DM26 Traffic Management - Preferred Option

Consultation on Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Documents

1. Thank you for inviting the Highways Agency to comment on the Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Documents for Rochford District Council.

2. As you may have noted from our previous correspondence, the Highways Agency is an executive agency of the Department for Transport (DfT). We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England's motorway and all-purpose trunk road network, collectively known as the Strategic Road Network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport.

3. In spatial planning and development control terms, we have a duty to safeguard the operation of the motorway and trunk road network as set out in the DfT circular 02/2007 (Planning and the Strategic Road Network). The circular encourages the Highways Agency to work co-operatively with Local Planning Authorities within the framework of the Government's policies for planning, growth areas, regeneration, integrated transport and sustainability. We look to your Council's Local Development Framework (LDF) to promote strategies, policies and land allocations which will support alternatives to the private car.

4. In the case of Rochford there are no trunk roads within the District, although there are two strategic corridors namely the A13 and A127/A1159 which connect into the M25 motorway network at junctions 30 and 29 respectively. Sections of these routes are currently heavily congested, particularly during peak periods, and operate under considerable levels of network stress. Therefore it is important to the Highways Agency that the impact of development proposals in the Rochford area is considered within the context of future impact on the M25 and the A13 Trunk Road.

5. Please see below our comments on the individual Development Plan Documents.

Development Management Development Plan Document

8. The Highways Agency consider that Policy DM1 should include a criteria relating to housing being sited in areas where access to day to day facilities are available by public transport, walking and cycling, thereby reducing the need to travel by private car.

9. As stated in the Transport section of the DPD, the District does suffer from high levels of private car ownership and dependency, which results in congestion and pollution. The Highways Agency therefore consider that Policy DM26 would be enhanced by the inclusion of a requirement for an assessment of the potential impact of development on the highway network, together with mitigation measures that may be required. The supporting text should include reference to the DfT Guidance on Transport Assessment (2007).

10. The Highways Agency also consider that Policy DM26 could be further enhanced by the requirement for a Travel Plan to be considered as part of traffic management

Developments should be well related to public transport, and / or accessible by means other that the private car, in order to encourage the use of public transport, together with cycling and walking.

The provision of a safe and convenient network of cycle and pedestrian routes linking homes with workplace, services and town centres will assist in the safe movement of people around the area.

One way of promoting safe cycling within the district would be to ensure that at least the spine road of any new development, and/or preferably all of the new side roads as well, had a separate cycle lane. It is far easier to design in a cycle lane from the start, rather than try to add one to a road at a later date. Even on quieter roads a cycle lane has benefits - it reduces the likelihood that children (and other cyclists) will ride on pavements for instance. It also adds a feeling of spaciousness to a new development. In the past, grass verges had the effect of creating an open feel, and of separating pedestrians from road traffic. Grass verges are not encouraged in new developments because of maintenance requirements, but to some extent a cycle lane can perform the same function.

The Green Belt and Countryside

DM10 Existing Businesses in the Green Belt
We support the preferred option

DM11 Rural Diversification
We support the preferred option

DM12 Conversion of Existing Agricultural Buildings in the Green Belt
Whilst you refer to PPS4 and PPG2, current policy seems to ignore PPG7. Policy PPG7 does not rule out the conversion of agricultural premises for business or residential use. Therefore, to encourage skills and growth in the rural economy, we support a less restrictive approach as above. We see this as being potentially good for the local economy both in terms of new business and providing local work for construction and building supplies.

With regard to listed buildings, each case should be judged on its merits.

Tourism Opportunities in the Green Belt

DM13 Green Tourism

Your paragraph which states "appropriate locations should not result in agglomeration of similar facilities" could result in uneconomically viable and restricted businesses. If the authority is serious about encouraging Green Tourism, it must let the market decide. As an example, Southend Sea Front is known for Hotels and B&B accommodation. This grouping ensures its economic viability. Restrictive policy constrains it.

This policy should be less restrictive

Transport

DM25 Parking Standards
In order to attract and keep business in the district, we should relax the maximum car parking standards for key trip destinations. By enforcing this restriction we are directing shoppers out of the district. Example: Fossetts Way, TESCOS, Rayleigh Weir and Lakeside. The public will go where there is car parking. This policy is driving out business development to neighborouring districts, increases car use and congestion.

On page 57 there is mention of the RDC Transport Strategy Supplementary Planning Document. This document has not been issued as a consultation or in draft form. What is the timetable for this?

Economic Development

DM26 Traffic Management
There is no policy to support the increase in traffic generated by the proposed, planned developments. Example: Coombes Farm, Airport Expansion, West Rochford, Ashingdon Road, Christmas Tree Farm and Stambridge Mills. We should at least have a contingency plan in the event of gridlock.

DM27 Employment Land
This appears to be yet another restriction, driving people out of the area for retail activity. (See DM25 above.)

Cases should be judged according to their merits.

Retail & Town Centres

DM29 Town Centre Shopping Frontages
The 75% rule (Guidance) for retail outlets in town centres should be enforced.

The authority should not be in the business of micro managing the market. Shoppers like choice, any vibrant, retail centre will provide choice which is often clustered.

DM30 Upper Floor Locations in Town Centres
Agree preferred option

DM31 Village & Neighbourhood Shops
We agree that "retail use is important to ensure the vitality and vibrancy of any shopping frontage and to meet the needs of local communities".

DM32 Advertisements and
DM33 Advertisements affecting Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings
The authority need to have effective guidelines rather than the subjective judgements which are not user friendly and singularly unhelpful.