Local Government‎ > ‎Planning‎ > ‎

Green Lane traffic Survey

posted Dec 24, 2014, 8:06 AM by Anthony Crowther
The Parish Council have received the Traffic Audit commissioned from Dr Allan Burns and his comments on the December 2009 TA (Transport Assessment ).
It should be noted that the TA included 300 rather than the current 275 homes and Care Home now deleted. This Audit has enabled the Parish Council to understand some areas of the TA which it feels were not conducted or presented in a meaningful way. With reference to this Audit Report we make the following initial observations.
 GATHERED DATA.
In general the data gathered during the period 20th November to 26th November 2010 agrees broadly with the data gathered in June 2009, for the December 2009 TA.  The variations noticed are relatively small and could possibly be accounted for by the difference in traffic flows between Summer and Winter, either way they are not considered to be significant.
 See 2010 Traffic Data recorded   
PROCESSED DATA
We do have reservations however concerning the models used for processing the gathered data and the conclusions reached as a result.
 In asking for guidance on the software used we were advised:-
The correct approach to using TRICS is to go through the available data and select sites that are broadly comparable to the one being considered. 
Clearly, this is a matter of judgement and there will never be two sites that have identical characteristics. 

In this case Odyssey have used 4 sites.  None of these are in London.  The sites are in the following locations:- 

1.  Eastbourne  (270 dwellings) 
2.  Welwyn Garden City  (158 dwellings) 
3.  Preston  (217 dwellings) 
4.  Worcester  (126 dwellings) 

The criteria used to select the sites include the range of the number of dwellings, location (3 sites were defined as "edge of town" and 1 suburban), 
population within specified distances and car ownership levels.
Clanfield Parish Council contend that none of these sites are comparable to a semi-rural village like Clanfield as can be seen in the following table.
The comparison with medium to large towns is totally inappropriate and could possibly be due to Clanfield only being treated in post codes as part of Waterlooville, which anyone living in the area, including representatives of EHDC know is not the case.
 
 
COMPARISON OF SELECTED SITES
 Location  Additional Development  Population  Housing Stock  Increase  Mainline Station/Pkg/Bus Links
 Eastbourne  270  106,562  35,520  0.8%  ML/331/G
 Welwyn GC  158  43,252  14,417  1.0%  ML/0/G
 Preston  217  131,900  43,966  0.5%  ML/939/G
 Worcester  126  94,000  31,333  0.4%  ML/0/G
 Clanfield  275  c5,000  1,900  15%  0/0/VP


The population and transport data has been obtained from a number of web based sites such as National Rail, Wikipedia and parish records. The housing number is an estimate based on 3 persons per property, so as not to skew the results in our favour.
From the above it can be seen that the “comparable” selected sites have a substantial infrastructure to support their proposed development and yet were being asked to support a very much smaller expansion.
All of the chosen sites have their own rail station, two with substantial parking  and good bus services, whereas Clanfield is 6 miles from Petersfield and has an inadequate (and in some cases non-existent) bus service. Having bus stops is one thing, having reliable and regular buses is quite another.
The comparison sites have a much better existing road network than Clanfield which is being expected to accommodate any increase in traffic via existing country lanes.
It is also noticed that the proposed development in Clanfield is larger in real terms and as a percentage is 15 times higher than that of the highest comparable site.
Local residents are aware that there is little employment within the village and residents in the proposed development will be required to provide and use their own transport, which can hardly allow the development to be described as sustainable.
It would appear from the above draft comments that the 2009 Transport Assessment fails to address some effects of the proposed development. Further investigation is taking place and will be commented on in due course.

Comments