YEW TREE VILLAGE PLANNING APPEAL AGAINST … Richard...Infrastructure Planning and Design Limited YEW TREE VILLAGE PLANNING APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL PROOF OF EVIDENCE BY RICHARD PETTITT

YEW TREE VILLAGE PLANNING APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL PROOF OF EVIDENCE BY RICHARD PETTITT

Client

S.O.G.O.S.

Brownheath House

Brown Heath Lane, Newland

Droitwich, Worcestershire

WR9 7JF

Infrastructure Planning and Design Limited

YEW TREE VILLAGE PLANNING APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL PROOF OF EVIDENCE BY RICHARD PETTITT

Project Information

Infrastructure Planning and Design Ltd. The Coach House Blakenhall Park Barton under Needwood Burton upon Trent Staffordshire DE13 8AJ

Tel: 01283 716869

Mob: 07971 989194

Email: [email protected]

Job No. IPD-13-286

Report No. 01

Prepared By RNP

Checked By SEF/DS

Approved By RNP

Status FINAL

Issue No. 01

Date January 2014


Proof of Evidence by Richard Pettitt

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Qualifications and Experience ........................................................................................ 1 Scope of Evidence ............................................................................................................... 1

2 Background Conditions ....................................................................................................... 3 Site Location and Environs .............................................................................................. 3 Description of Newland Road ......................................................................................... 8

3 Traffic and Transportation .............................................................................................. 10 Appellant Transport Assessment ................................................................................ 10 Traffic Impacts on Local Highway Network ........................................................... 12 Impacts on Users of the Local Highway Network ................................................ 13

4 Highway Network Mitigation Proposals ..................................................................... 15 Highway Access Proposals ............................................................................................ 15 Critique of Proposed Pulley Lane Mitigation Measures ...................................... 16 Width of Site Access and Pulley Lane Mitigation .................................................. 19 Effective ‘Lane Full’ Capacity (Saturation Flow) ................................................... 21 Effect on Pulley Lane ....................................................................................................... 22 Junction Visibility Splays ............................................................................................... 23 Proposed Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 25 Layout of the improved bell-mouth junction with Primsland Way ................ 26 Topography Constraints ................................................................................................. 27

5 Site Drainage ........................................................................................................................ 31 Existing Site Drainage Issues ...................................................................................... 31 Appellants Surface Water Drainage Strategy ........................................................ 31 Critique of Surface Water Drainage Strategy ........................................................ 32 Northern Area Adjacent to Newland Road .............................................................. 34 Western Area Adjacent to Isaacs Way ..................................................................... 37 Critique of Foul Water Drainage Strategy ............................................................... 39

6 Brine Runs and Ground Conditions .............................................................................. 41 Ground Conditions as Evidenced in the Appellants Documents ..................... 41 Potential Effects on Drainage Infrastructure ......................................................... 44 Potential Effects on Highway Retaining Structures ............................................ 45

Contents Page


Proof of Evidence by Richard Pettitt

Table 3.1 13 Figure 5.1 33

Appendices Appendix A Resident’s Photographs of Horses on Pulley Lane

Appendix B Resident’s Notes & Photographs of Newland Road

Appendix C IPaD Drawings & Sections on Newland Road

Appendix D IPaD Summary of Trip Distribution Figures

Appendix E Resident’s Notes & Photographs of Footpath Through Pulley Woods

Appendix F Extract from Worcestershire County Council Design Guide

Appendix G Example Narrow Country Lane Verge Damage

Appendix H Pulley Lane Visibility Splays – Annotated Drawing

Appendix I Resident’s Photographs of Flooding on Isaacs Way

Appendix J HR Wallingford Greenfield Runoff Calculation Output

Appendix K Severn Trent Water Document

Appendix L Annotated Drawing Showing Brine Run Zones

Tables & Figures Page

Proof of Evidence by Richard Pettitt 1

1 Introduction

Qualifications and Experience

1.1 My name is Richard Pettitt, and I am presently a Director and Principal of

Infrastructure Planning and Design Limited; a company I founded in January

2010.

1.2 I hold a BSc Degree in Civil Engineering; I am a Chartered Engineer (CEng)

plus a Chartered Water and Environmental Manager (CWEM). I am a Fellow of

both the Institution of Civil Engineers and Chartered Institution of Highways

and Transportation. In addition, I am a member of the Chartered Institution of

Water and Environmental Management.

1.3 I have worked in the industry as a Civil Engineer on roads and drainage

projects for over forty years, specialising for the past 25 years in development

planning, with particular reference to transport, highways and development

infrastructure for all forms of development.

1.4 I have been a Chartered Engineer for over 30 years and a Fellow of ICE and

CIHT over 20 years.

Scope of Evidence

1.5 My Proof of Evidence is presented in association with evidence from my

colleague Stephen Stoney of Wardell Armstrong, who is dealing with planning

and other matters.

1.6 My Evidence considers the traffic and transportation impacts/effects plus

highway mitigation proposals and site drainage of both the Barberry and

Persimmon developments proposed at Yew Tree Hill, and which are the

subject of Appeals Against Refusal of Planning Permission by Wychavon

District Council.

1.7 I act for a residents group known as S.O.G.O.S. (Save Our Green Open

Spaces), as a Non-Rule 6 Party, and therefore I have not provided full copies

of documents I make reference to.


1.8 As I will set out in my group, I have concerns relating to traffic and highways

matters in the absence cases, and have attempted to discuss these concerns

with Worcestershire County Council (WCC) the highway authority. At the time

of writing and submitting this Proof, despite considerable efforts by myself,

SOGOS and WDC (Wychavon District Council), WCC has declined to discuss

these issues. My Proof has therefore been written without the benefit of a

response from WCC on the issues I feel they should have picked up at the

consultation stage on the original application.

1.9 My Proof of Evidence will critique the planning application proposals in matters

set out in paragraph 1.5 above. In particular I will deal with the Appellant

documents including:

! Transport Assessments (TA)

! Highways Mitigation Proposals

! Water Management Strategy

! Persimmon Phase 1 Appraisal (Desk Study)


2 Background Conditions

Site Location and Environs

2.1 The site is located on the southern side of Droitwich Spa; bounded on its

southern edge by Pulley Lane and Newland Lane; and existing residential

developments to the east, north and west.

2.2 The site is in an area of Droitwich Spa known as Yew Tree Hill, and from the

centre of the proposed development to Droitwich Town Centre is

approximately 2km straight-line distance.

2.3 The travel distance by car from the junction of Pulley Lane and Newland Lane

the town centre is 3.9km. The walking distance between the same points is

approximately 3km.

2.4 The existing highway network in the vicinity of the proposed development

comprises:

2.4.1. Newland Road passes through the site in a north/south direction,

splitting the development area approximately ⅔ to the east and ⅓ to

the west. Newland Road has been closed to vehicular traffic, between

Primsland Way and a point some 350m to the south, for over 20 years

(closure in May 1993). More details will be given on Newland Road

later in this Section, and the Appellant’s proposals for it in Section 4 of

my Proof.

2.4.2. From the junction of Newland Road and Newland Common Road, Pulley

Lane routes in a westward direction to its junction with the A38/Copcut

Lane, and Newland Lane routes eastwards to its junction with Tagwell

Road. Newland Common Road routes southwards, becoming Hulls

Lane, then Smite Lane and Offerton Lane, before connecting to the

A4538 just to the north of the M5 Junction 6.

2.4.3. Members of my client team (SOGOS), who have lived in the area for

some considerable time, advise me, that Pulley Lane is the main

vehicular route from the southern edge of Droitwich to the Strategic


Highway Network. Newland Lane via Tagwell Road is occasionally used

to travel to local services, as the A38 is presently a significantly

congested corridor, and with the current priority junction, is difficult to

exit onto the A38, particularly towards the north. I have verified this

through site visits assessing journey times for various routes using

appropriate software.

2.4.4. Pulley Lane is relatively narrow, being between 4.8m and 5.5m in

width (also noted as such in the Appellant’s evidence), with no

footways or street lighting. It has a poor alignment with blind bends,

generally narrow grass verges and substantial hedgerows. Whilst cars

and light vans can pass with care, anything larger (HGVs and larger

farm vehicles) can require one of the vehicles to "mount" the grass

verge if sufficient verge exists, or wait in a field access to safely pass

each other.

2.4.5. Newland Road through the site and Newland Common Road routing to

the south is a primary SUSTRANS cycle route No. 45, and is a lane of

similar dimensions and characteristics to Pulley Lane.

2.4.6. It should be noted that the closed section of Newland Road, from

Primsland Way for some 330m towards the south, is of the order of

2.4m to 2.7m wide (surfaced width), and hence despite its name of

“Road” it is little more than a generous footpath.

2.4.7. As well as being frequently used cycle routes, Newland Common Lane,

Pulley Lane and Newland Road are also used by the two nearby equine

riding/stables businesses. This results in regular cyclist and horse-

riding activity along these lanes. Examples of the uses of Pulley Lane

by horse riders and pedestrians are shown in three photographs

provided by a local resident (taken on 21st December 2013) and which

are attached in Appendix A.

2.4.8. Indeed, even with the present traffic levels there have been incidents

in recent years that typify the danger. On 29 December 2007, a short


distance along Newland Common Road from its junction with Pulley

Lane, a horse was killed and a man walking with the horse and another

person was seriously injured when a motor vehicle struck the horse.

The BBC report on the incident is quoted below:

Crash injures man and kills horse

A man has been seriously injured and a horse was killed after

being hit by a car in Worcestershire.

West Midlands Ambulance Service said it received a number of calls

after the incident in Newland Common Road, Droitwich, about 1045

GMT on Saturday.

It is understood that a 4x4 vehicle hit the man who was walking

behind the horse with another pedestrian.

The man, believed to be in his 30s, suffered serious head, shoulder

and leg injuries. He was flown to hospital.

A woman riding the horse which died and a 15-year-old girl riding

another horse in the group were uninjured.

A West Midlands Ambulance Service spokesman said the driver of the

car was checked at the scene by ambulance staff but did not require

hospital treatment.

The spokesman added: "A vet that was called to the scene confirmed

the horse had died in the accident."

2.4.9. The two riding/livery stables establishments close to the proposed

development are:

! Equestrian Communications and Training, Oakley Farm, Pulley

Lane

! Newland House Farm Livery, Newland Common Road


2.4.10. The incident reported in 2.4.8 above occurred near the entrance to

Newland House Farm Livery.

2.4.11. With a major increase in traffic (I will make detailed comments in

Section 3 of this Proof regarding the traffic increase on Pulley Lane),

the danger to equestrian activity on these roads would escalate

exponentially. This could significantly affect the ability of these

businesses to carry on using the local roads, as it may well be decided

that the risks associated would be too great. My colleague Stephen

Stoney will be taking this point further by considering the social and

commercial impacts.

2.4.12. Cyclists would also be at significant risk using these presently quiet

country lanes, should the developments proceed as presently

proposed. In the original proposals, now no longer proposed, the

upgrade Pulley Lane was to be improved substantially for cyclists and

horses as follows:

! Widened to 6.5 m

! Improving forward visibility at some of the bends

! Realignment at some of the bends to a larger radius

! Provision of cycle lanes (on carriageway with appropriate road

markings) on both sides for some of the route between Newland

Road and the A38

2.4.13. In paragraph 5.2.8 of the May 2011 TA, it is stated “The aim of these

works is to provide a more amenable environment for all road users

and facilitate a future reduction of the posted speed limit on Pulley

Lane to 40mph”. The TA further states in paragraph 5.2.9 that the

Highway Authority has agreed in principle to the proposed strategy.

2.4.14. At paragraph 2.2 of the July 2012 Addendum TA, it is stated that “The

overall off-site mitigation package as set out below is identical to that

already agreed with the Highway Authority and Highways Agency for

the previous larger proposals”. However the Addendum TA goes on to


outline a very different approach for the mitigation package on Pulley

Lane.

2.4.15. The amended proposals that are subject of these two co-joined

Appeals, following the two Appellants separating their development

proposals into two entities, are significantly different in respect of

Pulley Lane. There is NOT now a proposal to widen Pulley Lane to

6.5m and/or provide cycle lanes at either side (see drawings in the

addendum TA Nos. 10154-68 to 10154-74 inclusive). This issue will be

dealt with in more detail in Section 4 of my Proof.

2.4.16. This change of stance has probably been brought about by the

assertion in the Addendum TA July 2012 in paragraph 4.3, that “as set

out in the original TA there is no forecast pedestrian or cycle demand

from the site on this section of the road” I am unable to find any such

reference in the original TA, and in any event it is in direct

contradiction with the May 2011 TA where at paragraph 4.4.8 and the

related drawing, it is stated that Pulley Lane is classified as a ‘local

cycle route’, which links SUSTRANS Route 45 with the A38 and other

routes to the West.

2.4.17. Indeed, much of Section 4.4.1 to 4.4.9 of the Appellant’s original TA

indicates that there would be substantial opportunities for cyclists to

access other routes via Pulley Lane, some of which would naturally be

via the ‘local cycle route’ along Pulley Lane. I will give further evidence

on this issue in Section 4 where I deal with the proposed mitigation

measures.

2.4.18. The original TA suggests that the proposed amendment to Pulley Lane

(referred to in paragraph 2.4.13 above) encourages slower speeds and

thus justifies the proposal for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to

reduce the limit from the current 60mph to 40mph. However, with the

abandonment of the mitigation proposals described as justifying the

speed reduction, it could be questioned whether the proposed TRO

would be successful?


Description of Newland Road

2.5 The form of Newland Road, especially along the section presently closed to

vehicular traffic, is extremely constrained. Indeed, as stated earlier, with a

width of surfaced pavement between 2.4m and 2.7m, it is little more than a

footpath. One of the local residents, and a member of SOGOS, has provided a

useful photographic and descriptive note on the nature of Newland Road

particularly the part that is proposed to be reopened as a route for for public

transport and emergency services vehicles as well as the pedestrians and

cyclists it already accommodates. This factual note is attached to my Proof as

Appendix B.

2.6 It is clear from the photographs, and which can be verified by the Inspector at

a site visit, that the embankment to the both the east and west sides of

Newland Road are heavily vegetated and it seems clear from the steep slopes

that the extensive root structures are binding the soil to keep it stable at such

a steep angle of repose.

2.7 Paragraph 8 of the note at Appendix B identifies that the land to the east,

opposite No 27 Yew Tree Hill, is several metres higher than Newland Road. At

this point the Appellant proposes that Newland Road would be realigned such

that the eastern kerb-line would be 12m to the east of the existing western

boundary of Newland Road.

2.8 Photographs F and G in particular show the steep embankments with

extensive vegetation on either side of Newland Road. The proposed widening

would completely remove one side of the existing lane, which comprises a

steep and high embankment.

2.9 A small section of Ordnance Survey digital mapping and LIDAR level data (2m

grid and 100mm level accuracy) has been obtained and augmented by a

professional topographical survey to ensure accuracy on the key sections, and

I attach a contoured plans of the proposals at the northern end of Newland

Road at Appendix C. These plans shows the extreme level changes that occur

along the section of Newland Road in question, which corroborates the content

of the note in Appendix B.


2.10 I will consider the feasibility and effects of the proposals for Newland Road in

Section 4 of my Proof.


3 Traffic and Transportation

Appellant Transport Assessment

3.1 My company, IPaD Limited, has undertaken a review of the information

presented within the Transport Assessment dated 6th May 2011 as provided

by David Tucker Associates (DTA) in support of proposals for a new residential

development located off Pulley Lane to the south of Droitwich, Worcestershire.

3.2 The results of our analysis indicate that:

3.2.1. We consider the Person Trip rates derived by DTA from TRICS are

reasonably robust.

3.2.2. We accept the use of the National Travel Survey (NTS) to derive a

breakdown of person trips by journey purpose.

3.2.3. Whilst we question the use of the NTS as a means to accurately

derive baseline mode share estimates for trips of different purposes,

the resulting baseline estimates of vehicle traffic generation generated

by DTA for the development appear robust.

3.2.4. There are errors apparent within the TA with regards to the routing

assumptions suggested within the main narrative of the document, as

it appears that they do not accord with the trip distribution routing

diagram shown in Appendix K (of the DTA TA). We would agree with

the distribution depicted on the routing diagram.

3.2.5. A routing assumption has been used by DTA whereby a large

proportion of development traffic that wishes to route towards

destinations to the north of Droitwich (i.e. Bromsgrove and M5

Northbound) does so by routing eastbound along Pulley Lane from the

site entrance rather than by routing towards the A38. This contravenes

the assumptions presented within the accompanying trip distribution

diagram presented within Appendix K (of the DTA TA). This shows that

all trips except those to Droitwich East would route via Pulley Lane to

the west via the A38 junction.


3.2.6. No specific evidence is presented to confirm the accuracy of the above

distribution assumption other than to state that shortest journey time

path analysis was calculated between journey O-D (Origin –

Destination) pairs within ArcView. If this is the case, it does not appear

that the analysis takes account of the betterment in journey time that

would be achieved from delivery of the new signalised road junction at

the A38/Pulley Lane junction that would reduce delay time for vehicles

wishing to access out onto the A38 from Pulley Lane to around 35

seconds according to DTA’s own assessments.

3.2.7. There are inaccuracies within the distribution table contained within

Table 23 of the TA, with particular issues in attempting to define how

the traffic would distribute along Pulley Lane. It is unclear how

westbound flows along Pulley Lane have been calculated within the

table, as the flows do not appear to tie in with the flows presented in

the table for other junctions that would be accessed via Pulley Lane

west.

3.2.8. A knock-on effect of the additional traffic that I consider would route

via Pulley Lane (West), is that the LINSIG analysis of the performance

of the proposed signalization of Pulley Lane/A38/Copcut Lane junction,

would no longer be correct. It would be important that the analysis be

re-run with corrected figures for all scenarios, as the junction may well

be overcapacity in many of them.

3.2.9. The TA has looked at several scenarios, using DTA baseline trips,

development with Travel Plan based trips, and trip rates according to

Halcrow (acting for the HA). It is not clear how errors in the

distribution analysis may have affected the results and justification for

the operation of the proposed signals. I therefore suggest to the

Inspector that as stated above, the analysis work done for the signals

should be revisited based upon the corrected trips on Pulley Lane

(West).


Traffic Impacts on Local Highway Network

3.3 My colleagues at IPaD and I have undertaken our own routing analysis using

widely available route analysis software to define the most appropriate

distribution of traffic to/from the site and it would appear that predicted flows

along Pulley Lane West within the DTA have been heavily underestimated.

DTA calculate that two-way flows along Pulley Lane West (Towards A38) would

be in the region of 287 (AM Peak) and IPaD calculate two-way flows along this

route using the corrected distribution as being 378 (AM Peak), which is 32%

higher.

3.4 An analysis of the pm peak traffic flows on Pulley Lane, again using DTA’s own

Travel Plan based trip rates but the corrected distribution, would be 346 two-

way trips rather than 246 in the TA which is 41% higher.

3.5 In order to explain this as clearly as possible, I refer to the tables and

diagrams contained in Appendix D which shows the following (N.B. all trip

numbers are based upon the DTA travel plan rates):

! The first table takes the correct distribution, as derived from the

trip assignment diagram in Appendix K of the May 2011 TA

document, and shows the number of development trips on each

route.

! The two central trip assignment diagrams show how the above

trips would distribute around the network for both AM and PM

traffic peak periods.

! The final table and diagram relate the corrected trip assignments

and how they would distribute to the three possible routes to and

from the development for vehicular traffic.

3.6 It is from this final table that I draw the corrected development AM and PM

vehicular trips on Pulley Lane of:

! 378 two-way AM peak

! 346 two-way PM peak


3.7 Even if we were to take the lower DTA calculated two-way figures for Pulley

Lane West the increases in traffic volume along this link as a result of the new

development would result in a 642% increase in flows along this route during

the AM peak period as compared to existing levels.

3.8 Using the IPaD calculated routing assumptions (which broadly accord with the

distribution assumptions shown on DTA’s diagram in Appendix K) the increase

in AM Peak traffic volumes along Pulley Lane West as compared to existing

levels is more likely to be 873%, which is 36% higher than DTA’s figures.

3.9 Table 3.1 below shows the existing, predicted development and predicted total

vehicular flows, together with percentage differences:

DTA TA RNP Proof

Two-Way Flows am pm am pm

Existing Flows 44 39 44 39

Development Flows 287 246 378 346

Totals 331 287 422 385

Increase 652% 631% 859% 887%

Average Increase 642% 873%

Percentage Addition 36% additional

Table 3.1

3.10 In summary, whilst I have some reservations on the methodology, the trip

rate and mode-share data appears to be reasonable estimates. However,

there are errors in the TA when it calculates the distribution of the

development traffic, such that I consider there would be considerably more

traffic likely to use Pulley Lane than DTA suggests. There would also be

correspondingly less predicted trips on Tagwell Road and Newland Common

Road

Impacts on Users of the Local Highway Network

3.11 I am focusing on the impacts for users of Pulley Lane (West) as this would be

the most affected corridor by some considerable margin.

3.12 The predicted 873% (average AM/PM) increase in traffic movements would

clearly have a major effect on the existing residents, businesses and users of


Pulley Lane. To put this change into perspective, the average number of two-

way vehicle movements on Pulley Lane (West) in the morning peak hour

would be:

! Existing 44 one every 1 min 22 sec

! With Dev. 422 over 7 trips per min / 1 every 8.5 sec

3.13 With the frequency of vehicle movements rising from one every 1min 22sec to

one every 8.5sec, it is easy to see how the occurrences of vehicles passing

would rise considerably. This would equate to the general public perceiving

traffic in peak hours as almost being a continuous stream of vehicles

compared to current conditions.

3.14 For businesses currently using Pulley Lane, especially those with larger

vehicles such as farming/equine related businesses; the effect is likely to be

severe. Although guidance would suggest that a road width of 5.5m would be

sufficient for cars and lorries passing, or even two lorries passing very closely

(Manual for Streets Issue 1 page 79), this is based upon a properly designed

street with kerbs, lighting and off-road pedestrian facilities.

3.15 Pulley Lane would not be a road of this nature, and the substantial increase in

traffic would have a major effect, and I will deal with this issue further next

section of my Proof.

3.16 The width required for two HGVs to pass is in practice more than 5.5 m. The

standard web of an HGV (Worcestershire county council design guide) is 2.55

m excluding mirrors. Mirrors can protrude by 200 mm from the vehicle. If it is

assumed that two lorries are passing, the exact width of the two is 2.55m +

0.2m + 0.2m + 2.55m = 5.50m. Thus I would argue that a carriageway width

of 5.5 m for two HGVs passing is a theoretical and not a practical proposition.


4 Highway Network Mitigation Proposals

Highway Access Proposals

4.1 The original proposal, when both Appellants were promoting Yew Tree Village

jointly, was for the whole development to access/egress vehicular traffic on to

Pulley Lane and Newland Lane from the internal loop road. When the

development proposals were amended shortly before submission of planning

applications, the same two points of access are still proposed but the internal

layouts are no longer formally connected, for vehicular traffic at the boundary

between Barberry and Persimmon.

4.2 The main change in traffic movements to and from the site that this creates, is

that for the larger Barberry development (500 residential units plus 200 care

units and a local centre) would only be able to use the Pulley Lane access.

4.3 The Persimmon site would wholly access the public highway network from

Newland Lane, at a point some 285m east of the Pulley Lane/Newland

Common Road/Newland Lane crossroads junction. Whilst there is a note on

the Appellant’s masterplan drawings (drawing reference P.0742_09A) to the

effect that there may potentially be a link between the two sites, this is not

guaranteed.

4.4 In the event, whether or not the two parts of the site are connected for

vehicular traffic would not significantly alter my conclusions related to this

point.

4.5 In my opinion the ‘desire line’ for traffic travelling to and from the proposed

development would largely utilise Pulley Lane (West) and the junction with the

A38 that is proposed to be signalised as part of the mitigation works. This is

explained in more detail in section 3.2 of this Proof. The original mitigation

proposals recognised that the majority of traffic movements to and from the

site would take this route, and proposed an upgrade package on Pulley Lane

as shown in the drawings in Appendix E of the original TA (drawing reference

10154-58 to 10154-60 inclusive):


4.6 In the revised proposals related to the Appeals A & B, which are the subject of

this Inquiry, the proposals for Pulley Lane changed substantially. The lane is

no longer to be widened to 6.5m; rather it is to be regularised to its current

maximum of 5.5m, and would not feature the earlier proposed cycle

provisions. The improvements at some of the bends remain, yet the worst

section (situated between 150 and 250 metres from the A38 junction) has no

improvement proposed other than warning signs and features.

4.7 Dropping the proposal to widen Pulley Lane from 6.5m to 5.5m is an

unexpected change considering that there would be quite a small difference in

the distribution of traffic as resulting from the ‘split’ between the two elements

of the development. Even more surprising is the shift away from cyclist

provision. These amended proposals in the application being appealed are

justified by the assertion in paragraph 4.3 of the Addendum TA July 2012, that

“as set out in the original Transport Assessment there is no forecast

pedestrian or cycle demand from the site on this section of the road” In my

opinion the latter is not a valid assertion considering that the Appellant's own

evidence states that Pulley Lane is a main cycle route link as I have set out in

paragraph 2.3.12 of my Proof. Nor can I find such a reference to there being

no forecast demand in the Appellant’s original TA as suggested.

Critique of Proposed Pulley Lane Mitigation Measures

4.8 The proposed mitigation works on Pulley Lane have been reviewed and I make

the following observations and conclusions:

Dropping Proposed Cycle/Pedestrian Facilities

4.9 The proposed width of Pulley Lane is 5.5m in the Appeal applications for the

majority of the section between the proposed site and its junction with the

A38. This is shown on a series of drawings in the July 2012 Addendum TA

Appendix A. The Appellants consultant states (Para 4.3 Addendum TA - “A

number of different options for improvements to the route have been

discussed with the County Council. It has now been agreed that the

development will procure the widening of the road to a minimum of 5.5m.”).


4.10 The consultant goes on to justify the loss of cycle provision (Para 4.4

Addendum TA - “As set out in the original Transport Assessment there is no

forecast pedestrian or cycle demand from the site on this section of the road.

The site also provides for the ability to significantly improve the Sustrans route

which passes through the site and facilitate alternative routes for existing

cyclists wishing to travel east–west.”) and justifies the reduced mitigation

package. Having undertaken a word search on "cycle" and/or "demand", I

cannot find any reference as such.

4.11 Indeed, in Appendix J of the original TA, the predicted cycle movements from

the development would be 40 in the AM and 43 in the PM peak. It does not

appear that any assessment of the distribution of the cycle trips has been

undertaken, so the number wishing to route by Pulley Lane and Newland Lane

is presently unknown, but is unlikely to result in no demand at all as

suggested in the TA.

4.12 There does not appear to be any justification for the change other than the

assertion that cycle and pedestrian routes other than Pulley Lane exist. In

Appendix A of the addendum TA on a drawing titled ‘Yew Tree Village -

Transport Strategy’, a route is shown for cyclists travelling to the West (via

Sandles Road, Showell Road and Addyes Way). Whilst I acknowledge that this

route might be regarded as a reasonable environment for cyclists, there are

significant problems. It is not a convenient route as it winds through

residential streets and it would require all cyclists using it to negotiate the

very busy A38 five-arm roundabout; and large roundabouts are notoriously

difficult and unsafe junctions for cyclists.

4.13 I therefore do not consider that such a route being available would dissuade

cyclists from using Pulley Road (West).

4.14 In respect of pedestrians, a route is shown on the same drawing, where an

existing footpath runs through Pulley Woods between Pulley Lane and the

existing residential estate immediately to the north, and is annotated "existing

off-road footway".


4.15 This facility is accessed from a point in the south-west corner of the proposed

development, opposite the driveway to Oakley Farm and Equestrian Centre. It

appears to have one intermediate access point via a gate located to the east

of the ‘chicane’/double bend on Pulley Lane, and terminates on the A38 at a

series of small steps in a narrow gap in the hedge, located some 135m north

of the Pulley Lane junction.

4.16 A photographic record of this route is attached in Appendix E.

4.17 As previously stated, the initial proposals to make Pulley Lane west of the

development access more cycle and pedestrian friendly by widening to 6.5m

and providing cycle lanes, has been dropped. The Appellants appear to have

assumed that the existing footpath through Pulley Woods is sufficient for any

east/west pedestrian movement and that they can replace Pulley Lane as a

‘local cycle route’ with the alternative route through the adjacent housing

estate.

4.18 It is my opinion that neither of these routes is particularly attractive as

alternatives to Pulley Lane, unless of course Pulley Lane becomes too

dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians to use.

4.19 For pedestrians, particularly lone walkers, the existing footpath would be an

unattractive proposition with no escape routes and limited security overview

from residential properties. I have been advised by one of the residents that “I

would certainly not walk alone there after dark and could easily have had my

iPad stolen if a mugger had been in wait along the path today. I would not

encourage any loan female to walk along there at any time of the year let

alone after dark”. I therefore question whether it would be appropriate to

consider this to be a sensible alternative for residents of the new

development, or indeed existing pedestrians on Pulley Lane. It is also worthy

of note that the footpath is extremely waterlogged and boggy in section which

cannot really be used without waterproof boots.

4.20 I therefore question whether the appellant's proposals for Pulley Lane are

valid, when they appear to be based upon assertions regarding the use of


alternative cyclist and pedestrian facilities. It is my opinion that cyclists and

pedestrians would still use Pulley Lane (West) despite its poor standard, even

with the proposed (limited) improvements.

Width of Site Access and Pulley Lane Mitigation

4.21 I question the Appellant's position that 5.5m width is sufficient for the two site

accesses and proposed mitigation measures on Pulley Lane.

4.22 The position of the Appellants as evidenced by the various planning

submission documents is that the site highway access and proposed mitigation

works on Pulley Lane are adequate and appropriate to serve the level of

development proposed.

Compliance With Design Standards

4.23 for the internal road network within the proposed development, the

appropriate design parameters and standards we set out in the relevant

design guides. It is less clear what design standards should be used in relation

to proposed off-site highway mitigation works, but in my experience it would

be the DfT Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). DMRB is primarily

for trunk roads and motorways, but many local highway authorities also use it

for county highway networks, in association with their own development

design guidance.

4.24 Both the WCC Design Guide (WCC-DG) and MfS design standards are written

primarily to provide guidance on internal layouts within new developments,

and in my opinion should not be applied to justify isolated specifications such

as the width of existing country lanes between a new development and the

strategic road network (SRN). In both these documents, safe and appropriate

carriageway geometry is predicated on there being footways and useable

verges such that drivers have a clearly delineated carriageway to drive within,

pedestrians are not walking within the carriageway, and that appropriate

forward visibility etc. is always available.


4.25 The A38 to the west of the site was originally a Trunk Road but is no longer

part of the SRN. However, it would be controlled in design terms by DMRB,

which has a minimum single carriageway road design width of 7.3m.

4.26 The last (in hierarchical terms) road in both appeal sites where the Barberry

and Persimmon sites access onto Pulley Lane and Newland Lane respectively,

serve significantly more than the WCC-DG limit of 200 dwellings for a cul-de-

sac. Thus the only appropriate carriageway format for the main entry/exit

roads in accordance with the design guide is a "Local Distributor" as set out in

section 2.10 of that document.

4.27 The appropriate format and design for such road is shown in Appendix F where

I give an extract from the WCC-DG. It is abundantly clear therefore, that

neither the main access roads to the developments nor the supposed

mitigation measures on Pulley Lane, are in fact in accordance with the WCC-

DG.

4.28 It is clear that the two Appeal sites (serving 500 dwellings + 200 care home

units for Barberry, and 265 dwellings for Persimmon) should both have

primary access roads that conform to the Design Guide Local Distributor

standard. A Local Distributor should be 7.3m plus a minimum of 2m width

verges and footways both sides on both developments.

4.29 For Pulley Lane, which carries more than just development traffic including

farming and other HGV traffic, the mitigation should be to a level at least of a

Local Distributor.

4.30 Whilst I have knowledge that WCC appears to have reviewed the planning

application proposals, and that given a "no objection" response, I believe that

they are wrong to have done so. In my opinion, it is abundantly clear that the

development would require a WCC highway category of Local Distributor for

the main access it to appeal sites, and adequate mitigation on Pulley Lane

would be no less than the Local Distributor standard as well.


4.31 It is therefore my opinion that the main access roads within the two

developments and treatment of Pulley Lane is not in accordance with the

WCC-DG and is therefore inadequate for the development proposals.

4.32 Therefore I consider the Appellant’s reasoning to be flawed on the following basis:

4.32.1. Pulley Lane is not an internal residential estate road with the traffic

mix that such a road would have to accommodate.

4.32.2. It is a rural lane used by a wide range of large vehicles including a

variety of farming implements and HGVs. One notable example is the

daily visit of a large milk tanker to a farm along this route. Thus I

reiterate that in my opinion that it could be argued that this route

should be designed as a ‘Local Distributor’ or the equivalent.

4.32.3. Residential roads are expected to only have the occasional refuse

vehicles or delivery vans, and not 16.5m articulated HGVs and all

manner of farming equipment.

4.33 It is clear in the case of Pulley Lane that it is not a new road that has been designed correctly in accordance with the above criteria.

Effective ‘Lane Full’ Capacity (Saturation Flow)

4.34 Mr. Tucker also seeks to justify the 5.5m road width on Pulley Lane in relation

to ‘link capacity’ of the road by reference to the statement in paragraph 6.5.1

of his original TA where he says " Whilst this is a significant increase over the

current flows on the link, the absolute volume of traffic remains modest and

well within the capacity of a 5.5m link". I have assumed this is based upon the

DMRB Chapter 13 theoretical calculation for link capacity of a 5.5m wide single

carriageway road where it states it has a maximum capacity of 920 vehicles

per hour in each direction.

4.35 As I have set out in Section 4.23 to 4.29 inclusive of my Proof, I do not

consider this is relevant to Pulley Lane which is not a standard design and

format road as set out in the guidance and does not, even with the mitigation

proposed, conform to the normal standards assumed in DMRB upon which the

link capacities are based. The normal minimum width, bendiness, forward


sight distance etc., are all well below the minimum standards DMRB considers

in deriving the figure of 920.

Effect on Pulley Lane

4.36 An important aspect that should also be taken into account is the fact that

without kerbs, and with HGVs and farm equipment using the road, increasing

the traffic volume by over 850% will have a major effect that I will

demonstrate by way of an example.

4.37 The example is use is a similar Lane that is one of four links by which a village

of approximately 2000 dwellings in total connects to a local ‘A’ classification

road. It is similar to Pulley Lane as it represents the shortest, most direct

route, albeit not the most substantial road, southbound to a main ‘A’ road. At

present the volume of traffic on this lane is of the order of 200 vehicles per

hour in the normal traffic peak periods. This lane also varies between around

4.5m and 5.5m in width, has no street lighting, no kerbs and limited width

grass verges; very similar to Pulley Lane in many respects.

4.38 Despite the theory that cars and light goods vehicles can pass ‘easily’ on such

a road, the photographic records contained in Appendix G show what in actual

fact happens.

4.39 Drivers seek to ensure they do not clash with oncoming vehicles by driving as

close as they feel comfortable to the grass verge, creating progressive rutting

as the verges are worn back and progressively destroying the verge.

4.40 The verges and sides of the road disintegrate with deep potholes forming that

encroach into the road construction. It is bad enough in dry and daylight

conditions where drivers can see the potholes in time to stop between them

whilst other vehicles pass. The problem becomes acute in the hours of

darkness and/or where puddles obscure potholes.

4.41 Drivers who regularly travel along this lane are extremely wary of the

condition of the road edges and potholes and in places the ‘effective’ road

width drops to about 3.5-4.0m, becoming a single carriageway with for all

practical purposes.


4.42 This makes the effective capacity of the road substantially less than the

theoretical ‘lane full’ capacity of 920 vehicles per hour in each direction.

4.43 I personally travel the lane I have used in the example, on average twice per

day, and I regularly observe the fact that drivers slow considerably when

passing oncoming vehicles, and many (like myself) try to come to a standstill

to avoid being hit, or at least not be the one at fault if I am hit. It is an

extremely uncomfortable situation to drive along because of the high risk of

clashes with other vehicles.

4.44 I suggest to the Inspector that this or worse would be the fate of Pulley Lane if

the developments as proposed were to be permitted.

Junction Visibility Splays

4.45 I have attached an annotated copy of the Appellant’s drawing No. 10154-74 in

Appendix H. This drawing shows the section of Pulley Lane where it is to be

realigned into the development site, becoming the main exit/entrance for the

development, and the continuation of Pulley Lane to the east is a minor arm

off the realigned road.

4.46 The original drawing states that the visibility splays are 2.4 ‘x’ dimension and

90m ‘y’ dimension. However, the splays drawn for the minor arm into the

residential site only have a 60m ‘y’ dimension. The ‘x’ dimension of 2.4m for

this junction is satisfactory.

4.47 As noted in Section 2.4.13 of my Proof, the Appellant had planned to seek

approval for a speed reduction TRO, bringing the speed limit down to 40mph.

It is also noted that without the original mitigation package on Pulley Lane,

the speed limit reduction TRO may not be possible.

4.48 I will progress my arguments on the basis that the TRO is successful on Pulley

Lane. However it should be noted that if this is not the case, then the design

criteria would be considerably more onerous.


4.49 In any event, the appropriate visibility splays for junctions on a 40mph road

where the minor arm is a continuation of the 40mph road and not a small cul

de sac would be 4.5m ‘x’ dimension and 120m ‘y’ dimension.

4.50 It can be seen therefore, that the visibility splay provided where the junction

would be formed at the continuation of Pulley Lane eastwards beyond the

Appeal site entrance, is not specified correctly. The splay criteria should be

4.5m ‘x’ dimension and 120m ‘y’ dimension, as I have annotated on the

drawing.

4.51 The most critical aspect of the Appellants proposed highway mitigation

measures relates to the treatment of Pulley Lane from the site entrance to the

A38 junction in the west.

4.52 I have shown in the section relating to the transport assessment work by DTA,

that DTA has underestimated the volume of development traffic that would

use Pulley Lane by over one third. The Appellant has put forward some

highway improvements proposals for Pulley Lane, but as I will show, the

proposals are inadequate for the predicted traffic levels within the TA, and

hence would be even less acceptable when taken in context with the larger

volume of traffic I have highlighted (using the Appellant’s own TA distribution

diagram).

4.53 The Appellants propose to upgrade Pulley Lane by:

! Regularising the current 4.8 m - 5.5 m wide Lane to a consistent

5.5 m

! Improving (increasing) the radius of some of the bends on the

section in question

! Cutting back hedgerows to give improved forward visibility at

Bends

4.54 As stated in paragraph 4.49 above, the forward visibility requirement for a 40

mph road is 120 m. On drawings 10154–70 to 73 inclusive, whilst there as

been some attempt to provide improved forward visibility, only 60 m appears


to be shown. On the ‘chicane’ section at the western end, the worst existing

section, no attempt has been made to provide greater visibility.

4.55 Where the appellants have shown mitigation measures at bends and land is

shown being acquired, it would seem sensible that sufficient land would be

acquired to provide adequate and safe forward visibility for mitigation works.

Proposed Mitigation Measures

Impacts on Newland Road by the proposed widening/relocation for public

transport and emergency service vehicles.

4.56 The Appellant proposes to ‘reopen’ Newland Road at its junction with

Primsland Way, as a route for public transport and emergency service

vehicles, as well as the existing cyclist (SUSTRANS Route 45) and pedestrian

use.

4.57 The route is proposed to be a 5m wide carriageway plus 2m wide footway,

making 7m width in total, except for a short narrower section of some 50m

length immediately south of Primsland Way.

4.58 The current proposals do not give details of how the creation of the 7 m wide

route would be achieved in a physical sense. As the note at Appendix B states,

the level change on the east side of Newland Road in places is several metres

higher and rising across the adjacent fields.

4.59 The Appellant has only given a relatively simple 2D sketch of the proposal

(drawing No. 10154-64), and it is not possible to properly assess the

feasibility of the proposal from this information or consider likely effects of

carrying out such works on the existing corridor and residents of properties

adjacent to it.

4.60 In order to make such an assessment and using the O.S. mapping, LIDAR

sourced level information and augmented by topographical survey, the

proposed modifications shown on the Appellant's drawing No. 10154–64 have

been ‘recreated’ by Infrastructure Planning and Design Ltd., to check the

feasibility.


Layout of the improved bell-mouth junction with Primsland Way

4.61 Firstly it is important to note that the private boundaries on the West side

(properties on Yew Tree Hill) are not the fences that have been erected by the

private property owners; rather the centreline of the hedge and trees on the

western side of new link road.

4.62 The geometry of this proposed junction amendment has been checked for

suitability for buses and emergency service vehicles, and I have the following

observations:

4.63 The radii proposed, or the maximum that could be achieved without

encroachment into third-party land, would not allow an all-movements

junction for vehicles it is supposed to cater for. I attach in Appendix C an

additional drawing (IPD-13-286-103) that shows the AutoTrack data for a bus

and fire engine manoeuvring at this junction.

4.64 The currently proposed bus route modification This for a bus to approach

along Primsland Way, then right turn into Newland Road and then exit by a

left turn out of Newland Road back onto Primsland way. This is not possible

under the proposed layout as the buses could not turn in or out of Newland

Road (see insets C & D on drawing No. IPD-13-286-103). Such a lack of

flexibility could cause significant problems in the future if bus routes need to

change and public transport operators can no longer route as described by the

Appellants. Furthermore, if the bus operating companies wish to modify the

route to approach from the east, a left-in/right-out from the east could not be

accommodated either.

4.65 This lack of flexibility prejudices the viability of bus services penetrating the

site in the future, which in turn, if service changes occur that prevent buses

turning into the amended section of Newland Road, would seriously reduce the

suggested sustainability of the development. This issue would also affect

access for emergency service vehicles.

4.66 If emergency services vehicles found their normal route via Pulley Lane

impassable, they would almost certainly access the site via the alternative


route from Primsland Way and in the case of the appellant's proposal, a fire

engine would have difficulty utilising the new junction (see insets A & B on

drawing No. IPD-13-286-103). In my opinion it would be unsafe and

impractical to create a situation where a fire engine could only enter the site if

it approached from a specific direction towards the junction.

4.67 It does not appear to be possible to create radii that would allow buses and

emergency service vehicles to enter Newland Roads south of Primsland Way,

from Primsland Way itself, without taking land from private gardens adjacent

to the access point.

4.68 This alone calls into question the viability of the proposed bus route, but the

deliverability is further affected by the topography of the route.

Topography Constraints

4.69 The topography constraints on Newland Road (the northern section to be

reopened for buses and emergency service vehicles) have been considered,

and I have the following observations:

4.70 My assumption is that the levels on Newland Road would remain broadly as

existing, as the current longitudinal gradient cannot be significantly increased.

The legal property boundary of the Yew Tree Hill development is the centreline

of the row of trees/hedgerow on the western side of Newland Road, and not

what the appellants may have assumed, i.e. the fences that had been erected

by the property owners to prevent the embankment eroding into their

gardens.

4.71 Hence, to implement the northern section of the proposed modification of

Newland Road (a 2m footway + 3m carriageway for one-way operation of

buses and emergency service vehicles) setting out would be as follows:

! Boundary on West side is the centreline of trees/hedgerow

! Allow 500mm between boundary and footway edge

! 2m wide footway


! Kerb and carriageway construction (if allowable within 2.5m of

the centreline of the row of substantial trees)

! 3m wide carriageway with kerb on eastern side

! 1m verge between curved face and retaining structure

4.72 It should be noted that it is not normally allowable to construct a kerb-line and

full depth road construction as close as 2.5m to substantial trees, as it can

seriously damage the root structure. This point should be verified with the

appropriate landscape specialist

4.73 On the section of Newland Road where it passes between the rear boundaries

of four dwellings on Primsland Fields and private boundaries to properties on

Yew Tree Hill, the width of the route between private boundaries is extremely

narrow, with challenging level differences.

4.74 I have produced three cross-sections along this part of the route plus a further

cross-section about 220m south of Primsland Way. A drawing is attached in

Appendix C (No. IPD-13-286-100) showing my interpretation of layout of the

proposed bus, emergency service vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians route, and

cross sections (No. IPD-13-286-101) with the various constraints highlighted

including:

4.74.1. Section A-A shows how an improvement embankment would

undermine the rear gardens of Primsland Fields unless a retaining

structure is used. It can be seen that the retaining structure would be

directly underneath the private boundary, and the excavation behind

the structure to enable its construction prior to backfilling would

encroach substantially into the private garden.

4.74.1. Section B-B is at the pinch point (narrowest section) and shows how

the private garden boundary is situated directly above the edge of

the 1m verge alongside the road, and the retaining structure would

be situated well inside the garden, whilst the excavation behind the

structure would take up the entire garden.


4.74.1. Section C-C This section is similar to Section A-A, where the

retaining structure would fall directly beneath the private boundary,

and the excavation behind the structure to enable its construction

prior to backfilling would encroach substantially into the private

garden.

4.74.1. Section D-D shows the situation behind No.49 Yew Tree Hill. Even

with the new alignment of Newland Road at the highest level

achievable based upon an appropriate vertical alignment; it creates

the need for a very large earth embankment or (high) retaining

structure on the east side. To give an impression of relative heights,

it should be noted that the top of a retaining structure would be

approximately level with the roof of No.49 Yew Tree Hill Such a

structure might need to be considerably higher than the existing Krib-

Lok retaining wall situated at the end of Rebekah Gardens cul-de-sac.

4.74.1. Note: I have assumed the use of Gabion or Krib-Lok retaining

structures for the purposes of preparing these indicative sections.

4.75 Even if it were possible to raise the level of the new alignment of Newland

Road it would not remove the need for retaining structures, it merely splits the

total height across two structures, as there would then be a requirement for

retaining structures at both sides. To put this into perspective, the top of the

embankment/wall would be at the same level as the roof of No.49 Yew Tree

Hill.

4.76 It is my opinion that even if the proposed bus-lane could be constructed with

its western kerb-line within 2.5m of the trees/hedgerow, the route cannot be

delivered due to their being insufficient width available between private

property boundaries. This situation would become even more important if a

greater stand-off is required to protect the tree roots.

4.77 My conclusion on this aspect of the appellant's proposal is that it is clear the

amendments to Newland Road have not been considered adequately, and

insufficient detail in the design has been undertaken to demonstrate the


feasibility of what is being proposed and that it is not feasible and cannot be

delivered.

4.78 Others will deal with the landscape and visual impacts of the works that would

be necessary on Newland Road.

4.79 Hence if the public transport link cannot be delivered due to the route being

unfeasible, the requirements for access to bus services for the site (300m walk

distance between all dwellings and an available bus stop) cannot be achieved.

It must therefore be concluded that if the bus and emergency services route is not deliverable, the development proposals are not deliverable because:

! For a cul-de-sac development of more than 200 residential units,

a secondary access is required for emergency services

! To achieve required level of transport sustainability, access to

public transport is required where the greatest distance to a bus

stop should be no more than 400m

4.80 Neither of these requirements would be met if the upgrade of Newland Road

cannot be achieved.


5 Site Drainage Existing Site Drainage Issues

5.1 The site comprises largely impermeable clay soils, and has surface gradients between

1 in 5 and 1 in 30 (reference page 2 of Atkins Water Management Strategy, May

2011).

5.2 The steep gradients and relatively impermeable ground conditions result in

considerable surface water flooding, even at relatively low intensity storm events as

evidenced by the regularity of the resident’s reported occurrences. One such example

where I have photographic records and accounts of residents is where floodwater

passes through the narrow gap (presently a public footpath) adjacent to No. 16 Isaacs

Way. See the photograph below which was taken after a flooding event in

2009, showing material washed off the hill behind Isaacs Way, through the

gap between Nos. 14 & 16.

5.3 Photographs and information from the occupier of No. 16 Isaacs Way are given in

Appendix I.

Appellants Surface Water Drainage Strategy

5.4 The Appellant proposes to deal with surface water run-off from the development site

by means of:

! Attenuation ponds

! Underground storage

! Ditches and Swales


5.5 Collecting surface water from housing, hard-standing areas and roads, and

attenuating the flows using the above forms of storage is normal industry practice and

provided the correct parameters and calculations are employed, would adequately

deal with surface water falling on the built environment.

5.6 In addition to collecting drainage in the traditional manner of piped networks from

houses, hard-standings and roads, the Appellant has to deal with surface water runoff

from other areas such as green-space, plus flows entering the site from upstream

catchments. In this respect the Appellant proposes a network of ditches and swales

along boundaries.

5.7 One of the key issues in calculating the quantum of flow that such a design has to deal

with, is the assessment of what is known as ‘greenfield’ or ‘equivalent agricultural’

run-off. The general rule of thumb is to adopt 5 l/s per hectare, and there are a

number of calculation methodologies available to undertake a more detailed

assessment. Atkins has used an ADAS (Agriculture Development and Advisory

Service) methodology, and has arrived at a greenfield run-off figure of 474.1 l/s for

the major 41.89ha part of the development site (Reference a note on Atkins drawing

No. 5090327/DRA/DS/001 RevA). This figure is crucial to the design of surface water

attenuation on the site, as it represents the allowable discharge rate at the outfall,

which in turn fixes the quantum of the retained a volume. It should be noted that the

figure Atkins is using is over double the normal ‘rule of thumb’ 5 l/s per ha, at 11.32

l/s per ha.

Critique of Surface Water Drainage Strategy

5.8 The ADAS method of calculation that the Appellant has used is primarily for field

drainage pipe size analysis. Any analysis that is for the sizing of pipes to deal with

surface water run-off is going to have an allowance for what I will term ‘factor of

safety’ to ensure the resultant pipe sizes are not found wanting thus it could lead to

an over-estimate. Therefore it is more appropriate to use a calculation methodology

that is specifically to identify ‘greenfield run-off quantities/rates’. In my opinion a

more appropriate tool is the HR Wallingford calculator for estimating greenfield run-

off, which for this site would give a value of 367l/s for the 41.89ha site area for which

the Atkins figure is 474l/s. Thus it is my contention that the Appellant’s assumptions

for allowable maximum flow rate to the off-site outfall may be significantly

overestimated. The level of overestimation would be 29% compared to the outflow

calculated by the HR Wallingford method described above.


5.9 I have attached a copy of the HR Wallingford calculation output in Appendix J.

5.10 I do not have access to the design work undertaken by the Appellant's consultants to

be able to check their figures for proposed storage volumes. I would therefore

respectfully suggest to the Inspector that the Appellants be required to revisit their

proposals on the basis of a significant potential overestimation of the allowable ‘pass-

through’ flow into receiving watercourses. This would be to satisfy all stakeholders

that sufficient storage volume is being proposed.

5.11 The primary storage proposed by the Appellant is an open pond in the south-west

corner of the Barberry site, which has a total storage capacity of 9125 m³ (as stated

on Atkins drawing No. 5090327/DRA/DS/001 RevA)

5.12 The physical topography of the site in this location would probably preclude any

significant expansion of this storage pond to cater for the much larger run-off volume

I predict. The additional work to justify the volume of storage including the primary

storage pond in the southwest corner should include a 3-D preliminary design showing

how the pond could be constructed into the steep hillside. Importantly, it should show

how the impounded pond’s structure would protect Pulley Lane (West) should it

overtop. Also, very importantly, how the structure of the pond banks would not be

compromised should over-topping occur in an exceptional rainfall event (i.e. more

than a 100 year +30% climate change edition). I stress this latter point, as there is

the potential for this pond to have to be over 10,000 m³ capacity, which is a level at

which Government is currently considering amending the Reservoirs Act to include. It

should be noted that if the storage capacity rises above 10,000 m³, and the pond is

impounded, it may well be categorised as a reservoir and fall under the Reservoirs Act

legislation (the trigger volume is currently being considered by Government) that is

extremely onerous. The topography of the site would indicate that the storage pond is

at a level above that of the downstream land, and should Ministers choose to lower

the present threshold to 10,000 m3, the Appellant would have a considerably greater

liability to maintain the facility.

5.13 I will also comment later in my Proof on the ground conditions at the location

of this pond, as they might affect the viability of its construction

5.14 The points I wish to highlight here are;


! The Appellant appears to have overestimated the greenfield run-

off for the site which in turn;

! Overestimates the flow rate out of the site’s attenuation facilities,

which in turn;

! Underestimates the storage requirements on site for a design

storm event; and

! The site topography would make it difficult or impossible to

practicably enlarge the ponds/storage sufficiently to deal with the

additional volume.

5.15 I would respectfully suggest to the Inspector that a much more detailed

analysis of the surface water run-off regime is required, together with a more

detailed preliminary design to satisfy the Inspector and regulatory authorities

that a solution is indeed achievable, before any planning permission should be

granted.

5.16 In addition to the concerns detailed above regarding the overarching surface

water discharge calculations and the physical proposals to deal with it, I have

further observations on the Appellants proposals to deal with surface water

from areas that are not provided with positive drainage.

5.17 Whilst the Appellant recognises that there are existing surface water flooding

problems on the development site, which results in surface water flooding in

the surrounding areas, the proposals to deal with this are somewhat limited.

5.18 The Appellant proposals would appear to be restricted to provision of ditches

and swales to collect run-off from steep sloping areas of the site. I will take

two of these areas as examples to demonstrate my view that the proposals

are extremely limited and suggest that proof that the proposals would perform

the identified function should be unequivocally provided or the Appellant

should not be granted planning permission.

Northern Area Adjacent to Newland Road


5.19 This is a steeply sloping area, made all the more onerous to drain by the

proposals to create a wide cutting to accommodate the amendments to

Newland Road for the bus/emergency service vehicle route.

5.20 On drawing number 5090327/DRA/DS/01 RevA, the Appellant proposes the

following:

! “New ditch/swale interceptor to capture flow and infiltrate to

ground”

! "Adventure playground to be a permeable area. However some

drainage ditches/swales to be added at the edge of the site to

reduce surface flows off steep ground during heavy rainfall"

! "Catchment falling to this area covers 6.64 ha. However it is

assumed that the Appellant only needs to manage the run-off

from the adventure playground and paths. It is expected that

STW will not allow the existing greenfield drainage to be captured

and drained the sewer. So the existing method of draining this

area must be maintained.”

5.21 I would take issue with the Appellant’s proposals quoted in the bullets above

as follows:

5.22 Bullet 1 - the existing run-off in these areas is demonstrably substantial, and

there does not appear to be a fully developed strategy for dealing with it.

5.23 The comment about the captured flow infiltrating to ground seems to be at

odds with other comments in the Appellant's evidence where it is stated that

the clay soils to not allow for infiltration solutions. Yew Tree Village, Water

Management Strategy, May 2011, Conclusions – “based on the evidence from

the trial pits excavated and the soakaway test results proving a negligible soil

infiltration rate, we consider that infiltration drainage will not be a practical

option for the development site.” Therefore, if infiltration solutions are not

appropriate and negligible flow would soak into the ground the ditches and

swales would have to be very large indeed to accommodate the run-off as


straightforward storage. Also, if the water would not soak away, and these

features have no formal outfall, where does the water go?

5.24 For example if 50mm of rain falls on the stated catchment area of this part of

the site, and little or nothing can infiltrate into the ground, then of the order of

3000 m³ of water would fall on the catchment and allowing a conservative

‘loss’ of 50% to being held in surface depressions, interstices in the surface,

evaporation etc., there would still be a volume of about 1500 m³ to capture.

5.25 For a ditch of 1m depth and 1:2 side slopes, the bank-full volume would be

3m³ per linear metre of ditch. Thus there would be a need for about 500 lin m

of ditch of this scale. The drawing has indicated three sections of ditch/swale

in the northernmost section, amounting to about 180 lin m, which do indeed

follow contours. However the line along the top of the cutting of the proposed

realigned Newland Road has a longitudinal gradient of about 1:20 over about

half of the line shown, and would thus have minimal long-term storage

capacity. I therefore suggest that the Appellant's proposal to capture surface

run-off in this steeply sloping area to be somewhat lacking, and in my opinion

would not perform the function suggested.

5.26 Bullet 2 - this states that permeable surfacing would be used. However, I

would again query how effective permeable surfaces would be if the subgrade

beneath has negligible permeability. There would be some storage in the sub-

base provided beneath the play area, but if water is prevented from escape

into the substrata, then it would result in semi-permanent (in winter months

particularly) waterlogged construction layers and increase the potential for

frost damage, not to mention icy conditions in winter, making the play areas

unsafe in low temperatures.

5.27 Bullet 3 - this appears to suggest that although the ‘white land’ area (shown

on the drainage strategy drawing) outside of the Appellants control is

technically within the catchment, the Appellant has assumed that it would not

have to deal with any run-off. This is technically true if the ‘white’ land outside

of the development red line has its own drainage arrangements where there is

no outflow, as the riparian owner of the property has a legal duty to prevent


floodwater discharging onto a neighbour's land. However, under the 1991

Land Drainage Act, the riparian owner of land through which an established

drainage path exists has a legal duty to ‘pass on flow without obstruction,

pollution or diversion affecting the rights of others’.

5.28 Also, it is not appropriate to take the stance "I don't have to consider that land

is it belongs to someone else", as the established historic drainage may be via

the Appellants land. If this is the case it may still be the Appellant's

responsibility to maintain drainage outfall mechanisms. The legal duty on the

1991 Act is to ‘accept flood flows through your land, even if caused by

inadequate capacity downstream, as there is no common law duty to improve

a watercourse’.

5.29 In conclusion, the area at the north of site has a number of serious omissions

in the Appellant's proposals with respect to how surface water run-off would

be dealt with. It is my contention that with the evidence before the Inspector,

there are serious questions as to whether the surface water run-off can be

properly managed. At the very least, the Appellant should provide sufficient

detail to satisfy all parties that the issue can be resolved properly and

practically.

Western Area Adjacent to Isaacs Way

5.30 This is an area where there are many recorded flooding events, and the

Appellants consultants are clearly aware of this, as they have proposed

mitigation measures as detailed below:

! Development restricted in this area (circa 700 m²).

! Attenuation required to prevent surface water run-off from this

corner of the site flowing along alleyway.

! To be specified at the detailed design stage be this great storage,

swale, or permeable car parking area.

! Drainage formally shown crossing field to reduce debts of

excavation.


! However, this area is now designated as an orchard, so the

drainage has been diverted around this area.

! This will result in increased depth to excavation

5.31 As set out in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of my Proof, there is a substantial

problem of surface water run-off from the existing fields in this area.

Photographs of the floodwater flowing past No.16 Isaacs Way are shown in

Appendix I. The resident of No.16 Isaacs Way has also provided a video of the

flood flow, as still photographs do not give an adequate impression of the

speed of flow and volume passing. I hope to have the facility to show this

video at the Appeal Inquiry, or possibly provide an electronic copy as a movie

file with my Proof of Evidence. There may also be the opportunity for the

Inspector to view the video on his site visit

5.32 As this is a major problem for residents in Isaacs Way, I consider that the

proposals with respect to preventing surface water flooding of existing

properties has not been sufficiently detailed.

5.33 There are no calculations that justify the surface water collection/disposal

arrangements would be sufficient as presented in planning application

supporting documents. Essentially this is a similar problem as the previous

section, where the use of ditches and swales has been proposed with the

expectation that there would be soakage into the ground. This does not accord

with the Appellant’s own assertion that the ground is essentially impermeable.

In this instance, underground storage is also proposed, but the Appellant says

it is a matter for detailed design.

5.34 In conclusion on surface water matters, the Appellant's case is flawed in that

their own documents state that there is “negligible permeability” in the ground

beneath the site, yet much of the drainage strategy for run-off from the land

is based on swales and ditches with no apparent outfalls, and statements that

they will "capture flow and infiltrate to ground".

5.35 The swale and ditch features shown in some areas are on steeply sloping

ground and would result in minimal storage.


5.36 Where there are significant existing flooding problems, no detailed design

proposals have been given to deal with the problem, which naturally leaves

adjacent residents worried that problems will get worse if the development

were to go ahead.

Critique of Foul Water Drainage Strategy

5.37 The Appellant has undertaken the usual investigations with Severn Trent

Water to obtain appropriate outfall points for the foul water disposal from the

development. Seven Trent has confirmed that foul flows can be

accommodated at three locations (give references) at

! Isaacs Way 2.5 l/s

! Sandals Road 14.0 l/s

! Primsland Way 5.0 l/s

5.38 A particular aspect of concern

to the residents of Isaacs

Way, is how the Appellant

proposes to make a

connection through the

narrow gap (footpath)

between Nos.14 and 16. The

width of the footway between

the two property boundaries is

1.3m. The normal

requirement of a water utility

company is for a five or 5m

easement over a public sewer

of this scale.

Figure

5.1


5.39 This requirement for space above a sewer is set out in the Severn Trent Water

document "The Consequence of a Water or Sewerage Undertakers Assets

Passing Through Land", a copy of which is attached in Appendix K

5.40 As there is only 1.3 m between the private boundaries and 4.17 m between

physical buildings, it is difficult to see how the Appellant can provide a public

sewer through the available space. It is my understanding from the owner of

No. 16, that there has been no contact in respect of negotiations for additional

land for an easement or construction working space.

5.41 I would question whether the space available between the two properties is

sufficient to physically lay a publicly adoptable sewer with appropriate working

space and subsequent easement. It is suggested that the Appellant has not

completed sufficient investigation to prove this outfall is feasible.

5.42 If the foul water connection cannot be implemented as stated, then at very

least the Appellant should have shown alternative arrangements that are

demonstrably feasible could be achieved, with confirmation of such from the

Water Company being provided as evidence. It is conceivable that without the

ability to drain through this route, there may not be sufficient capacity in the

alternative outfall points to deal with the resultant additional flows.


6 Brine Runs and Ground Conditions

6.1 This section relates to existing ground conditions as they would affect

proposed development infrastructure.

6.2 I do not give evidence on specific geotechnical matters, but use evidence from

the Appellant's supporting documents and draw conclusions related to the

proposed drainage and highway infrastructure works, from my 40yrs plus of

experience as a Civil Engineer, where I must interpret such geotechnical

reports to facilitate infrastructure design.

Ground Conditions as Evidenced in the Appellants Documents

6.3 A report produced by GRM Ltd was submitted as part of the planning

application by Persimmon and is entitled Phase 1 Appraisal (Desk Study). The

report has been written in support of Persimmon’s development ‘Red Line’

site. There does not appear to have been a similar report produced for the

Barberry development site. The GRM Phase 1 report also contains a report on

the Brine Run geology by Johnson Poole and Bloomer (JPB) in its Appendix H,

to which I shall refer.

6.4 There are a number of important statements in this report, as well as

locational information on the zones of influence of the soluble rock geology,

sometimes known as ‘Brine Runs’. There is a considerable amount of

information publicly available on the history of the Droitwich Spa Brine Runs,

but in summary the naturally occurring sodium chloride in the rock is dissolved

by strong groundwater flow, creating a brine solution. As the sodium chloride

is removed, cavitation is caused, that in turn leads to collapses in the rock and

surface subsidence.

Extracts from the Phase 1 Report:

Main Report, Appendix G: gives a map of the overall site showing

areas 1 and 2 (which equates to the Brine Run Zones C & B respectively)

plus a brown shaded area on the plan showing what is known as Brine

Run Zone A. To aid the Inspector I have prepared an overlay of these


Zones on the overall Yew Tree Village master-plan, which is attached in

Appendix L.

Main Report, Section 5: describes how the Persimmon site is situated

in Zones B and C (or areas 2 & 1 respectively in GRM terminology) and it

quotes:

“Area 2 (Moderate Risk Area) is currently characterised as a brine

subsidence risk Zone B by JPB. With a risk that Zone A (in practice un-

developable) encroaches in the far north-western corner.”

6.5 A key phrase in the above quote is that in practice Zone A land is un-

developable.

JPB Report in Appendix H, paragraph 4.4.4, Zone A, Active Brine Run:

“Maximum annual subsistence in the axis is currently recorded at up to

12.5 mm and the maximum discernible annual tilt, across the axis, is up

to approximately 1 in 3,520. Locally, such rates of subsidence and tilt

may be exceeded, although general rates are lower with tilts of between

1 in 5,000 to 1 in 20,000. The above values are based on those recorded

over the last four years. Analysis of trends over the same stations for

periods of 6, 10, 14 and 19 years show these rates to be relatively

consistent. There is an expectation of an overall relatively stabilised

amount of future ground subsidence at a relatively constant rate, but

such subsidence appears likely to continue for the foreseeable future, and

no absolute assurance can be given that more significant subsidence will

not re-occur in the future."

JPB Report in Appendix H, paragraph 4.4.5, Zone B, Active Brine Run:

“Zone B represents areas known or anticipated from precise levelling

surveys and/or surface features to be experiencing minor ground

movements at worst, with little or no differential factor. This Zone

includes areas which may previously have been included in Zone A but

for which long-term precise levelling has demonstrated sufficient


retardation of subsidence to justify re-zoning, i.e. Droitwich Town Centre

and part of Yew Tree Hill. There is a possibility, however, that Zone B

may at some time be encroached upon by the widening of Zone A.

Similarly, whilst unlikely, it is possible that Zone B could widen and

encompass more of the study area.”

JPB Report in Appendix H, paragraphs 5.6 & 5.7 dealing with Zone A,

Active Brine Run:

“5.6 Within Zone A, significant total and differential subsidence is

occurring, and the annual subsidence could be of the order of

approximately 17 mm with a tilt of 1 in 3,429 per annum. If projected

over a 60-year period (anticipated development life), they could in the

worst case, reach an accumulation of up to 1 m of total settlement and a

tilt of 1 in 57 respectively. Locally, this might be exceeded and ground

fissuring may develop, but generally this would be the maximum to be

anticipated. All proposed building development and associated

underground services within Zone A should be designed and constructed

to withstand such potential ground movements."

"5.7 In practice this requirement is likely to prohibit normal building

development but substantial foundation precautions may be appropriate

for specialist buildings within Zone A. Conventional building development

should only proceed after long-term precise levelling has proven effective

consistency to the equivalent criteria of Zone B. Specialist advice should

be sought for all proposed development within Zone A. The design should

be based upon specific levelling data and structural advice sought to

enable design to make allowances further."

6.6 The important aspect of the above report is that JPB, who has been monitoring

Brine Run activity in Droitwich Spa for many years and has found the

subsidence activity to be constant and consistent for a period of 19 years up

to production of the report, states that there could be approximately 1 m of

subsidence and 1 in 57 differential settlement over the next 60 years. Also in


paragraph 5.7 JPB states that in Zone A, the predicted settlement and tilt "is

likely to prohibit normal building development".

6.7 From the above extracts in the Appellant's own supporting technical reports, it

seems odd that the development is being promoted in its current form. With

large parts of the Barberry site being within Zone A, and specifically from an

infrastructure engineering point of view, placing drainage pipework, large

balancing ponds requiring extensive earthworks, and retaining structures for

highways in this area, would seem extremely unwise.

Potential Effects on Drainage Infrastructure

6.8 Drainage pipe runs (both foul and surface) are particularly susceptible to

settlement (subsidence) problems. Even relatively small amounts of

differential settlement will cause pipe fractures in normal materials of clay and

concrete. This would disrupt the ability of pipes to carry the intended flow and

could/would give rise to foul sewage entering the very active groundwater

regime. Also, if large volumes of water from fractured pipes were to enter the

active Brine Run geology, it could exacerbate the Brine Run problems. This is

evidenced by references such as paragraph 5.F (main report Phase 1

Assessment, page 10) where it states that the discharge of water into the

ground could give rise to "the risk of dissolution". That is to increase the rate

of sodium chloride dissolving that would increase the rate of cavitation and

thus subsidence.

6.9 Both sites (Barberry and Persimmon) rely upon key elements of drainage and

highway infrastructure, which would lay within or on the transitory boundaries

between Zones A and B.

6.10 The foul and surface water drainage from the Persimmon site appears to rely

upon a discharge route from the north-west corner of the site through the

Barberry development (reference the Travis Baker Flood Risk Assessment for

Persimmon Homes).

6.11 Barberry's own development lays predominantly in Zone A and hence a

considerable proportion of the drainage infrastructure would lay within, and


perhaps more importantly straddle the boundary of, Zone A. Pipe runs

crossing the boundary would be likely to experience the greatest differential

settlement.

6.12 One very major concern I would have as an experienced Civil Engineer, is the

construction of a very large surface water balancing facility (south-west corner

of the site) clearly situated on the boundary between Zones A and B, where

differential settlement of up to 1 m is suggested possible by the JPB report in

Appendix H of the GRM Phase 1 Assessment.

6.13 It is conceivable that the impounded pond, which is at a higher level than the

land south of Pulley Lane, might fail due to differential settlement and

inundate the land the south. I have (in paragraphs 5.10 & 5.12) drawn

attention to the scale of the balancing pond perhaps having to increase, and

the potential for it to fall under the Reservoirs Act. The uncertain geology may

then become a deal-breaker.

Potential Effects on Highway Retaining Structures

6.14 Another key feature of infrastructure that is necessary to enable the full

development of both Appellants sites is the creation of a bus/emergency

services/cycle/pedestrian route into the site along Newlands Road from

Primsland Way to the north.

6.15 As I have shown in Section 4 of my Proof, the creation of such a route (even if

possible due to land availability) would require a combination of substantial

retaining structures and large earth embankments. Some of this work would

fall within or on the boundary of Zone A. I would have serious concerns about

the structural stability of these proposed features.

6.16 I would also note that the existing Primsland development area (Yew Tree Hill

and Rebekah Gardens) also sits within or on the boundary of Zone A. I would

not necessarily accept because of this it must be acceptable to develop Yew

Tree Village. It is important to note that these developments were approved

and implemented before much of the current information on ground conditions

was available. If it had been known, or at least similar levels of investigatory


evidence had been available, it is possible that these developments may not

have been granted permission.

6.17 It is also possible that over the past few years, the most aggressive ground

movements have been limited to the eastern boundary between Zones A & B.

It is along that boundary where the property known as “Montrosa’ (originally

situated off Newland Road near ‘Casa Colina’) had to be demolished due to

subsidence damage. It is possible that Yew Tree Hill and Rebekah Gardens

might suffer subsidence problems in years to come.

6.18 In conclusion, I submit to the Inspector that the evidence on ground

conditions gives rise to considerable concerns, and the clear geotechnical

advice in evidence from the Appellant's own professional teams is that Zone A

is to all intents and purposes "un-developable", and therefore should not be

granted permission.


Appendix A Resident’s Photographs of Horses on Pulley Lane


Appendix B Resident’s Notes & Photographs of Newland Road


Appendix C IPaD Drawings & Sections on Newland Road


Appendix D IPaD Summary of Trip Distribution Figures


Appendix E Resident’s Notes & Photographs of Footpath Through Pulley Woods


Appendix F Extract from Worcestershire County Council Design Guide


Appendix G Example Narrow Country Lane Verge Damage


Appendix H Pulley Lane Visibility Splays – Annotated Drawing


Appendix I Resident’s Photographs of Flooding on Isaacs Way


Appendix J HR Wallingford Greenfield Runoff Calculation Output


Appendix K Severn Trent Water Document


Appendix L Annotated Drawing Showing Brine Run Zones