Support

Representation ID: 20046

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: National Highways

Broadly agree with the approach to funding transport infrastructure outlined within the LP, through the pooling of contributions secured through Planning Obligations and, once adopted, the Council's Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule (CIL), further details of the specific infrastructure schemes that may be required to support development across the Borough are not provided within the LP at this stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 20047

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: National Highways

An Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has not been prepared to accompany the LP and without this I can see the plan being challenged.

Comment

Representation ID: 20048

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: National Highways

We understand that modelling is currently being undertaken to determine what the impact of development could be on the highway network and therefore what measures may be required to mitigate these impacts. It is therefore unclear at this stage whether it will be possible to sufficiently mitigate the impact of the allocated development locations or whether the impact will be too great to feasibly ensure that the network operates within capacity at the end of the plan period. Further discussion of this will take place in the Evidence Base section below.

Comment

Representation ID: 20049

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: National Highways

The LP does not provide any details of infrastructure funding, which may be unknown at this stage if the specific infrastructure schemes that are required have not yet been identified. It is important that once the schemes are identified that the funding method for each is outlined, including any Central Government or Local Government funding that is available, the amount that could be collected from developers and any shortfall that could occur. It is recommended that an IDP is prepared to provide further details regarding the infrastructure provision and funding.

Comment

Representation ID: 20050

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: National Highways

We consider that the trip generation and distribution assumed by PBA is broadly reasonable. Some concerns have been raised regarding the assignment of trips across the network, primarily the decision to assign all trips between two zones to the same route, whereas in reality we consider that a number of different routes may be used, particularly if routes become congested and users change to an alternative route to avoid the congestion. We consider that the current methodology could result in a robust impact on the SRN and therefore may be reasonable to take forward

Comment

Representation ID: 20051

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: National Highways

Current methodology prepared by PBA is broadly reasonable. If, however, the local highway authority plans to deter drivers from making use of certain routes or congestion hotspots cause a significant change in route choice, the total development trips on the strategic road network could alter from that presented within the Highway Modelling Report. The assessment undertaken to date suggests very high impacts to the SRN.

Comment

Representation ID: 20052

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: National Highways

Junction capacity assessments of the SRN have not been presented within the Modelling Report, despite experiencing significant increases in trips at the junction as a result of development. It is recommended these are undertaken to determine the predicted operation of the junctions following LP development and to determine what measures may be required to mitigate the impact. Consideration may also need to be given to undertaking merge/diverge assessments at various locations to determine whether changes are required to support the LP development.