Parsonage Court, 1 North Parade, Parsonage Gardens, Manchester M3 2NH t 0161 827 9090 f 0161 827 9091 e [email protected]Belfast - Brentwood - Bristol – Cardiff - Dublin - Edinburgh - Glasgow - Leeds - Manchester - Nottingham Registered in England Number 4100666 Registered Office: Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street, London SE1 9DG Transport Assessment for Proposed Waste Treatment Plant, Griffiths Road, Lostock Gralam on behalf of Viridor Final CH/M/209224 Sep 2009
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 7 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction
1.1 Waterman Boreham Ltd has been instructed by Viridor to advise on traffic and transportation
issues relating to proposals to develop a site for waste processing in Lostock Gralam.
1.2 This report provides supplementary information to assist Cheshire West and Chester Council
(CWCC) in the determination of a planning application for the proposed development.
Development Proposals Overview
1.3 The site is located approximately 2 kilometres (km) east of Northwich town centre and was
previously used for chlorine manufacture. It has been unoccupied since 2001.
1.4 It is proposed that the site be redeveloped to provide a Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), an
education centre and associated offices.
1.5 The WTP will incorporate a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant. Waste will be delivered
from throughout Cheshire to be processed. The MBT mechanically separates waste to produce
various recyclates before sending it through a biodrying process to also produce a solid recovered
fuel (SRF). The recyclates will be delivered to various end users. The SRF will be transported by
rail for use in Runcorn. The WTP will have an overall capacity of 220,000 to 250,000 tonnes per
annum.
1.6 The development has been assessed using a methodology agreed with CWCC Highways
Department.
Scope
1.7 Following this introduction, Section 2 of the report provides a comprehensive description of the
existing conditions affecting the site. This includes the local highway network and facilities for
pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.
1.8 Section 3 contains an analysis of the local area in terms of highway safety.
1.9 The development proposals are described in Section 4. This includes a description of the
development, the access arrangement and an explanation of how the site will operate.
Page 8 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
1.10 Section 5 assesses the suitability of the site within the context of national, regional and local
transport planning policy. The accessibility of the site by modes other than private car is assessed
in Section 6.
1.11 Section 7 contains the traffic assessment, and includes the agreed methodology for which the
impact of the development has been assessed. Section 8 presents the results of junction capacity
assessments and details all conclusions.
1.12 A Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) Management Strategy is contained within Section 9.
1.13 The report is summarised and concluded in Section 10.
Page 9 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Site Location and Site Access
2.1 The application site is a former ICI chemical works which produced chlorine until its closure in
2001. It is currently owned by Ineos Chlor and is occupied by derelict buildings and numerous
tanks and plant associated with its former use. Disused rail sidings are present to the north of the
site.
2.2 The site is located off Griffiths Road in Lostock Gralam, approximately 2 km east of Northwich
town centre. The site is shown from a regional perspective in Plan 1 and from a local viewpoint in
Plan 2.
2.3 The site is accessed via a private estate road shared with the Brunner Mond works and Solvay
facility off Griffiths Road.
2.4 The private estate road forms a priority junction with Griffiths Road. This access road extends for
approximately 650 metres into the wider industrial estate.
Surrounding Highway Network
2.5 There is a 60 metre diverging taper from Griffiths Road into the access to allow for deceleration of
HGVs. The turning radii at the junction are sufficient to accommodate the large articulated HGVs
that currently access the units adjacent to the site. It is considered these are suitable for the
proposed use.
2.6 Griffiths Road (A530) is a local distributor road linking the A559 Manchester Road to the north
with Middlewich to the south.
2.7 Griffiths Road consists of a single lane in each direction and has a number of bends and sharp
turns along its length. It is subject to a 40mph speed limit although it has been observed that
some vehicle speeds exceed this limit. There are two low bridges with height restrictions of 3.6m
and 4.8m to the north. This restricts access from Manchester Road for HGVs.
2.8 The junction with the A559 Manchester Road is approximately 1km to the north and takes the
form of a three arm priority junction. Manchester Road provides access to Lostock Gralam to the
east and Northwich to the west.
2.9 Approximately 600m to the south of the site Griffiths Road meets Middlewich Road (B5082) and
Penny’s Lane at a four arm staggered priority junction, with Griffiths Road being the major arm.
Page 10 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
Middlewich Road provides access to Northwich town centre to the north west. Penny’s Lane
provides local access only to a number of residential buildings.
2.10 South of this junction the A530 becomes King Street and extends for approximately 500m to the
junction with the A556 at a four arm priority roundabout. The A556 is the primary route for
accessing the local and regional strategic road network, including the M6 and M56.
Facilities for Pedestrians, Cyclists and Public Transport Users
2.11 Pedestrian connectivity reflects the industrial nature of the estate. However access for
pedestrians can be gained from Griffiths Road.
2.12 A traffic free cycle route passes close to the site along the Trent and Mersey canal. It links the site
with Rudheath to the south with Marston and Northwich to the north west.
2.13 With regard to public transport facilities, there are bus stops to the north of the site on Manchester
Road and to the south on Middlewich Road. Lostock Gralam rail station is located approximately
2km to the east of the site.
Page 11 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
3. HIGHWAY SAFETY
3.1 Five years of personal injury accident data, for the period 2003 to 2008, have been obtained for
the study area. The data is contained in Appendix 1.
3.2 The study area is defined by the junctions and links potentially affected by changes in traffic flows.
The junctions considered include:
• Griffiths Road / Manchester Road;
• King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road; and
• the A556 / King Street roundabout.
3.3 The links examined include Griffiths Road, between Manchester Road and Middlewich Road, and
King Street, between Middlewich Road and the A556. The site access junction with Griffiths Road
is considered within the wider link between Manchester Road and Middlewich Road. The data
have been considered for each link and junction individually to identify any local safety issues.
Griffiths Road / Manchester Road
3.4 A total of three accidents have occurred at the Griffiths Road / Manchester Road junction since
2003, resulting in six slight injuries. The three accidents all involved vehicles turning right into
Griffiths Road. Two were caused by vehicles colliding to the rear of a right turning car and one
was caused by a vehicle colliding into the back of a car which had slowed to allow a right turning
vehicle.
3.5 All accidents occurred between 2003 and 2005 and there have been no accidents since then.
3.6 No accidents occurred involving pedestrians over any arm of the junction.
King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road
3.7 The King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road junction was the site of six
accidents throughout the period. These were spread throughout the study period occurring in
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008. With regard to spread throughout the year, two occurred in
March, one in August, one in October and two in November. They occurred at all times
throughout the day from 08:00 to 19:15.
3.8 No accidents involved pedestrians and only one involved a cyclist. This occurred in 2006 when a
car collided into the back of the cyclist.
Page 12 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
3.9 Of the six accidents, four involved vehicles pulling out of Middlewich Road, and one was caused
by a vehicle waiting to turn into Middlewich Road. However, the frequency with which they have
occurred would indicate that there is no significant issue.
A556 / King Street roundabout
3.10 The A556 / King Street roundabout has been the site of 18 accidents in the past five years. These
are spread throughout the five year period. However no accidents occurred in 2004 or 2008.
3.11 The accidents resulted in 26 slight injuries: 23 to people travelling in cars, two to cyclists and one
to a motorcyclist.
3.12 The police have assigned a contributory factor to all accidents at this junction. They state that the
single greatest reason for accidents was rear end shunts on approach to the roundabout. This
accounted for seven of the accidents. Entering the roundabout without due care and attention
resulted in four accidents including two that involved the two cyclists. In both instances the
cyclists were already on the roundabout and were hit by vehicles. Dangerous driving whilst on the
roundabout (moving lanes without indicating) accounted for three accidents. The other four
accidents occurred as a result of general driver errors including excessive speed.
3.13 The nature of the accidents is representative of a large roundabout with high traffic flows.
Accidents on Griffiths Road and King Street
3.14 Accidents have also been analysed on two stretches of road:
• Griffiths Road; and
• King Street.
Accidents on Griffiths Road (between Manchester Road and Middlewich Road)
3.15 A total of four accidents occurred between the Manchester Road and Middlewich Road junctions
in the study period. This stretch includes the site access junction as well as other private access
junctions.
3.16 The four accidents resulted in a total of seven injuries, five slight and two serious. All accidents
occurred in the evening, suggesting the drivers were returning from work. Three of the accidents
occurred in July or August, suggesting that light conditions were not a factor.
3.17 One accident occurred in 2003, one in 2004, one in 2006 and one in 2007. This even spread of
accidents suggests that there they did not occur as a result of a temporary road condition or
problem.
Page 13 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
3.18 It does not appear that there is any one significant contributing factor, with a number of reasons
recorded by the police. These include loss of control and excessive speed.
3.19 One accident occurred at the Estate Road/Griffiths Road junction. This was caused when a
vehicle heading north braked suddenly and the vehicle behind drove into the back of it. There is
no indication what caused the vehicle to brake, or how fast the vehicle behind was travelling. As
only one accident has occurred at the site access within five years it is considered there is not an
accident safety problem that the development proposals would exacerbate.
Accidents on King Street between Middlewich Road and the A556
3.20 A total of four accidents were recorded on School Lane on the 450m stretch between Middlewich
Road and the A556. There are three side streets joining this stretch of King Street.
3.21 All accidents caused slight injuries and involved cars only.
3.22 Three accidents occurred at the junction with Cookes Lane, two when vehicles were pulling out of
Cookes Lane. One of the accidents was caused by excessive speed.
Conclusion
3.23 There does not appear to be any significant highway design or maintenance issues that cause the
pattern of previous accidents. It is considered that these issues would not be exacerbated by the
proposed development.
Page 14 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
4. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Development Description
4.1 It is proposed that the site be developed to provide a Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), an education
centre and associated offices. Plan 3 shows the proposed layout of the scheme.
4.2 The site will provide a Waste Transfer Plant (WTP) for the local area surrounding Lostock Gralam.
Waste delivered to the site will either be locally collected from Household Waste Recycling
Centres (HWRC) or kerbside collections within the Lostock WTP catchment. In addition, waste
collected at other Waste Transfer Station (WTS) in Macclesfield, Crewe and Ellesmere Port will
be transported to Lostock Gralam for processing. A small percentage of waste treated at the WTP
will be residual commercial waste.
4.3 The WTP will also incorporate a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant with mechanical
waste separation at the front end followed by a biodrying process to produce various recyclates
and a solid recovered fuel (SRF). The SRF will be transported by rail for use in Runcorn, with the
byproduct recyclates transported for use by an appropriate end user. The WTP will have an
overall capacity of 220 000 to 250 000 tonnes per annum.
Site Access and Circulation
4.4 Access to the site will be taken from the existing industrial estate road. This is considered to be
acceptable as the industrial estate road has been designed to accommodate the types and sizes
of vehicles that will visit the site.
Parking Provision
4.5 It is proposed that parking is provided for operational and administrative staff as well as for the
education centre. The location of the parking bays are shown in Plan 3.
4.6 Parking for disabled motorists will be provided in accordance with local standards.
4.7 Cycle parking will be provided in line with local standards and will be monitored by the site
operator.
Staff Levels
4.8 It is anticipated that 45 members of staff will be employed on site. These will include office
employees; plant operators; truck drivers; education centre staff and management.
Page 15 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
Education Facility
4.9 As part of Cheshire Waste’s commitment to inform residents about the waste and recycling
industry, the construction of an education centre also forms part of the development proposals. It
will be available for use by schools and other interested groups.
4.10 It is envisaged that approximately one coach per fortnight will visit the education centre. A coach
drop-off point is to be provided as part of the proposals.
Travel Plan
4.11 To encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport, a Framework Travel Plan is submitted to
support the application. This is attached as Appendix 11.2 to the Environmental Statement
(Volume 2).
Page 16 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
5. PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
5.1 There are three main sources of transport planning policy providing guidance and advice which
relate to this development:
• National planning policy as set out in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)
notes and Planning Policy Statements (PPS);
• Regional guidance provided in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS); and
• Local Cheshire-specific planning policy.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 Transport
5.2 The key objectives of Planning Policy Guidance 13 Transport are to:
• Minimise the need to travel;
• Support the development of land within urban areas; and
• Integrate land use policies in ways which help to reduce the growth of
motorised journeys, encourage alternative modes of travel and reduce
reliance on the motor car.
5.3 The development proposals include the use of large capacity waste vehicles, resulting in a
significant overall reduction in mileage.
5.4 The proposals are considered to be compliant with PPG13.
Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management
5.5 Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) suggests that planning authorities should be able to
demonstrate future capacity. The document goes on to state that sites should be assessed for
their suitability in terms of existing and potential infrastructure to support the sustainable
movement of waste.
5.6 When identifying sites to house waste management facilities PPS 10 states that consideration
should be made to “the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the
sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery, seeking when
practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport.”
5.7 As a key component of the sites’ transport strategy is the removal of SRF to Runcorn by rail, it is
considered that the proposal is in line with PPS10. In addition this Transport Assessment (TA)
Page 17 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity on the highway network to accept the vehicle
movements associated with the proposed development.
Regional Planning for the North West
5.8 The North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 includes planning guidance for
the location of waste management facilities in the North West. The guidance directly related to
transportation and waste is detailed below.
5.9 Policy EM 12 “Locational Principles” states that waste should be managed as near as possible to
the place of production. This reduces any unnecessary transportation of waste material over long
distances, helping to minimise overall traffic levels.
5.10 Policy EM 12 also states that “in considering the location of new waste management facilities,
(they) should take account of the availability of transport infrastructure that will support the
sustainable movement of waste, seeking when practicable to use rail or water transport.”
5.11 The key end-product produced at the site will be transported by rail to Runcorn. Therefore traffic
movements will be reduced to a minimum, in line with guidance in RSS for the North West.
5.12 In addition the Regional Waste Strategy for the North West, published in September 2004 states
that transfer, sorting and energy recovery facilities should be located at industrial sites or
premises. This is because they can be grouped together with traditional industrial buildings and
areas without significant impact on the surrounding environment.
5.13 As the proposed facilities are located in an area dominated by industrial use it is considered that
the development meets with recommendations within the RSS and RWS.
Cheshire’s Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (CJMWMS)
5.14 The CJMWMS was published in 2007 and sets out how Cheshire’s local authorities intend to
reduce, recycle, recover and dispose of Cheshire’s municipal waste between 2007 and 2020.
5.15 One of the key principles of the strategy is to deal with waste as close to its source as possible.
The provision of a MBT facility in Cheshire helps to ensure that waste produced in Cheshire is
managed in a sustainable way.
5.16 It is stated in the CJMWMS that the promoters, Cheshire Waste Partnership, favour locating the
waste processing facilities in a heavy industrial area to help mitigate potential negative impacts
arising from transporting materials throughout the county. The location within the Lostock Gralam
industrial area satisfies this recommendation. The strategy also states on page 26 that proposals
Page 18 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
such as a MBT will break more waste down, leading to a reduction in the tonnage that requires
final treatment and therefore to be transported onwards.
5.17 It is considered that the proposals are in accordance with national, regional and local transport
planning policy.
Page 19 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
6. ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
6.1 As set out in Section 5, a key element of national, regional and local policy is to ensure new waste
developments are located in industrial areas close to the original source of waste. However, it is
also important to ensure that employment developments are not isolated. This supports the aims
of integrating planning and transport, providing more sustainable transport choices, and reducing
overall travel and car use.
6.2 The accessibility of the proposed development on the site is considered in this context for the
following modes of travel:
� Walking;
� Cycling; and
� Public transport.
Pedestrian Accessibility
6.3 While pedestrian facilities are not perfect along Griffiths Road they are considered to be
acceptable, with a footway on one side for much of its length.
6.4 The A559 Manchester Road has wide footways and appropriate lighting, connecting both
Northwich and Lostock Gralam, with the site. The A530 Middlewich Road again has wide
footways and appropriate street lighting. This provides a route for pedestrians accessing the site
from Rudheath to the south.
6.5 PPG13 states that walking is the ‘most important mode of travel at the local level and offers the
greatest potential to replace short car journeys, particularly under 2 kilometres’.
6.6 Research has indicated that acceptable walking distances depend on a number of factors,
including the quality of the development, the type of amenity offered, the surrounding area, and
other local facilities. The Institution for Highways and Transportation (IHT) document entitled
‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’ details suggested walking distances which are relevant to this
planning application. These are shown in Table 6.1.
Page 20 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
Table 6.1 Suggested Acceptable Walking Distances
Town Centres
(m) Commuting/School/
Sight seeing (m) Elsewhere (m)
Desirable 200 500 400
Acceptable 400 1000 800
Preferred Maximum 800 2000 1200
Source: ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’, IHT
6.7 To assist in summarising the accessibility of the site on foot, a pedestrian catchment plan has
been included as Plan 4. This shows distances appropriate for accessing employment:
catchments of 500m, 1000m and 2000m. These distances represent approximate walking times
of 6, 12 and 24 minutes respectively when walking at a leisurely 5 kilometres per hour. These
distances are termed ‘Desirable’, ‘Acceptable’ and the ‘Preferred Maximum’ by the IHT for
accessing employment, education and tourist sites.
6.8 Plan 4 shows that there are a number of residential areas within the preferred maximum walking
distance. This preferred maximum is also the distance stated in PPG13. The majority of these
areas are to the south of the site in the Rudheath area.
6.9 Due to the nature of the proposals and considering that demand to access the site by walking will
be limited, it is considered that accessibility for pedestrians is appropriate.
Cycle Accessibility
6.10 The site is accessible via both on-road advisory cycle routes and off-road cycle tracks. A cycle
route/towpath passes directly to the east of the site on the Trent and Mersey canal. This links
Runcorn to Sandbach, providing local accessibility to Northwich, Marston and Rudheath.
6.11 PPG13 guidelines state that cycling has the “potential to replace short car journeys, particularly
those under 5 kilometres”. To assist in assessing the accessibility of the site by cycle, Plan 5
presents a 5km cycle catchment for the site. This distance equates to a journey time of around
25 minutes, while cycling at a leisurely speed of 12 kilometres per hour.
6.12 The catchment area covers much of Northwich, Wincham and Lostock Gralam.
6.13 In conclusion, it is considered that accessibility for cyclists is appropriate.
Page 21 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
Bus Accessibility
6.14 The nearest bus stops to the development are located on Manchester Road approximately 1.6km
to the north of the site and on Middlewich Road and approximately 1.4km to the south. These are
outside the walk distance recommended by the Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT)
in its document ‘Guidelines for Planning for Public Transport in Development’. However the 400m
is the distance that would encourage bus use, not the maximum an employee would walk. Plan 7
shows local bus routes and service numbers stopping close to the site that some employees may
choose to use.
6.15 The Middlewich Road stops are utilised by service 1/1E which links Weaverham, Rudheath and
Gadbrook Park. The Manchester Road stops are utilised by service 45 which links Wincham with
Warrington and service 289 which links Altrincham and Knutsford. These services link the site to
significant residential areas although the distances from the stops to the site are greater than the
acceptable distances indicated in the guidance. Frequencies are summarised in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Bus Services available
Frequency (Per Hour) Bus
Service Journey
Mon – Sat (Day)
Mon – Sat (Eve)
Sunday
Middlewich Road Stops
1/1E Weaverham - Rudheath 4 4 1
Manchester Road Stops
45 Crewe – Nantwich 1 1 -
289 Northwich - Altrincham Every 2 Hours
Every 2 Hours
-
Source: Cheshire West and Chester
6.16 Whilst bus provision is less than ideal some staff members may choose to use bus as part of a
multi modal journey.
Rail Accessibility
6.17 Lostock Gralam rail station is located approximately 2.3km travel distance to the east of the site.
Whilst this may be a significant walking distance for some people, it would be easily achievable
on a bicycle.
6.18 Lostock Gralam rail station is on the Mid-Cheshire Line from Manchester Piccadilly to Chester.
Access is provided to a range of local destinations including Manchester, Liverpool and
Warrington.
6.19 Table 6.3 summarises the destinations and frequencies.
Page 22 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
Table 6.3: Local Train Destinations from Lostock Gralam
Source: National Rail website
6.20 Given the range of rail services available and the proximity of the rail station, it is considered that
the proposed development is accessible by rail as part of a multi modal journey.
Frequency (trains/hour) Destination
8-9 AM 12-1 PM 5-6 PM
Chester 1 1 3
Manchester 2 1 1
Altrincham 2 1 1
Northwich 1 1 3
Page 23 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
7. TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT
Introduction
7.1 It has been established that the proposed development accords with the aims of national, regional
and local transport planning policies and that its accessibility by means other than the private car
is reasonable.
7.2 A key by-product of the management process will be removed to Runcorn using the rail
connection. The majority of other movements will be made by private car, Refuse Collection
Vehicles or Heavy Goods Vehicle. This section of the report considers the likely traffic impact of
the proposed development.
Assessment Scope and Methodology
7.3 A Traffic Impact Assessment report was produced by Waterman Boreham in March 2009 to help
advise the applicant on issues affecting the development of the site from a transport perspective.
This was subsequently submitted to CWCC council for comments which have been incorporated
into this TA.
7.4 A comprehensive scope to the assessment has been agreed and correspondence confirming this
is included in Appendix 2.
7.5 The scoping correspondence covers:
• Extent of study area;
• Time periods to be assessed;
• Assessment years;
• Required information on trip generation, distribution and assignment; and
• The committed developments flows to be included.
Existing Traffic Conditions
7.6 Traffic surveys were undertaken on Friday 13th March 2009. The traffic count data can be found in
Appendix 3.
7.7 The surveys covered the following junctions, as agreed with CWCC:
• A556 / King Street roundabout;
• King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road priority;
• Griffiths Road / Proposed Site Access priority junction; and
Page 24 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
• Griffiths Road / Manchester Road priority junction.
7.8 The traffic counts were broken down into 15 minute intervals throughout the following time
periods:
• Friday: 0700 to 0930 hours; and
• Friday: 1630 to 1830 hours.
7.9 From this survey data the peak hours on the network were determined as follows:
• Weekday morning peak (AM): 0800 to 0900 hours; and
• Weekday evening peak (PM): 1645 to 1745 hours.
7.10 Figures 1 and 2 present the 2009 surveyed peak hours for the observed highway network for both
light vehicles and HGVs. The percentage of HGVs is also presented.
Assessment Years and Traffic Growth
7.11 As agreed with CWCC the following scenarios are to be modelled:
• 2009: Observed traffic flows;
• 2019 ‘Without Development’, including traffic flows for all committed
developments plus existing industrial estate traffic; and
• 2019 ‘With Development’, including traffic associated with the
development proposals.
7.12 The National Road Traffic Forecast (NRTF) low growth factor has been used to calculate
background traffic levels in 2019. Firstly existing industrial estate traffic has been isolated from the
network, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. This leaves the observed flows minus existing industrial
estate traffic, as presented in Figures 5 and 6. These flows have been factored up to 2019 using
the NRTF growth rate and the resultant flows are presented in Figures 7 and 8.
Committed Development
7.13 Five committed developments have been included in the assessments, as requested by CWCC.
These developments are:
• 08/0021/OUM An application for a Continuous Care Retirement
Community village, including a 96 bedroom care home (use class C2),
Page 25 of 40
Waterman Boreham Ltd
with 170 apartments (use class C2), 8 apartments (use class C2/C3) and
4 retails units (use class A1);
• 08/0020/OUM Application for 306 residential dwellings;
• 08/0022/OUM. An application for 128 dwellings on land that is currently
mainly used for light industrial use;
• 2007/3384/FZ5 Precious and semi precious metal recovery plant with
fertiliser manufacture; and
• 2008/0034/FZ5 Development of a Bio Energy plant at the Bedminster
site.
7.14 The TAs for the residential development proposals only presented flows to the Middlewich
Road/Griffiths Road junction. For the purposes of this assessment these have been assigned on
to the network using observed turning proportions.
7.15 Flows generated by these developments can be found in Appendix 4. The traffic expected to be
generated on the network by each individual committed development can be seen in Figure 9.
Figures 10 and 11 present the accumulated committed development flows across the network.
Traffic Distribution
7.16 Traffic accessing the site will be, in the main, staff accessing employment, or waste vehicles
accessing the waste processing facilities.
Traffic Distribution –Staff
7.17 Staff trip generation has been distributed using existing turning movements. This is shown in
Figures 12 and 13.
Traffic Distribution – HGVs
7.18 Table 7.1 details the HGVs movements into the site, supplying the waste to be processed. The
data are presented by source location and total volume.