not captured vehicle speeds on the New Quay, west bound approach to Cnwc Y LiliCross Roads.

5.52Agreed. The equipment was installed 43m east of the Cnwc Y LiliCross road at Site 3. No vehicles speeds were recorded on the westerly approach to the junction, travelling from New Quay.

5.53The LHA agree that the 90m Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) from the New Quay approach is in line with the current speed restriction of 30mph.

Disagree. The LHA disagree with the statement that ‘the current geometric alignment’ of the junction meets design standards. The geometry of the junction is substandard in terms of junction radii, carriageway width and footway provision.

Transport Statement – Post Planning Submission

5.54Email dated 31 January 2014 from the LHA to the Local Planning Authority (LPA)recommendthat permission shall be refused for the following reasons:

The proposed development would involve the construction of a new pedestrian crossing and a new vehicular access to the County Road at a location where visibility is restricted which will lead to danger for emerging vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians; contrary to National Guidance contained in Planning Policy Wales TAN 18.

The development does not secure safe access to site in addition to a safe and secure layout for all people from a road safety perspective.

Appendix 8: Email dated 24 December 2014 from the LHA to the LPA

B4342 / Cei Bach Lane Junction – Achievable Visibility Splay

5.55-5.57The LHA note the statements made.

5.58Noted. The landowner adjacent to the Class II Road B4342 east of Cnwc Y Lili cross roads has removed the roadside hedge bank and erected a fence. Visibility at the junction accords with Table Aof TAN18.

Modification of the Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Point – Cei Bach Lane

5.59-5.61The LHA note the statements made.

Transport Statement – Post Planning Submission Acceptance

5.62-5.63The LHA note the statements made.

5.64The LHA initially advised the LPA that any permission granted shall be subject to conditions.Condition 1 is a Grampian condition;as the construction of the pedestrian crossing within highway limits will require the consent of the LHA.The Grampian condition prohibits occupation of the holiday accommodation until the provision of supporting highway infrastructure.

Condition 7 reads: ‘The development shall include any necessary adjustment of any public utilities apparatus, highway drains, street lights, traffic signs or road markings arising from the works, that may include the full cost of introducing any traffic order at the developers expense’.

The principle of a pedestrian crossing across the Class 111 Road cannot be supported without traffic calming; any form of physical traffic calming can only be implemented within a 20, 30 or 40 mph speed limit. The application site is not within a speed limit and the implementation of a road traffic order is subject to a lengthy public consultation that may/may not be supported.

Appendix 9: Recommendation from the LHA to the LPA dated 31st January 2014.

5.65Drawings DWG/1336/001 Revision A and B are both dated October 2013.

5.66Agreed

5.67The LHA note the statements made.

5.68Disagree. The principle of a pedestrian crossing across the Class III Road cannot be supported without traffic calming; any form of physical traffic calming can only be implemented within a 20, 30 or 40 mph speed limit. Whilst the land required for the supporting highway infrastructure lies within the control of the highway authority the implementation of a road traffic order is subject to a lengthy public consultation.

5.69Agreed

6.ENHANCEMENT OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ALONG CEI BACH LANE

6.1Agreed

6.2No agreement was sought /given by the LHA to the Permissive Right of Way.

The proposed ‘Permissive Right of Way’ linking onto the Class III Road would induce additional pedestrian activity opposite the site junction, at crossroads configuration would not be supported by the LHA without traffic calming. Physical traffic calming can only be implemented within a 20, 30 or 40 mph speed limit. The proposed pedestrian access is not within a speed limit and the implementation of a road traffic order is subject to a lengthy public consultation.

6.3The statement acknowledges that the Class III Road offers ‘an unsafe environment’.

6.4The LHA support the proposal for the ‘Permissive Right of Way, which would align directly through the holiday park and onto the beach’.

6.5Noted. The LHA is not the highway authority for public rights of ways.

6.6The LHA note the statements made.

7.BACKGROUND TO THE PLANNING APPEAL

Introduction

7.1Dispute. The LHA initially advised the LPA that any permission granted shall be subject to conditions. Condition 1 is a Grampian condition; as the construction of the pedestrian crossing within highway limits will require the consent of the LHA. The Grampian condition prohibits occupation of the holiday accommodation until the provision of supporting highway infrastructure.

Condition 7 reads: ‘The development shall include any necessary adjustment of any public utilities apparatus, highway drains, street lights, traffic signs or road markings arising from the works, that may include the full cost of introducing any traffic order at the developers expense’.

The principle of a pedestrian crossing across the Class III Road cannot be supported by the LHA without traffic calming; any form of physical traffic calming can only be implemented within a 20, 30 or 40 mph speed limit. The application site is not within a speed limit and the implementation of a road traffic order is subject to a lengthy public consultation that may/may not be supported.

At the Development Control Meeting held on 10 December 2014, Members requested the LHA carry out a site survey to ascertain the actual visibility distancesas they recalled a fatality at the cross roads.

Based on a review of updated plans received by email from David Middleton, Savilles dated 18 December 2014 the LHA withdrew the recommendation to approve subject to conditions and superseded with a recommendation to refuse.

Determination of Original Planning Application – 10th December 2014

7.2The LHA note the statements made.

7.3The email dated 24 December 2014 from the LHA to the LPA addressedroad safety issues raised by Members at the Development Control Meeting held on 10 December 2014.It offers a review of the updated plans submitted on the 18 December 2014.

Drawing 1336/002 (Cross Roads Visibility Measurements)

Drawing 1336/001 Rev B (Site Access Arrangements)

7.4The LHA note the statements made.

7.5To clarify:

• The record of Personal Injury Accidents over a five year period is agreed.
• The visibility survey carried out on 22 December 2014 highlighted restricted visibility in the southerly direction at the proposed junction and pedestrian access to the appeal site.
• The updated Drawing 1336/001 Rev B (Site Access Arrangements) submitted on the 18 December 2014 propose a painted crossing across the Class III road and pedestrian chicane barriers.

7.6-7.7The LHA note the statements made.

Person Injury Accident Data

7.8The ‘Advanced’ search was duly undertaken by the LHA to address concernsraisedby Members at Development Control Committee Meeting, held on 10 December 2014 of a fatality at Cnwc Y Lili cross roads.