Rebecca Henson Summary Proof of Evidence - North West ...

Site at Land North Of Grange Road, Hugglescote,
LE67 2BT
Appeal by Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd
Summary Proof of Evidence of Mrs Rebecca Henson
on behalf of Leicestershire County Council as local Highway
Authority
Witness ref: LCC/LHA/01
Local Planning Authority reference: 10/01093/OUTM
Planning Inspectorate: APP/G2435/A/11/2165777/NWF
24 April 2012
- 1 -

1 Qualifications and Experience
1.1 My name is Rebecca Henson. I have a BA (Hons) in Urban Planning
and Management and an MSc in European Traffic and
Transportation. I have eleven years experience working in the field
of highways and transportation for Local Authorities. I have been
employed by Leicestershire County Council as a Senior Engineer in
the Transport Policy and Strategy Group for four years.
2 Scope of Evidence
2.1 My evidence relates to highways and transportation matters, and is
presented on behalf of Leicestershire County Council as local
Highway Authority.
2.2 On 6 March 2012, members of NWLDC Planning Committee
resolved that had the Local Planning Authority been in a position to
determine the application that is the subject of this appeal,
planning permission would have been refused. There are five
putative reasons for refusal. Four of which were recommended by
the local Highway Authority.
2.3 My evidence relates to putative reasons for refusal 1, 2 and 3 in the
‘Report of the Director of Services and Deputy Chief Executive -
Planning Committee 6 March 2012’. Evidence relating to putative
reason for refusal 4 will be given by Mrs Joanne Eynon.
2.4 My evidence shows that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate the
impact that the proposed development will have on the local
highway network. It also shows that the Appellant has failed to
demonstrate the connectivity of the site with key areas for
pedestrians, cyclists and by public transport.
- 2 -

3 Coalville Transport Study
3.1 The local Highway Authority has stated to the Appellant that the
Coalville Transport Study cannot be considered an appropriate tool
for assessing the impact of this development on the local highway
network for reasons given in section 4 of the main Proof of
Evidence.
4 Land north of Stephenson Way
4.1 The Transport Assessments submitted in support of the Stephenson
Green application were based on a worst case assessment of the
Stephenson Green development on the A511.
4.2 The Appellant agreed at the Stephenson Green Public Inquiry that
the local Highway Authority has properly assessed the impact of
Stephenson Green on Hugglescote crossroads.
- 3 -

5 Trip distribution
5.1 Trip distribution from the appeal site was agreed between the local
Highway Authority and the Appellant on 2 February 2012. This
agreement was reached following further work, which included
evidence gathered by the local Highway Authority.
5.2 However, the Appellant has not assessed the impact of the
development on the local highway network based on the agreed
distribution.
5.3 On 21 March 2012, the Appellant withdrew their agreement to the
agreed trip distribution and reverted back to the distribution in the
Revised Transport Assessment. The explanation for this u-turn is
the lack of a deliverable scheme of mitigation at Hugglescote
crossroads within highway land.
6 Hugglescote crossroads
6.1 The Appellant acknowledges in a submitted Technical Note and the
Revised Transport Assessment that Hugglescote crossroads has
capacity issues and that its constrained nature is likely to influence
the occurrence of accidents.
6.2 The Appellant acknowledges in the Revised Transport Assessment
that mitigation is needed at this junction based on the distribution
proposed in the Assessment but no mitigation is proposed.
6.3 The local Highway Authority has asked the Appellant to provide
evidence to justify this position, but no evidence has been
presented.
- 4 -

7 Vehicular access arrangements
7.1 Two points of vehicular access are proposed from the appeal site to
Grange Road. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
proposed vehicular accesses are acceptable in highway capacity
terms based on both the previously agreed position in respect of
trip distribution, and the position in the Revised Transport
Assessment.
8 Mitigation measures at junctions on the local highway
network
8.1 The Appellant has failed to demonstrate the impact of the
development on the local highway network based on the previously
agreed trip distribution. Therefore, it is not known what mitigation
measures at junctions on the local highway network are needed
based on this distribution.
8.2 The Appellant has proposed mitigation measures on the A511 based
on the distribution in the Revised Transport Assessment. Within the
Revised Transport Assessment no mitigation is proposed at
Hugglescote crossroads.
- 5 -

9 Connectivity of the site for pedestrians and cyclists
9.1 The Appellant has failed to demonstrate connectivity of the appeal
site with key areas including Coalville town centre, local community
facilities, and the Bardon 22 employment area for pedestrians and
cyclists. Consequently, future residents will be limited in terms of
their transport choice to these areas contrary to the National
Planning Policy Framework. There are a number of Public Rights of
Way that cross the appeal site, and that connect to Bardon 22 from
Grange Road but they are not proposed to be improved.
9.2 This lack of connectivity is exacerbated because the phasing of the
site is not proposed outwards from the existing urban edge, and
because of the failure to include pedestrian and cycle access from
the site to the A511 via the Bardon Relief Road, contrary to NWLDC
Local Plan saved policy H4g.
9.3 The Appellant has carried out further work that proposes measures
to improve connectivity of the appeal site to the A511 and Bardon
22 for pedestrians and cyclists. However, the local Highway
Authority is awaiting confirmation that these measures can be
secured by planning condition.
- 6 -

10 Connectivity of the site by public transport
10.1 The Appellant has failed to demonstrate connectivity of the appeal
site with key areas including Coalville town centre, local community
facilities, and the Bardon 22 employment area by public transport.
No existing bus services use Grange Road. Consequently, future
residents will be limited in terms of their transport choice to these
areas, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.
10.2 The Appellant has carried out further work which proposes
measures to improve the connectivity of the appeal site by public
transport. The submission includes for the provision of a 30 minute
frequency bus service from Coalville to Leicester serving the site.
However, the local Highway Authority is awaiting the submission of
further details, including a draft s106 Agreement.
11 National Planning Policy Framework
11.1 The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 32 that
“development should only be prevented or refused on transport
grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development
are severe”.
11.2 The Appellant acknowledges within the Revised Transport
Assessment that the impact of the development at HCR is severe
enough to require mitigation. No mitigation is proposed.
- 7 -

12 Conclusions
12.1 The following conclusions can be reached:
12.2 The Coalville Transport Study cannot be considered an appropriate
tool for assessing the impact of this development.
12.3 The Appellant has agreed that the local Highway Authority has
properly assessed the impact of Stephenson Green on HCR.
12.4 Trip distribution from the appeal site was agreed but the Appellant
failed to assess the impact of the development on the local highway
network based on it.
12.5 The Appellant has reverted back to the distribution in the Revised
Transport Assessment because of the lack of a deliverable scheme
of mitigation at Hugglescote crossroads within highway land.
12.6 The Appellant acknowledges that mitigation is needed at
Hugglescote crossroads but no mitigation is proposed.
12.7 Two points of vehicular access are proposed from the appeal site to
Grange Road. The Appellant has failed to assess the capacity of
these junctions.
12.8 It is not known what mitigation measures at junctions on the local
highway network are needed based on the previously agreed trip
distribution because the Appellant failed to assess the impact.
12.9 The Appellant has proposed mitigation measures on the A511.
12.10 The Appellant has failed to demonstrate connectivity of the appeal
site with key areas for pedestrians and cyclists.
- 8 -

12.11 The Appellant has failed to demonstrate connectivity of the appeal
site with key areas by public transport.
12.12 With reference to the National Planning Policy Framework, the
impact of the development is considered by the Appellant to be
severe enough to require mitigation at HCR. No mitigation is
proposed.
- 9 -