Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
In accordance with the Town and country planning act 1990 please accept the comments below on
the planning Outline application (Ref 3/19/0118/OUT).
I am a resident of Beane Avenue and will be directly inconvenienced by any approval to build on the
land East of Gresley Way. I strongly believe the existing residents have a right to expect that any
undesirable impact on them will be minimised. The development as outlined has a number of
features that if approved would not meet that objective and rather would cause severe disruption to
all residents of Chells Manor and everyone who uses Gresley Way and the White Way regularly. I
have further reviewed the application and wish to amend my previous objection submitted on 2nd
February to add a number of additional points, in support of my objection.
Having reviewed the application and some of the documents that support the application, such as:
Transport assessment,
Technical Note - Proposed Access Strategy including Junction Capacity Assessment (February
2016) produced for Pidgeon by Fairhurst,
MOU between Stevenage Borough Council and East Herts District Council signed Oct 2017,
site levels assessment,
Stevenage Design Guide,
there are so many, omissions, contradictions, erroneous assumptions in the Transport assessment
and failures to comply with the Stevenage Design Guide that I believe it is appropriate to stop the
planning process to allow time for review and debate of the many issues. It seems clear given the
number of failings that the application has not received proper scrutiny to date otherwise a more
mature and well thought out plan would have been presented approval.
I wish to raise 5 objections to this outline planning application:
1) The proposal to allow vehicular access to the development by building THREE new junctions
from the new development onto Gresley Way when other more efficient options are
available
2) The proposal to allow vehicular access via the central access point (junction 3)
3) The location of the Toucan crossing at the White Way
4) The proposal to build three story apartments at each site access point
5) The allocation of land for use by “Travelling, showpeople” and Gypsies.
My main objection is the current plan to bring all traffic from the new development onto Gresley
Way via THREE new junctions 1x 3 way and 2x 4 way crossroads all within a stretch of road that is no
more than 700M in length. The three locations I object to are (junctions 2 (Gresley Way/Uplands
Northern Site access) Junction 3 Gresley Way/The White Way/Central site access) and Junction 8
Gresley Way/Southern site access) as defined at para 1.7 of the Transport assessment (TA) Rev A.
I believe the conclusion reached in para 8.12 of the Transport assessment “It can be concluded that
the development lies in a sustainable location and will have no significantly adverse impact upon the
neighbouring junctions and the surrounding highway network. As such, the proposed mixed use
development should be fully supported through the Planning Process” is not validdue to the large
number of contradictions, erroneous assumptions and omissions therein.
THIS CONCLUSION COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG.
Why do I claim the Transport assessment is not valid?
Firstly - I have now spent some hours understanding the effects of traffic lights at junctions and,
despite the modelling claims, I have concluded that the three junctions, in such close proximity to
each other, will gridlock Gresley Way for long periods of the morning and evening peak periods
causing significant disruption to motorists and existing residents. An example of delay caused by
introducing traffic lights can already be seen during the evening peak period, is at the 3 way lighted
junction at Tesco’s on the London Road. It can regularly be seen that traffic returning to Stevenage
from Knebworth endure a 1.5 mile tailback, due to introduction of a single three-way lighted
junction. Here three more complex junctions are proposed in very close proximity to each other!
A 1.5 mile tailback on Gresley way would form a queue back to the roundabout (junction 6) at
Gresley way and Broadwater Lane for traffic heading from the south and right back to Fairlands Way
for traffic heading from the north.
Currently it takes between 44 and 50 seconds to drive the stretch of road between the planned
south access and the planned north access, depending on traffic. The TA note that there are no
queuing traffic on this stretch of road currently (which is true) but If the application is approved,
several minutes will be added to the journey time of most people who drive along this 700M long
stretch of road, plus I foresee numerous additional minutes delay prior to this due to the tail backs
down to the Poplars and to Martins Way in the other direction. The TA “Impact Assessment” makes
no reference to any delays caused by introducing traffic lights and therefore fails to recognise the
delays, noise, extra pollution and misery that introducing three junctions, in such close proximity,
will cause the community and users of the road for decades to come.
The planning application looks to introduce three junctions all controlled by traffic lights within a
700M stretch of Gresley way. I think I am right when I say that in Stevenage there are today only 6
lighted junctions, all of which are 3-way junctions (Tesco on the London Road, Sainsburys at Coreys Mill, ASDA on
Monkswood way, Gunnels Wood road junction with Cavendish Way, A602 at Bragbury End and Martins Way junction with Wedgwood
way). There are NO 4-WAY junctions, in fact the Nearest I have been able to find is Welwyn Garden
City (where Bridge Road meets Bessemer Road and Broadwater Road) and Potters bar (where Bakers Lane and Bakers Street
meet Mutton Lane). The TA fails to assess (it doesn’t mention at all) the time delay each of these lighted
junctions will impose on traffic using Gresley Way.
I have looked at the effects of traffic lights at four existing junctions. Two 3 way junctions (at Tesco
on London Road and Sainsburys Corrys Mill) and two 4 way junctions (in Welwyn Garden City and
Potters bar). A COMMON FACTOR IN ALL 4 JUNCTIONS IS THERE IS ALWAYS TRAFFIC QUEUING NOT
JUST AT BUSY PERIODS AND ALSO THAT THE TIME MOTORISTS ARE STOPPED BY A RED LIGHT IS
GREATER THAT THE TIME THEY ARE ON GO. The TA confirms that today no traffic is stopped on
Gresley Way so delays while waiting at lights must cause delay but the TA treats these delays as
negligible, which is wrong.
I observed the traffic flow at Tescos on Friday 8th February between 12.00 and 13.00 and at
Sainsburys, on the same day, between 13.30 and 14.00.
The two 3 way junctions observed are comparable to the junction that is planned at the south access
point on Gresley way. I observed the traffic flows to understand how the lights work and how long
the lights are on Red on average. It became clear that in one direction traffic flows more freely than
the other. This is because in the slower direction, (in the case of Tescos and Sainsburys it is the traffic
heading in the northerly direction that is held for longer) the lights need to allow traffic leaving
Tescos firstly to turn left, whilst oncoming traffic turn right into Tescos (across the northbound lane)
and then once that traffic has been stopped, any traffic leaving Tescos is free to turn right heading
south (again across the northbound lane). If the application is approved, traffic travelling in a
southerly direction on Gresley Way (at the south access) will experience longer delays than traffic
heading northbound as they will have to wait for two crossing streams (Traffic heading north
wanting to turn right onto the development and traffic looking to leave the development to turn
right and head northbound on Gresley Way).
I took all timings using a stop-watch and recorded the time at the start of the exercise when the
lights I was observing had just turned red. I recorded the duration the lights remained on red and
then the period they were on Green. In a period lasting 680 seconds (at the Tesco junction) the
north facing traffic was stopped (lights on Red) for a total of 400 seconds (59% of the time with an
average stoppage time of 36 secs). Obviously the lights were on Green for only 41% of the time
(average 26 seconds). The southbound traffic was not held for as long because as I mentioned above
they are only held for one period while traffic exiting Tesco and turning right have priority over
southbound traffic. In a period lasting 620 seconds (at the Tesco junction) the south facing traffic
was stopped (lights on Red) for a total of 165 seconds (27% of the time with an average stoppage
time of 15 seconds). Obviously the lights were on Green for 73% of the time (average 41 seconds).
Table showing results of survey of 3-way junction at Tescos
The same observations made at the Sainsburys/Corrys Mill junction showed that in a period lasting
640 seconds (at the Sainsburys junction) the north facing traffic was stopped (lights on Red) for a
total of 305 seconds (48% of the time with an average stoppage time of 50 seconds). Obviously the
lights were on Green for 52% of the time (average 55 seconds). Whilst observing the southbound
traffic, in a period lasting 605 seconds (at the Sainsburys junction) the south facing traffic was
stopped (lights on Red) for a total of 235 seconds (38% of the time with an average stoppage time
of 46 seconds) and hence on Green for 62% of the time (average 75 seconds).
Table showing results of survey of 3-way junction at Sainsburys
I was amazed by these results which tell us that traffic lights which manage two streams of
crossing traffic are on Red for between 50% and 60% of the time and the duration of each Red
phase is between 35 and 50 seconds. Obviously if only one lane has to be crossed the impact is
Tesco 3-way junction 12.00 to 13.00 Friday 8th February 2019 Northbound Tesco 3-way junction 12.00 to 13.00 Friday 8th February 2019 Southbound
Time Red Time Green Time Red Time Green
seconds Seconds seconds Seconds
30 35 15 55
35 50 15 35
40 35 15 35
30 20 15 25
40 10 15 40
40 10 15 35
35 25 15 45
40 20 15 55
35 15 15 60
30 15 15 30
45 45 15 40
Total 400 280 Total 165 455
680 59% 41% 620 27% 73%
Sainsburys 3-way junction 13.30 to 14.30 Friday 8th February 2019 Northbound Sainsburys 3-way junction 13.30 to 14.30 Friday 8th February 2019 Southbound
Time Red Time Green Time Red Time Green
seconds Seconds seconds Seconds
55 60 45 80
50 60 50 80
50 50 50 75
50 55 55 70
50 50 35 75
50 60 0 0
Total 305 335 Total 235 380
640 48% 52% 615 38% 62%
less severe but lights are still on Red for between 30% to 40% of the time with an average time of
15 to 46 seconds. This says to me that the south junction (if, and hopefully not, retained in its
current form) should be no right turn to aid flow on Gresley Way.
Clearly the actual wait times for the south junction at Gresley way can be optimised for traffic
conditions but the TA is deficient in that it does not present this information and so nobody knows
what will be the impact on their journey time as a consequence of building this junction. What is
clear though is that if 26000 motorists are using Gresley Way on average every day 50% of them at
least are going to be held waiting at a red light for a period of between 15 to 50 seconds. This is a
huge amount of wasted time (13,000 minutes per day) just at this single 3-way junction which the
TA fails to identify.
Next I looked at the effects of traffic lights at two 4 way junctions, one in Welwyn Garden City (where
Bridge Road meets Bessemer Road and Broadwater Road) and the other in Potters bar (where Bakers Lane and Bakers Street
meet Mutton Lane). I observed the traffic flow in Potters Bar on Sunday 10th February between 12.30 and
13.00 and in Welwyn, on the same day, between 13.30 and 14.00.
The two 4 way junctions I looked at are comparable (in complexity) to the junctions that are planned
at the central and north access points on Gresley Way. Both had traffic turning left, going straight
across and turning right when allowed, as is planned for junctions 3 (Gresley Way/White Way) and 2
(Uplands/Gresley Way) in this planning application. I observed the traffic flows to understand how
the lights work and how long the lights show Red, on average. The Potters Bar lights differed from
the Welwyn lights in that at Potters Bar both directions were on Red and Green simultaneously
whereas at the Welwyn lights only one direction was allowed to go at a time, with three directions
stopped waiting for the traffic allocated priority.
I took all timings using a stop-watch and recorded the time at the start of the exercise when the
lights I was observing had just turned red. I recorded the duration the lights remained on red and
then the period they were on Green. In a period lasting 870 seconds (at the Potters Bar crossroads)
the traffic in direction 1 (moving away from me) was stopped (lights on Red) for a total of 490
seconds (57% of the time average stoppage being 63 secs). Obviously the lights were on Green for
only 43% of the time (average 46 seconds).
Table showing results of survey of 4-way junction at in Potters Bar
Potters Bar 4-way junction 12.30 to 13.00 Sunday 10th February 2019
Time Red Time Green
seconds Seconds
60 50
60 50
60 50
60 50
60 50
65 45
60 45
75 30
Total 500 370
870 57% 43%
At the Welwyn lights, only one direction was allowed to go at a time with three directions stopped
waiting for the traffic allocated priority, meaning the average waiting time was longer then at
Potters Bar.
I took all timings using a stop-watch and recorded the time at the start of the exercise when the
lights I was observing had just turned red. I recorded the duration the lights remained on red and
then the period they were on Green. In a period lasting 730 seconds (at the Welwyn crossroads) the
traffic in direction 1 (moving away from me) was stopped (lights on Red) for a total of 595 seconds
(82% of the time with an average stoppage time of 66 secs). Obviously the lights were on Green for
only 18% of the time (average duration 15 seconds). In a period lasting 640 seconds (at the Welwyn
crossroads) the traffic in direction 2 (moving across from right to left) was stopped (lights on Red)
for a total of 445 seconds (70% of the time with an average stoppage time of 56 secs). Obviously
the lights were on Green for only 30% of the time (average duration 24 seconds).
Table showing results of survey of 4-way junction at in Welwyn
The results from the 4-way junction observations tell us that lights are Red for between 60% and
80% of their time lasting an average of a little over 60 seconds each time. Clearly very few
motorists arrive at the lights without getting stopped by a red light.
I agree the actual wait times for the two junctions proposed at Gresley way can be optimised for
traffic conditions but the TA is deficient in that it does not present this information and so nobody
knows what will be the impact on their journey time as a consequence of building these junctions.
The TA concludes that there will be no “knock on effect” as a result of having three complex
lighted junctions within 700 Metres of each other.
I believe these conclusions are wrong and challenge the Highways authority to erect three sets of
traffic lights along Gresley Way during the peak periods and watch the carnage unfold.
My observations (and the traffic levels contained in the TA) lead me to anticipate that for long
periods of the day there will be an almost continuous queue of traffic between these three
junctions. What is clear though is that if 26000 motorists are using Gresley Way on average every
day at least 70% of them are going to be held waiting at a red light for a period of that could be in
the order of 60 seconds at each of these 4 way junctions. This is a huge amount of wasted time
(52,000 minutes per day) at the two 4 way crossroads.
In conclusion a journey that today only takes between 44 to 50 seconds will now take between 4
and 6 minutes, just to travel 700M!
Delays of this magnitude are unacceptable. The delays will affect a very large population of
motorists, and more efficient road layouts MUST BE investigated.
Welwyn 4-way junction 13.30 to 14.00 Sunday 10th February 2019 Direction 1 Welwyn 4-way junction 13.30 to 14.00 Sunday 10th February 2019 Direction 2
Time Red Time Green Time Red Time Green
seconds Seconds seconds Seconds
60 10 45 20
50 15 60 20
60 20 65 25
85 15 60 25
75 15 50 30
60 15 60 30
70 10 60 25
70 15 45 20
65 20 0 0
Total 595 135 Total 445 195
730 82% 18% 640 70% 30%
I have also reviewed the Technical Note - Proposed Access Strategy including Junction Capacity
Assessment (February 2016) produced for Pidgeon by Fairhurst. This document studies the effects of
introducing roundabouts (not traffic lights) in the three positions that are now destined to have
lighted junctions installed. I have not seen an update to this document showing comparative analysis
so it represents an obsolete plan.
Nonetheless I would still question some of the assumptions used in this technical note, as they have
continued through into the TA. The modelling in the Technical note recognises that 100% of the
school-related traffic will use the junction at Gresley Way and the White Way. This means all that
additional traffic will have to drive either along the White Way or the full length of Gresley Way. This
is unnecessary.
APPENDIX B of the technical note contains a series of traffic flow spreadsheets. Fig 9 (for example)
shows that it is assumed the primary school will have 200 pupils. In fact the Transport assessment
says (para 7.29) A typical 2 FE Primary School is expected to have capacity for 420 pupils and
approximately 50 staff. On para 2.11 of the technical note it says “The generated school trips were
factored by a quarter on the grounds that most trips would be internal to the proposed
development”. Fig 9 says “The majority of Primary School trips will be generated from within the
development which it is intended to serve. 25% of the trips have been assigned externally, using the
above distribution”. This is an UNSUPPORTED assumption which has lead Fairhurst (and
subsequently the TA) to understate the number of school trips using the Gresley Way/White Way.
These two assumptions compound together to completely undermine the traffic modelling.
This suggests that favourable assumptions have been used in the modelling to make the impact of
traffic flows look significantly less than they will actually be.
Secondly - The TA in Table 7.2 purports to present a 24-hour traffic Flow for Gresley way, recorded
from an Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) survey which was conducted along Gresley Way for a week
commencing 4th June 2018. The TA says “it can be calculated that the two-way vehicular flow along
Gresley Way for an average weekday is 15,880.
However the 24-hour ATC figures above are not consistent with the numbers contained in the
Manual classified count conducted on Wednesday 6th June 2018 which produces “60 minute rolling
total figures” presented at appendix K of that same document. Just looking at the figures for junction
3 (as an example) the total number of vehicles are recorded every 15 minutes between 07.00 and
19.00. The number of vehicles measured by the manual count (per hour) ranges between 1352
(minimum between 10.00 & 11.00) and 3180m (maximum between 17.00 & 18.00). I have calculated
the 12 hour count by taking the figures every hour starting with 07.00 to 08.00 and continuing every
hour until 19.00 which shows the total number of vehicles using this junction is 26,136 (contradicting
the 15,880 vehicles in 24 hours as claimed by the ATC). I have recorded the number of vehicles using
this junction myself, on Saturday 9th February 2019 for just 1 hour between 16.15 & 17.15 to be
1219 vehicles. I also recorded the number of vehicles using the junction for 1 hour between 08.00 &
09.00 on Monday 11th February 2019 to be 1355 vehicles. My recordings correlate well with the 60
minute rolling total figures but both show that the ATC figures grossly understate the number of
vehicles using this junction, and hence the road.
Thirdly – The TA contains an estimate of the number of additional vehicles (“Trip Generation”) that
will use Gresley way at peak time (and each of the new junctions). I believe the TA both overlooks a
number of factors and contains errors that mean the estimate is substantially low. For example:
The decision to build so many new dwellings, a care home, assisted living, primary and pre-
schools, shops and a community centre will create a significant amount of additional traffic,
many of which are expected to use the central access point. The TA evaluates the traffic
expected to arrive at and depart from most of these facilities during peak times but I believe
the logic is materially flawed in a number of areas:
Contradicting the 2016 Technical note (APPENDIX B Fig 9), It is contended in the TA that a
primary school will typically have places for 420 pupils and 50 staff (para 7.29 & 7.30). The
TA makes the (flawed) assumption that whilst it is expected that 45% of pupils will arrive at
school by car, it then assumes that only 40% of these trips will be generated from outside of
the development. This means that only 76 pupil trips and 16 staff trips are assumed in the
modelling for the am peak period (08.00 to 09.00). This must mean that 60% (34 teachers
and 344 pupils) are expected to originate, either from within the development, or are
expected not to use vehicles to arrive at school (I would imagine there is data to show that
very few teachers live within a few hundred yards of the school they work at). Given there
are only 618 homes being built these two assumptions seem to vastly over estimate the
number of externally generated school trips.
The figures used here seem unrealistically low and it could be concluded that this is an
attempt to understate the impact of additional traffic on the existing traffic levels.
I do find it ironic that the TA records that “Access to education is considered to be
particularly important on this site as it is anticipated that young families will acquire a
number of the properties. Therefore, trips for educational purposes will potentially account
for a large proportion of the overall site trip generation” para 4.31. However the figures
allowed in the modelling do not represent “a large proportion of the overall site trip
generation” so the TA trip generation does not appear to be consistent with this sentiment.
Remaining with schools, the application makes no provision for secondary education, and
relies on being able to access existing Secondary schools within Stevenage. The TA notes
that Nobel school is within 1.1Km, suggesting this is walking distance. Of course it is but I
wonder just how many secondary school children walk 1.1Km to school every day? The TA
also fails to note that Nobel school is substantially over subscribed and very few pupils who
live on this development are likely to get places at Nobel. The TA (para 4.32) remarks that
“The site is well served by existing educational facilities with a number of primary and
secondary schools all located within a reasonable journey by foot or bicycle”. Given that the
next nearest alternative secondary school is in excess of 3KM from the development, the TA
seems to be suggesting that this is a reasonable distance to expect children to walk or cycle
every day to school.
I would challenge this reliance on attending Nobel or walking/cycling over 3KM every day
and contend that here is another example of assumptions being made that provide an
unrealistically low estimate of the trips generated to attend Secondary schools. In fact I
believe the TA assumes NO TRIPS will be generated to support attendance at Secondary
school, which has to be plain wrong! If the development is built, Secondary school
generated trips will increase the outbound travel numbers substantially at the peak hour
(08.00 to 09.00) and these are not currently modelled.
Fourth – The TA, at section 6, shows that a speed survey had been conducted on Gresley Way. It
concludes that currently the mean speed along the road is 35 to 42MPH, with the 85th percentile
speeds being 39 to 44MPH. Without debating the accuracy of these figures they do confirm that
today the traffic along the road is free running and other than in rare circumstances, there is no
standing traffic or delays due to build up of traffic.
What the study fails to do is to assess the impact on average speed as a consequence of introducing
the THREE junctions each with their own traffic lights! Now I would be the first to welcome any
scheme that reduces the speeds at which some cars drive along this road but I find the prospect of
having constant stationary traffic, right next to my back garden, even worse. I observe that when a
bus, heading north along Gresley Way turns left into the White Way, there is almost always a
number of cars following, where generally a queue of 3 to 8 cars has accumulated behind, as the bus
tends to travel more slowly than cars and will have slowed down to turn the corner. I make this
remark because if a bus turning left can cause a short bottleneck of this nature, (which doesn’t really
delay anyone) what affect will a red light for 30 seconds or more have? The TA shows that cars travel
along Gresley Way at a rate of one every 0.5 to 1 second depending on time of day. With these
traffic numbers a 30 second stoppage for a red light will create a build up of 15 to 30 cars, at each
set of lights. This is common sense but the modelling in the TA believes there will be no delays. A
pilot needs to be undertaken to confirm whether Gresley Way will remain a free running road or, as I
and many others believe, will turn into a car park, while a constant queue of cars wait their turn to
progress through THREE SETS of traffic lights.
Fifth - The Stevenage Borough Council “Design Guide” (Supplementary Planning Document Adopted
21st October 2009) sets out certain principles (below) that should be adopted by any new
development.
3.17 says The core objectives set out in this Plan will provide the framework for local decision
making that will ensure these objectives can be met.
The TA has failed to demonstrate that it has assessed whether the plan that has been submitted for
approval meets the objectives highlighted in Red (below). For example how can the TA have reduced
carbon emissions if the plan submitted for approval results in miles and miles of queuing traffic
every day and many minutes of additional journey time, where today no such queuing traffic is
present? Similarly if every motorist using Gresley Way experiences much longer journey times, how
can it be said that the plan meets the objective to Improve accessibility between employers and
their labour markets? In order to ensure minimal impact alternative schemes should be modelled
(with realistic figures), however there is no evidence that the TA has done this.
Local Guidance
3.16 To deliver the main vision for Hertfordshire nine objectives were set, across the three themes of Prosperity, People and Place. The
nine objectives listed in Figure 1.2 of the Local Plan are shown below:
Prosperity:
• Improve access to international gateways and regional centres outside Hertfordshire
• Enhance connectivity between urban centres in Hertfordshire
• Improve accessibility between employers and their labour markets
• Enhance journey reliability and network resilience across Hertfordshire
People:
• Enhance the quality and vitality of town centres
• Preserve the character and quality of the Hertfordshire environment
• Reduce carbon emissions
Place:
• Make journeys and their impact safer and healthier
• Improve access and enable participation in everyday life through transport
Clearly the desire to build so many new dwellings, a care home, assisted living, primary and pre-
schools, shops and a community centre will create a significant amount of additional traffic. Further
it is clear that subsequent planning applications sit behind this one for yet more homes east of this
development, which will add still more traffic in time. Under the current plan all that additional
traffic will find its way onto Gresley Way between Uplands and the south access (700M apart with
the central access in between). The Central access point in particular is of greatest concern because
so many vehicular movements are likely to arise from this convenient access point (as recognised by
the TA). However this means that residents and visitors to the new development, who use this
central access point, will drive the entire length of Gresley way to get to their destination. This
additional traffic will cause major disruption on Gresley Way and the White Way as traffic lights are
planned to control traffic at what will become a bottleneck (A 4-way junction). (Note my
observations regarding delays at 4-way junctions earlier).
I believe the Stevenage Design plan requires that new development should be designed to make use
of existing infrastructure as far as possible, in order to minimise its impact upon the environment. It
says Development proposals should take into account the existing routes around the site from the
initial design stage. Developers will also be required to improve existing routes where necessary.
This is not happening with this application.
I believe it would be far less disruptive if only TWO JUNCTIONS were created using existing
infrastructure, forcing all traffic to enter and exit the new development as far north and as far south,
as possible. This would avoid inconvenience caused to the vast majority of the existing population
who live either on Gresley Way (between Six Hills Way and Fairlands Way) or on the many estates
that spur off from the White Way (about 1200 households in all). Surely it is attractive to avoid
inconveniencing several thousand existing residents by ensuring that new residents and visitors to
the development join and leave the development at the farthest north and the farthest south points
as are practicable and use the spine road to get to their destination, rather than Gresley Way and
the central Junction? This spine road would provide a more sustainable solution supporting future
phases further east (if they are to be built subsequently).
It is perfectly feasible to avoid increasing traffic levels on Gresley Way by ensuring only two junctions
are built, one at the North and one South. There are several options that should be investigated and
the most feasible and efficient selected.
For vehicular access to and from the North, one option is to retain the currently proposed location
developing the existing junction (2) at Uplands. However this creates a costly and complex 4-way
crossroads, which will naturally become a bottleneck as it is signal controlled. A better alternative
may be to divert and extend the spine road to allow traffic to link directly onto the existing
roundabout (suitably modified for safety) at Fairlands Way/Walkern Lane (referred to as Junction 1).
This might require use of a small part of the land allocated for Travelling showpeople at the far north
end to extend the roundabout and on the eastern perimeter for the spine road but this incursion
into that allocation would be negligible and this solution would be far less disruptive for existing
residents and motorists who use Gresley Way. Another alternative would be to create a join on from
the new development onto Walkern Lane although this might create a bottleneck for those people
who drive into and out from Stevenage using that road daily. Finally, as an alternative, it should be
possible to build a more simple 3 way junction at the point already earmarked for the use by
“Travelling showpeople”, avoiding the need to build two NEW complex 4 way junctions within a
couple of hundred yards of each other.
For vehicular access to and from the south, one option is to retain the currently proposed location as
this is only a three way junction and would be more efficient than a four way junction. However
there will still be a significant impact on the residents and motorists using Gresley Way so it would
be worth considering imposing a “No right turn” on the exit from the new development onto Gresley
Way. An alternative is to bring traffic directly onto Gresley Way nearer to or at Lanterns Lane
(Junction 4). A large roundabout built to intersect with a diverted south access road that occupies
the southern perimeter of the development land, Lanterns Lane, Gresley Way would be a very
efficient way of allowing traffic to enter and exit the new development at the south end, whilst
aiding traffic flow on Gresley Way by avoiding the stops that traffic lights would impose.
The current Outline plan proposes central site access (Junction 3) at the existing junction between
Gresley Way/The White Way but plans to make this a crossroads (4-way junction). This access point
is completely unnecessary and will become the most disruptive of all, as I believe (and the TA
confirms this) it will become a magnet for additional traffic forcing it all along Gresley Way between
Uplands and the south access because as the TA anticipates it will service 232 homes (nearly 40%),
the school and other community facilities (and I wonder why the care home and assisted living
traffic wouldn’t use the access point too?). I fear that the number of extra vehicle movements will
severely disrupt the road at the White Way junction and will slow traffic flow to a standstill. My
studies referred to earlier indicate long delays caused by red lights lasting 1 minute and in some
cases longer that would mean significant traffic tailbacks along Gresley Way. The best possible way
to avoid this unnecessary disruption is to ensure people using the new development drive along the
spine road and only join Gresley Way at the north or south access points, which ideally should be as
far apart as is practicable. The impact of creating this central access point (perhaps inadvertently)
will result in a significant amount of the new traffic between the Uplands and the south access point,
which is both undesirable and avoidable. Furthermore I understand that the third access point was
only introduced to the plans, relatively recently, in order to enable three contractors to work
simultaneously on the build. Clearly therefore, there is believed not to be a traffic flow imperative
for this central junction and the resulting unintended consequences on traffic levels all the way
along Gresley Way far out-weigh any potential benefit from achieving a faster build rate.
There are multiple viable options for two access points that would ensure all the additional traffic
caused by the development was contained within the development using the new spine road to
connect onto roundabouts at the north (Walkern roundabout) and south. I strongly urge the
planners to re-consider the routing and size of the spine road that runs throughout the planned new
development. Adopting this proposal would save huge cost of building three large and complex
signalled junctions, reduce emissions, avoid standing traffic on Gresley Way and avoid delays to
motorists using Gresley Way. This approach also avoids any need to change existing junctions and
will avoid years of disruption to Gresley Way users during the build process.
Proposed amendments to site access points
Another consideration that arises from the proposed introduction of the central site access is the
location of a Toucan crossing point to the south of the junction with the White Way. The
introduction of this crossing will inconvenience existing residents who’s gardens are very close to the
proposed crossing through the additional pollution and noise caused by queuing traffic and by the
constant beeping noise from the crossing. It is questionable whether a crossing is necessary at all but
if it is deemed necessary there is ample room for the Toucan crossing to be located north of the
White Way rather than south, where no residents live close enough to be affected as the land to the
north of the junction is scrub-land and well away from any existing residents back gardens.
My next complaint is the decision to position the tallest buildings to be built on the new
development, which I am informed will be three story apartments, at the three (currently planned)
site access locations. It is clear from the visual impact assessments that have been conducted that
visual impact is something that is intended to be avoided/minimised. The planners appear to have
overlooked their own data by positioning taller buildings at the entrance to the new development,
(facing onto Gresley way) where, as the site level studies show, the land the new development is to
be built on is at its highest! The current plans will necessitate removal of large portions of the
existing bank that currently minimises the visual impact from the west to accommodate the
currently proposed THREE access points and to provide visibility for motorists leaving the
development. I was assured by Pigeon that the build would preserve as much of the existing bank
and trees as possible but If the application is approved, huge tranches of the bank will have to be
removed to accommodate the long runs-ins at the currently planned crossroads. This will make the
visual impact from the west far worse and moreover will mean that some residents living on or near
Gresley Way will now have their right to privacy compromised as they would now become
overlooked by people living in the 3 story apartments. It makes no sense to build the tallest buildings
at the highest elevation if your care about the visual impact of the development and the existing
banks that protect the visual impact must be retained, which means dropping the current access
points in favour of alternatives proposed. The planners need to place these taller buildings in
locations where they will have less or no visual impact on existing residents and, due to the site
levels on this development, this can easily be achieved by moving the apartments further into the
development (towards the east) where the levels are lower. I understand that precautions are being
taken to avoid visual impact from all other directions (east/south/north) so these mitigations will be
helped by a decision to move these apartments from the site access entrances towards the east as
they will be on lower elevations.
In addition to my objections above I am aware that it is proposed to build a site for “Travelling
showpeople”. I object to such a site being built on this new development as I believe there is a risk
this becomes a site where Gypsies live and it is too near to thousands of existing residents who
would be now placed at greater risk of burglary and other nuisance. Presumably these people
already have somewhere to live so why should they be moved to our doorstep?