Get documents about "Recommendation
Document Sample
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP Transport Policies - General
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections on this matter
Main Issues
clarity of overall strategy
order of policies
transport objective five
reliance on private cars in rural areas
responsibility for implementation
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.1.1 PPG12, paragraph 5.5 states that the most appropriate development plan for the
transport and land use strategy underpinning a local transport plan (LTP) will
generally be the structure plan. Gloucestershire County Council is the highway
authority for the Borough and is responsible for the preparation of the local
transport plan (LTP). The local plan should translate the strategic approach of the
County into development control policies that are consistent with the overall
objectives and policies of the structure plan and the LTP. More detailed area
strategies are also included in the LTP that provide a focused approach to
transport matters in identified sub-areas such as the Severn Vale and the
Tewkesbury/Ashchurch area. In accordance with my recommendations on
specific policies, the finally adopted plan would accord more closely with the
over-arching strategy of the structure plan and LTP, which is generally to
encourage the use of public transport and non-car transport modes and to reduce
reliance on private motor cars where practicable. Subject to that, I do not consider
that there is any lack of clarity about the overall strategy of the Plan in respect of
the interrelationships between transport and land use.
1.6.1.2 I agree with another objection that the rationale for the order in which the
transport policies appear is not readily apparent. This does not aid understanding
of the policies or the usability of the Plan. Subject to my recommendations on
specific policies, a general re-ordering in accordance with the thematic pattern in
the GSPSR Transport Chapter would be appropriate.
1.6.1.3 The fifth objective of the Transport policies, as set out in the introduction to the
chapter, is to encourage the implementation of a high quality public transport
system to link the centres and suburbs of Cheltenham and Gloucester and their
surrounding areas. Policy TRP11 and the reasoned justification provide more
detail in conjunction with the Proposals Map. The objective is clear and consistent
with GSPSR policy and the LTP strategy and in my view the suggested re-
wording by the objector is unnecessary.
110
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
1.6.1.4 The reliance of the rural population on cars should be balanced with the need to
encourage a more sustainable approach to transport in the Borough. PPG13 states
in paragraph 40 that while opportunities for public transport and non-recreational
walking will be more limited in rural areas, the overall policy approach that
applies to urban areas should be applied in rural areas. Access to employment,
shops and services in the Borough’s main population centres for those who live in
the rural areas is the significant issue. Realistically, those who live in remote
areas will be reliant on the car to serve their day-to-day transport needs, and
parking standards in the Plan should reflect this. However, the need to provide
adequate parking for rural dwellers should not compromise the primary aim of the
Plan in encouraging those who can to use more sustainable forms of transport,
other than the car. The LTP has taken this into consideration in setting down
maximum car parking standards which reflect the circumstances in the more
highly urbanised Central Severn Vale and the remaining rural areas of the County.
In accordance with my recommendations on Policy TRP16 and Appendix 5, the
Borough’s parking standards would also reflect these differences. There is no
other policy or proposal in the chapter that would affect rural dwellers in a
disadvantageous way due to their reliance on motor cars. I therefore see no need
to explicitly take this into account in relation to other policies in the chapter.
1.6.1.5 The implementation section of the introductory text is a statement of fact. The
local planning authority is not responsible for motorways and trunk roads. The
County Council is the highway authority and is responsible for other roads in the
Borough. The private sector also has a role, as acknowledged in the text. No
modification to this section is required.
Recommendations
1.6.1.6 (i) Subject to my recommendations on specific policies, the Plan be modified by
the re-ordering of the policies within the Transport Chapter in accordance
with the thematic pattern in the GSPSR.
(ii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
111
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP1 Access for Development
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
scope and detail of policy
consultation with infrastructure providers
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.2.1 Policy TRP1 requires that development proposals should include arrangements for
safe access to and from the highway, and that access proposals should not cause
an unacceptable loss of amenity to users of adjacent land.
1.6.2.2 With regard to the first issue, I support the comments made by the County Council
concerning the need for a more coherent approach to accessibility at the start of
the Chapter and recommend their proposed policy. This accords with guidance in
PPG13, paragraph 19, which discusses accessibility standards in respect of all
modes of transport, beyond the rather limited scope of Policy TRP1 that lacks
depth and clarity. The resulting set of access policies is presented in such a way as
to make the Chapter seem fragmented and ill-defined in its scope and intent. A
single policy to deal with accessibility across all modes of transport would aid the
production of a more concise Plan.
1.6.2.3 PPG13, paragraph 19, states that authorities should give emphasis to access
arrangements in new developments so that they will offer realistic, safe and easy
access by a range of modes of transport. The issue of safety should be tackled in
the policy as well as in the reasoned justification because it is an intrinsically
important factor in determining standards of access in new developments. In
response to another objection, I do not recommend that the modified policy
should include the term `significant adverse effect on amenity’. An unacceptable
loss of amenity is by definition unacceptable and the suggested re-wording would
not improve the clarity of the policy.
1.6.2.3 In respect of the second issue, major service providers such as gas and water
suppliers are statutory undertakers and as such they will be consulted as part of
any major development, including transport schemes. There is no need to
duplicate these provisions in the Plan.
Recommendations
1.6.2.4 (i) Policy TRP1 be replaced as follows:-
112
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
Development will be permitted where:
(a) provision is made for safe and convenient access to the development by
pedestrians and cyclists;
(b) an appropriate level of public transport service and infrastructure is
available, or can be made available;
(c) the traffic generated by and/or attracted to the development, together with
that arising from other existing or planned development, would not impair
the safety or satisfactory operation of the highway network, and
(d) highway access can be provided to an appropriate standard which would
not adversely affect the safety or satisfactory operation of the highway
network, nor cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to users of adjacent
land.
(ii) The reasoned justification for Policy TRP1 be modified accordingly.
(iii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
113
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP2 Traffic Calming
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
pollution, vibration and noise impacts
needs of wide-bodied agricultural vehicles
emphasis on Tewkesbury Town Centre
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.3.1 Traffic calming is generally a matter for the County Council as the highway
authority. There is a limit to how far the Plan can influence the implementation
and design of traffic calming schemes. However, it is important that the Plan
deals effectively with transport proposals that inevitably affect the quality and
appearance of the built and natural environment. PPG13, paragraph 64, clearly
states that development plans should include any policies which are directly
related to the management of traffic. Policy TRP2 complements section 4.7 of the
Tewkesbury and Ashchurch Area Strategy of the LTP, which covers these matters
in more detail. The policy states that traffic calming schemes should be
sympathetic to the surrounding built environment.
1.6.3.2 In respect of the first issue, the policy sets down guidelines to ensure that traffic
calming schemes are appropriate to their location and setting. It will encourage
developers and the County Council as highway authority to work in conjunction
with the local planning authority to ensure that schemes are implemented to meet
the needs of residents and motorists. There is no evidence to suggest that traffic
calming schemes detrimentally affect the environment due to increased pollution
and vibration.
1.6.3.3 In rural areas the safe and convenient operation of farm machinery is important to
the economy and therefore a reference to the needs of agricultural traffic is
appropriate. The additional policy wording in the RDDLP appears to resolve the
objection made to the Deposit Draft in this regard.
1.6.3.4 The addition of the word `towns’ in the reasoned justification has clearly
established that the scope of the policy covers all of the urban areas in the
Borough. Policy TRP24 deals specifically with traffic management measures to be
implemented in Tewkesbury town centre. Therefore, no modification of the Plan
is required in respect of the final issue.
Recommendation
1.6.3.5 No modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
114
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP3 Footpaths and Bridleways Protection in the Implementation
of Highway Schemes
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
adequate sign-posting
reference to agricultural occupiers
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.4.1 The policy requires that the integrity of the footpath and bridleway network be
safeguarded in the design and implementation of highway projects.
1.6.4.2 With regard to the first issue, signposting is a matter for the County Council as
the highway authority and therefore it would not be appropriate to include
reference to this in a policy in the Plan.
1.6.4.3 The rights of way of agricultural occupiers is a matter for separate legislation as
the Council has suggested in its response. The implementation of highway
projects is solely a matter for the County Council, although the protection of the
existing footpath and bridleway network is an important local matter that is
rightly addressed in the Plan.
Recommendation
1.6.4.4 No modification be made to the Plan in response to this objection.
115
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP4 Provision and Enhancement of Pedestrian Facilities
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
incorporation into Policy TRP1
advance notice to major infrastructure providers
pedestrian/vehicle separation
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.5.1 The policy seeks to ensure that safe and convenient pedestrian access is achieved
in new development.
1.6.5.2 With regard to the first issue, my recommended modification of Policy TRP1
makes this policy redundant. There is no specific reason why pedestrian access
should be afforded separate treatment to other modes of transport when the issues
of safety and convenience are the same. A combined access policy would not
weaken the integration of pedestrian facilities in the design of new developments.
Rather, it would provide clearer guidance to developers and encourage them to
consider how all modes of transport can be integrated together.
1.6.5.3 Reference to timely notice for infrastructure providers is not an appropriate matter
for inclusion in the Plan.
1.6.5.4 In respect of the third issue, it is not necessarily desirable to separate footpaths
from vehicular routes. Activity in streets and informal surveillance from buildings
provide a significant degree of safety to pedestrians. The design of new
development and traffic management schemes create the best opportunities for
increasing safety and amenity for pedestrians.
Recommendations
1.6.5.5 (i) The Plan be modified by the deletion of Policy TRP4.
(ii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
116
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP5 Cycle Facilities
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
need for Borough-wide map of the full cycle network
requirement for positive proposals for cycle routes or their safeguarding
dangers from piecemeal development
segregation of cycle routes from vehicular routes
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.6.1 The policy encourages the increased use of cycles in the Borough and sets down three ways in
which this will be achieved. They include the identification of an integrated network of routes, the
implementation of the National Cycle Network and the introduction of cycle-friendly junctions
and other measures in conjunction with new highway schemes.
1.6.6.2 The Tewkesbury/Ashchurch Area Strategy (CD29) and the Severn Vale Area
Strategy (CD28) both contain detailed maps of proposed cycle routes in the main
urban areas of the County and the Borough. These documents, together with other
elements of the Local Transport Plan (LTP), set down a comprehensive cycling
strategy for the County. It would be useful to show the national and local cycle
route network on a Borough-wide map. This would help developers and local
residents to understand the extent of the cycle route network and enable them to
link new development to it. The Council has set down the national routes that are
being investigated and implemented in the Borough in the reasoned justification
to the policy in the RDDLP.
1.6.6.3 I agree that the Plan should take forward the proposed cycle route network in the
LTP in a more pro-active way by including firm proposals and safeguarded routes
where appropriate. The LTP was published in July 2000 and it is unfortunate that
the Council has not grasped the opportunity to introduce its key elements into the
RDDLP. The Council should re-assess Policy TRP5 in the light of the LTP and
decide how the Plan can implement and improve the existing and planned cycle
routes in the Borough through specific proposals. For example, Figure 4.2 of the
Tewkesbury and Ashchurch Area Strategy shows a recommended cycle network
for Tewkesbury Town that the Plan should seek to implement.
1.6.6.4 While the Council can and should introduce practical proposals to improve and
consolidate the cycle route network in the Borough as detailed above, the
piecemeal development of the network is unavoidable because it relies upon
contributions from new development and the level of funding available. The
development of the cycle route network is an on-going project, but the Council
should target problem areas where safety is a concern and bring forward proposals
to remedy the safety issues. The Tewkesbury and Ashchurch Area Strategy
117
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
acknowledges in paragraph 3.6 that the cycle network in the area lacks coherence,
but goes on to state that it should be possible to overcome the current limitations
of the cycle routes in and around Tewkesbury. Clearly the Plan should be seeking
to do this and the recommendation above incorporates this aspect.
1.6.6.5 Segregated cycle routes are generally desirable for safety reasons but are not
always achievable, particularly in urban areas where there is greater competition
for space. Therefore I do not consider that any specific modification of the policy
or reasoned justification is appropriate in response to the final issue.
Recommendations
1.6.6.6 (i) The Plan be modified by a re-assessment of Policy TRP5 to bring forward
specific proposals for the improvement or implementation of the existing or planned
cycle routes in the Borough as set out in the LTP, and the Proposals Map be modified
accordingly.
(ii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
118
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP6 Cycle Parking
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
appropriate standards for cycle parking
standards for flats and maisonettes
standards for supermarkets
need for a clear cycle strategy
need for a Borough-wide map of cycle routes
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.7.1 Policy TRP6 seeks the provision of cycle parking spaces in relation to non-
residential development and it links cycle parking standards to car parking
provision.
1.6.7.2 With regard to the first issue, the inclusion of cycle parking standards in the reasoned justification
is too detailed and the policy could be improved by expressing them in the form of a table. It is
not appropriate to link cycle parking standards to maximum parking standards. PPG13 does not
contain any specific guidelines for cycle parking standards. However it states clearly that
development plans should contain policies that accord with the local cycling strategy, which
should be produced in conjunction with the local transport plan. The LTP sets down a schedule of
County-wide minimum cycle parking standards in Section 5.12.5 (Table C). The standards in the
LTP should be regarded as the base level, and local authorities should seek to increase the amount
of cycle parking. This is in accordance with the expectation of the LTP that the Council would
adopt a cycle parking standard that would at least satisfy the minimum levels set out in the
County-wide framework.
1.6.7.3 In respect of the standards for flats and maisonettes, residential cycle parking
provision is dealt with under Policies HSG5 and HSG9. This is the most
appropriate context in which to deal with this matter.
1.6.7.4 So far as supermarkets are concerned, there is no reason why they should be
subject to a lower standard, given that they are generally one of the largest
generators of car trips.
1.6.7.5 In respect of the penultimate and final issues, I refer to my recommendations
under Policy TRP5.
119
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
Recommendations
1.6.7.6 (i) Policy TRP6 be modified by setting out standards for non-residential cycle
parking that would at least satisfy the minimum levels of provision
recommended in Section 5.12.5 (Table C) of the LTP.
(ii) The reasoned justification for Policy TRP6 be modified accordingly.
(iii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
120
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP7 Promotion of Integrated Transport Network
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
definition of `large new developments’
generality of policy
need for improved bus priority measures and quicker journey times
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.8.1 The policy sets out the Council’s intention to work with other agencies,
authorities and service providers to encourage an integrated approach to a
public/private transport network. It also states that in the case of large new
developments, the Council will seek contributions from developers toward the
provision of public transport access where appropriate.
1.6.8.2 Objectors are correct when they say that the term `large new developments’ is
open to interpretation. Circular 1/97 requires that contributions are proportionate
to the scale and nature of the development proposed, and therefore it is not
necessary to have a policy that relates specifically to large developments. A more
sensible approach is to negotiate contributions on an individual basis, having
regard to the specific proposals set out in the Plan.
1.6.8.3 In respect of the second issue, the objections are justified. The policy is framed as
a statement of intent and serves no useful development control function, nor does
it contain specific proposals for development. The Council considers that the
policy is needed to co-ordinate the Borough’s private/public transport strategy
with that of the County. However, this function is fulfilled by the LTP, and the
policies in the Plan should complement these from a development control
perspective, rather than duplicate them.
1.6.8.4 On the final issue, measures to improve the efficiency of public transport in the
Borough are dealt with under Policy TRP11.
Recommendations
1.6.8.5 (i) The Plan be modified by the deletion of Policy TRP7 and the supporting text.
(ii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
121
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP8 Bus Priority
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
relevance of policy
need for more bus shelters
access to new housing development
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.9.1 In accordance with Policy TRP8 the Council will identify bus priority routes and
other priority measures in conjunction with new development.
1.6.9.2 PPG13, paragraph 74, advises that local authorities should identify the key routes
for bus improvements and priority measures in their local plans. The policy is well
intentioned, but it does not relate to any specific proposal or identified route.
General statements of intent that relate to the implementation of highway
improvements and public transport related matters should be included in the LTP.
1.6.9.3 In respect of the second issue, Policy TRP11 provides a more appropriate context
for considering improved public transport facilities.
1.6.9.4 Policy TRP1, if modified in accordance with my recommendation, would deal
with access to public transport from new developments under criterion (b). This is
a more appropriate context for considering this matter in a way that is concise,
clear and avoids duplication.
Recommendations
1.6.9.5 (i) The Plan be modified by the deletion of Policy TRP8 and the reasoned
justification.
(ii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
122
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP10 Park and Ride Provision
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
inappropriate development in the Green Belt
need to identify sites or set down appropriate criteria for proposals
appropriateness of urban sites
effect on public transport usage
consultation with the Highways Agency
site at Brockworth/Hucclecote
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.10.1 The policy sets out the Council’s intention to investigate and promote Park and
Ride (P&R) sites in conjunction with the County Council and neighboring
districts. The reasoned justification makes clear that brownfield or undeveloped
land within urban areas would be the preferred locations for sites, but the policy
sets out two criteria that would have to be satisfied to demonstrate `very special
circumstances’ before any proposal for a P&R site in the Green Belt would be
considered.
1.6.10.2 In accordance with PPG2, park and ride development is not inappropriate in the
Green Belt, subject to certain conditions, and therefore I do not consider that the
advice in paragraph 3.3 of PPG2 applies in this instance. However, the wording
of the policy should be modified to reflect PPG2’s advice more closely, by setting
out the conditions on which such development would not be inappropriate.
1.6.10.3 In the absence of any specific proposals for P&R sites in the Borough, the policy
sets out appropriate provisions for dealing with applications. These include such
matters as landscaping and siting and criteria that would be applied in relation to
proposals in the Green Belt. This is a comprehensive approach that complies with
national guidance in paragraph 61 of PPG13, which states that schemes should
take into consideration alternative sites, the impact on local amenity and traffic
impacts. The policy complies with all of these requirements.
1.6.10.4 Given the rural nature of the County, access to public transport is restricted in
some areas. Park and Ride schemes offer a practical way to reduce traffic in the
County’s urban areas by encouraging people not to take their cars into town
centres and to use public transport instead. This does not mean that P&R facilities
have to be located on greenfield sites in the Green Belt. The space requirements
of P&R sites allow limited opportunities to locate them within the built-up areas
of the Borough or elsewhere, but the preference must still be to develop
brownfield sites before any greenfield sites are considered. In accordance with
123
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
PPG2, non-Green Belt locations must be considered before Green Belt sites. And
PPG13 states that schemes should be well designed and must promote the
potential for walking or cycling. Therefore, the proximity of P&R sites to the
urban areas they serve should be as close as reasonably practicable, without
causing detriment to the amenity of the areas in which they are located. The
policy reflects this intent and no modification is required in respect of this issue.
1.6.10.5 There is no evidence before me to suggest that P&R sites discourage the use of
public transport. And it is relevant that the policy requires that proposals should
not cause harm to the local highway network, which includes the public transport
network.
1.6.10.6 The Highways Agency is a statutory consultee when determining applications for
development that affect trunk roads or motorways, and so it is not necessary to
add any reference to the Agency in the policy or reasoned justification.
1.6.10.7 With regard to the final issue, the site-specific case at Brockworth/Hucclecote is
linked with objections to other transport policies, and the reader is referred to
Policies TRP15 and TRP23. However, I find nothing in the evidence to support
the advancement of the site for P&R. In accordance with the Gloucester Park and
Ride Strategy, other sites should be brought forward in preference to this one, and
I consider that the allocation of the site at this stage would be in conflict with
national and local policies to protect the Green Belt.
Recommendations
1.6.10.8 (i) The third sentence of Policy TRP10 be modified by setting out the
circumstances in which park and ride development would not be
inappropriate in the Green Belt and the reasoned justification be
modified accordingly.
(ii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these
objections.
124
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP11 Public Transport Corridor
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
relevance to planning
need to identify key transport routes
need for a light rail route in the Central Severn Vale
policy title
sustainability and opportunity for modal transfer
use of word `must’
Park and Ride sites as improvements to public transport corridors
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.11.1 Policy TRP11 identifies the main public transport corridors in the Borough and
requires all new developments that have an impact on them to contribute towards
sustainable transport measures.
1.6.11.2 The policy relates specifically to the identified main transport corridors. It
effectively links the improvement and provision of public transport with new
development along these corridors, and as such its relevance to planning is not in
question. I consider that it accords with paragraph 74 of PPG13 which advises
that development plans should identify key bus routes and priority measures.
1.6.11.3 The main transport routes are identified on the Proposals Map and are annotated
in an appropriate way. Therefore, no modification to the Plan is required in this
particular regard.
1.6.11.4 Turning to the third issue, the reasoned justification explains the outcome of
studies into the viability of a light rail link between Cheltenham and Gloucester.
It concluded that a light rail route would not be financially viable. I have no
reason to conclude that this proposal has not been adequately researched and
dismissed for sound reasons.
1.6.11.5 The title of the policy should be modified to `Public Transport Corridors’ so that it
reflects the network of transport corridors in the Borough and not one in
particular. I note that this modification was accepted by the Council at the
Deposit Draft stage, but was not subsequently carried through to the RDDLP.
1.6.11.6 One of the objections points out that not all locations on public transport corridors
are necessarily sustainable and that the emphasis should be placed on the
125
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
opportunities they provide for modal choice and modal transfer. However, in my
view the specific characteristics of sites is a matter best considered on an
individual basis, and the policies in the Plan as a whole would deal adequately
with modal choice and transfer issues.
1.6.11.7 I agree that the word `must’ does not reflect the need for negotiation in
accordance with Circular 1/97 and therefore it should be deleted and replaced by
the words `may be required to contribute…’.
1.6.11.8 There is no need for a specific addition to the policy to deal with potential park
and ride sites. The Plan should be read as a whole, and Policies TRP10 and
TRP11 together would address park and ride sites along public transport corridors.
Recommendations
1.6.11.9(i) Policy TRP11 be modified by:
a) changing its title to `Public Transport Corridors’, and
b) deleting the words `must contribute..’ and replacing them by the words
`may be required to contribute..’.
(ii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
126
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP12 Gloucestershire Airport
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issue
inappropriate development in the Green Belt
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.12.1 The policy has been deleted in favour of Local Policies CH1 and CH2. While this
resolves the objection to Policy TRP12, the outstanding objections in respect of
Policies CH1 and CH2, including the issue of inappropriate development in the
Green Belt, are considered in Volume Two of the report.
Recommendation
1.6.12.2 No modification be made to the Plan in response to this objection.
127
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP13 New Petrol Filling Stations
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
preclusion of Green Belt sites
definition of appropriate intervals
provision for a new Motorway/Trunk Road Service Area at Junction 11A of the M5
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.13.1 The policy seeks to control the development of new petrol filling stations and
other roadside service facilities in the interests of road safety and so that they do
not have an adverse visual impact, particularly in the AONB. It precludes new
petrol filling stations and services from the Green Belt, encourages new
developments to group together to form key sites, and requires new facilities to be
spaced at appropriate intervals.
1.6.13.2 As the Council has stated in its response to the related objections, the policies in
the Green Belt Chapter would apply to any proposals to develop a petrol station or
related services in the Green Belt. It therefore makes little sense to preclude such
development from the Green Belt in this policy if it is to be considered against
other Green Belt polices in the Plan. The reference to the Green Belt should be
deleted. In response to the request that the policy should allow for Green Belt
sites, I do not consider that there is any justification for making an exception for
this type of development in general in the Green Belt.
1.6.13.3 There is nothing to indicate that restricting the number of petrol filling stations
would automatically lead to a reduction in the number of people using cars. Each
application for a petrol filling station would be considered on its own merits,
including proximity to other similar facilities, need and any other relevant matters.
1.6.13.4 The site-specific case in respect of the Junction 11a site is considered together
with other linked objections under Policy TRP15.
Recommendations
1.6.13.5(i) Policy TRP13 be modified by the deletion of the words `...that they are not
within the Green Belt…’ from the policy.
(ii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
128
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP14 Refurbishment of Existing Petrol Filling Stations
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issue
need for additional criterion
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.14.1 As amended in the RDDLP, Policy TRP14 requires that proposals to refurbish
and/or intensify the use of existing petrol stations should be appropriate to their
setting and not have any adverse environmental, highway or safety impact. In my
view the amended policy is a satisfactory response to the objection and a criteria-
based approach would not enhance its clarity or conciseness.
Recommendation
1.6.14.2 No modification be made to the Plan in response to this objection.
129
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP15 Motorway Service Areas
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
appropriateness in the Green Belt
impact on traffic, crime, noise and pollution levels in Brockworth/Hucclecote
need for the proposal
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.15.1 Policies TRP15 and TRP23 of the Deposit Draft have been deleted from the
RDDLP. The former provided for a new motorway service area (MSA) at the
M5/A417 junction, while the latter stated that the Council would support
proposals to improve the junction to provide full access to and from the motorway
in both directions. Concurrently with the Inquiry, an appeal against the failure of
the Council to determine an application for an MSA and trunk road service area
(TRSA), park and ride (P&R) facility and an all-movements-junction (AMJ)1 on
the site was before the Secretary of State. His decision to refuse the application
was issued in August 2002 (ref: APP/G1630/A/00/1051926). The Secretary of
State’s decision, together with the proposed deletion of the policies in the
RDDLP, would effectively resolve the concerns raised under the first two issues.
1.6.15.2 In respect of the need for an MSA/TRSA at this location, this matter has been
taken into account in the Secretary of State’s decision. He concluded that in terms
of environmental cost, this particular site was not bettered by any alternative sites
in the locality for servicing both motorway and trunk road traffic, but that this did
not outweigh the harm identified in the absence of a strong need argument. None
of the evidence, including some new material on sleep-related accidents, that has
been submitted in connection with the linked objections supporting the proposal
would lead me to conclude differently from the Secretary of State on this matter.
Nor has there been any material change in circumstances since the appeal was
determined. And as far as the linked case for a P&R development on the site is
concerned, nothing in the evidence before me leads me to a different conclusion
from the Secretary of State on this matter. I have concluded in respect of the
related Green Belt objection that there is insufficient justification for removing the
proposal site from the Green Belt. The objections to Policy TRP23 are considered
elsewhere in the report, but nothing in the MSA/TRSA case put forward in the
objections alters my conclusion that this is a matter that is not appropriately
included in the Plan. Any benefits that might flow from a developer-funded
improvement of the junction would not outweigh the harm that would be caused
to the Green Belt by the MSA/TRSA proposal.
1
The AMJ proposal was withdrawn.
130
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
1.6.15.3 Another objection seeks the replacement of the policy by a criterion-based one,
but I do not find enough evidence of any need for such a policy in the Plan.
Recommendation
1.6.15.4 No modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
131
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP16 Parking Standards
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
compliance with PPG13
residential parking standards
standards for locations well served by public transport
reduced standard for affordable housing
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.16.1 In accordance with Policy TRP16, the provision of vehicle parking spaces would
be required for new developments on the basis of maximum standards for various
use classes set out in Appendix 5 of the Plan.
1.6.16.2 These standards accord with guidance in PPG13 so far as they are maximum
standards. However, they are not consistent with Annex D of PPG13. For
example, PPG13 states that the maximum standard for Food Retail (over 1000sq
m) is 1 space per 14sq m, whereas the maximum standard in Appendix 5 of the
Plan is 1 space per 10sq m. The PPG13 standards should be applied as maxima
throughout England for developments above the relevant size thresholds. Also,
Appendix 5 does not accord with the parking standards and strategy in the LTP
and in particular, with the standards set out in section 5.12.5. The RDDLP should
be modified so that it is consistent with the LTP’s parking standards and strategy,
and it should reflect the two distinct Strategy Areas of the Severn Vale and the
remainder of the County in the LTP framework.
1.6.16.3 The proposed residential parking standards are too generous compared with the
advice in paragraph 62 of PPG3. It states that standards that result, on average, in
development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling are
unlikely to reflect the Government’s emphasis on securing sustainable residential
environments. This is further supported by the LTP, which sets a standard of 1.5
spaces per dwelling, averaged out over a whole development. This standard
should be reflected in the Plan.
1.6.16.4 The policy needs to reflect the rural nature of the Borough. But a more flexible
approach to lower parking standards in areas well served by public transport, such
as town centres, would accord with advice in PPG13 and should be included in
the text of the policy. PPG13 allows authorities to use their discretion in setting
levels of parking for small developments to reflect local circumstances. This
would cover most development in the rural areas of the Borough.
1.6.16.5 In accordance with paragraph 14 of Circular 6/98 (Affordable Housing),
132
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
authorities should consider lower parking standards for affordable housing where
car ownership rates are generally lower. However, this advice pre-dates PPG13
and the shift to maximum rather than minimum standards of provision. In any
event, the rural nature of the Borough and the importance of access to
employment and services for those living in affordable housing leads me to
conclude that in general the standards applicable to general market housing should
also apply to affordable housing. This should not preclude a more restrictive
approach to parking standards being taken in town centres and locations with
good access to public transport.
Recommendations
1.6.16.6 (i) Policy TRP16 and Appendix 5 of the Plan be modified so that:-
a) they accord with the advice in PPG13 and the parking standards and
parking strategy of the LTP. The standards in Appendix 5 of the Plan
should be based on those in the LTP, Section 5.12.5, Tables A and B,
in a way that is appropriate to the context of the Borough, and
b) the policy indicates that a more restrictive approach to parking
standards would be taken in areas well served by public transport.
(ii) The reasoned justification for Policy TRP16 be modified accordingly.
(iii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these
objections.
133
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP17 Commuted Sums for Parking
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issue
use of commuted sums for car parking provision
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.17.1 In accordance with paragraph 86 of PPG13, it is inappropriate for a local authority
to seek commuted payments solely because of lack of parking on the site.
Commuted sums could be used for provision of a park and ride facility, or to
introduce parking controls in the vicinity of the site, but a policy is not required in
this regard. Policy TRP17 should be deleted in favour of Policies GEN11 and
TRP1, as proposed to be modified, which provide the policy framework for
assessing proposals for new development, including the suitability of the proposed
access arrangements.
Recommendation
1.6.17.2 (i) Delete Policy TRP17 and the reasoned justification.
(ii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
134
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP19 Piffs Elm-M5 Junction 10 (A4019/Withybridge Lane Junction
Improvement Proposals)
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
need for consultation with the Highways Agency
need to upgrade to a full interchange
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.18.1 The policy seeks to support the improvement of Junction 10 of the M5 and in the
meantime advocates the improvement of the junction between the A4019 and the
M5 and Withybridge Lane.
1.6.18.2 The Highways Agency is a statutory consultee and as such it would be consulted
about any proposals affecting a trunk road or motorway. No modification is
required in response to this issue.
1.6.18.3 Paragraph 5.21 of PPG12 states that local plans should elaborate the detail of
transport proposals where a particular preferred proposal has been identified at the
regional or strategic level. This is not the case here. Although the GSPSR
includes a statement that the County Council will seek measures to overcome
safety and other problems arising from the restricted access at Junction 10, the
Highways Agency has no plans to upgrade this junction. The Council’s obvious
desire to seek improvements here is a matter for discussion with the County
Council, but it does not constitute an appropriate local plan policy that is capable
of implementation. Therefore, the policy should be deleted.
Recommendations
1.6.18.4 (i) Delete Policy TRP19 and the reasoned justification from the Plan.
(ii) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these
objections.
135
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP20 Pedestrian and Cycleway Networks
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
overlap with other policy
means of implementation
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.19.1 The policy seeks contributions from developers in respect of access to new
developments from cycle and pedestrian routes.
1.6.19.2 Policy TRP20 duplicates the provisions of Policy TRP1 (as recommended for
modification), which deals with access to new developments by pedestrians and
cyclists, and it overlaps with specific local policy requirements for improvements
to pedestrian and cycleway networks. The Plan should be read as a whole and
there is nothing that could be achieved by Policy TRP20 which could not be
achieved by Policy TRP1 and specific local policies. In the interests of a more
concise Plan, the policy should be deleted.
1.6.19.3 The means of achieving the policy’s objective has been questioned, given the
absence from the Plan of identified pedestrian and cycleway networks. In
accordance with my recommended modification to Policy TRP5, a clear set of
proposals for the enhancement and development of cycleway networks in the
Borough would be brought forward, thus addressing part of this concern.
However, there remains a need to identify the main pedestrian networks in the
Borough and to set out a policy for their protection and improvement. Without
this, the development of the LTP strategy and the implementation of particular
local policies could be frustrated, and the overall objective of encouraging
walking would not be achieved. Accordingly, a new policy for the protection and
enhancement of identified pedestrian networks is required.
Recommendations
1.6.19.4 (i) Policy TRP20 and the reasoned justification be deleted.
(ii) The Plan be modified by the addition of a new policy entitled
`Pedestrian Networks’ which safeguards the line of the main
pedestrian networks as shown on the Proposals Map, identifies any
areas of particular importance for protection or improvement (eg
routes within town centres, routes to schools or employment areas,
links into the countryside) and requires new development to respect
the networks and provide links into them where appropriate.
136
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
(iii) The Proposals Map be modified accordingly.
(iv) A reasoned justification for the new policy be included in the Plan
which explains the role of the networks, including any differentiation
between primary and secondary routes, and explains the contribution
that can be made by new development to enhancing these facilities.
(v) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these
objections.
137
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP22 Tewkesbury Northern Bypass Corridor Protection
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
need for the NRR
environmental damage
need to protect the route
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.20.1 The policy identifies the Northern Bypass Corridor (NRR) for protection against
development that would prejudice any future development of the road scheme.
1.6.20.2 The majority of the objections are concerned with the first two issues. In my view
these objections are satisfied by the amendment of the policy in the RDDLP,
which recognises that the County Council has resolved not to proceed with
construction of the by-pass. The outstanding matter therefore is whether there is a
need to maintain the protection of the possible route.
1.6.20.3 It is clear from the Tewkesbury/Ashchurch Area Strategy of the LTP (CD29) that
the public has been widely consulted about the NRR. The results of the
consultation show that while there is support among some residents for all or part
of the NRR scheme, significant reservations remain. The Council has decided to
implement a traffic management scheme instead, to improve environmental
conditions and safety in Tewkesbury Town Centre in the short to medium term.
Policy TRP22 seeks to protect the route of Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the NRR in case
they are needed in the long term to serve the future development needs of
Tewkesbury and Ashchurch. This is a responsible approach that takes account of
the potential economic, social and environmental needs of the town in the future.
PPG13 Annex C, paragraph 4 requires that alternatives to new road schemes
should be explored before any road scheme is considered. The protection of the
road corridor, as provided for by the revised Policy TRP22, would not remove the
need for suitable alternatives to be explored if and when required.
Recommendation
1.6.20.4 No modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
138
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP23 M5 Junction 11a Improvement
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issue
need to improve traffic flows on surrounding local roads
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.21.1 The RDDLP deletes Policy TRP23 of the Deposit Draft. While the Council recognises the
advantages of an all-movements junction, it notes that there is also a perception that these would
be outweighed by the detriment caused to the local environment by attracting additional traffic
onto the local highway network.
1.6.21.2 The Highways Agency has indicated that there are no current plans to upgrade this
motorway junction. In these circumstances I consider that it would not be
justified to re-instate the policy. I refer also to my comments under Policy TR19
about appropriate transport proposals in local plans, and to Policy TRP15 where
linked objections in connection with a motorway service area, trunk road service
area and park and ride proposal are considered. The deletion of Policy TRP23
would not prevent traffic management issues being addressed in consultation with
the County Council, Gloucester City Council and the Highways Agency. Also,
the evaluation of travel patterns and the need for any highway works can be
addressed in the future as the development of Gloucester Business Park and the
new residential area at Brockworth advances.
Recommendation
1.6.21.3 No modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
139
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP24 Pedestrian Domination in Tewkesbury Main Streets
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issue
prematurity
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.22.1 The policy sets out the Council’s intention to implement a traffic management
scheme in Tewkesbury town centre to secure a more pedestrian-friendly
environment.
1.6.22.2 Both objections raise the need to await the outcome of the consultation exercise
on the proposed Northern Bypass. Clearly these objections have been overtaken
by events since they were lodged. The consultation exercise is now complete and
the decision has been made not to proceed with by-pass and to implement traffic
management measures in Tewkesbury town centre instead. The amended policy
in the RDDLP reflects this outcome and no modification is required in response to
the objections.
Recommendation
1.6.22.3 No modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
140
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP25 Traffic Management
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issues
relationship with specific proposals
implementation of phase 1 of the NRR as a prerequisite
effect on passing trade for retailers
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.23.1 The amended policy in the RDDLP sets out the Council’s intention to identify and
implement traffic management schemes in the Borough in conjunction with the
County Council.
1.6.23.2 The policy is a general statement of intent that relates solely to highways, not
planning matters. The LTP, section 5.13, sets out the County Council’s objectives
and strategy for traffic management in the County. This is a more appropriate
context for dealing with generic Borough-wide issues concerning traffic
management. The Plan should be read in conjunction with the GSPSR and the
LTP and should include matters that relate to development control such as the
extent, context and design of actual traffic management proposals. As advised by
paragraph 5.7 of PPG12, local plans should contain precise details of
implementation in a particular town centre. In the absence of a detailed traffic
management proposal, the policy should be deleted.
1.6.23.3 The NRR proposal has been removed from the Plan and it has been decided to
proceed with a traffic management scheme in Tewkesbury town centre. This
accords with the broad intent of national transport policy to consider all plausible
options before a new road is built. On this basis I do not consider that traffic
management in the Borough can, or should be dependent upon the completion of
phase 1 of the NRR. In any event, the deletion of the reference to the NRR in the
reasoned justification in the RDDLP resolves this matter.
1.6.23.4 It is the stated policy of the County Council, as highway authority, to consult with
all stakeholders in the design and implementation of traffic management schemes.
This is detailed in Section 2.1 of the LTP. Retailers affected by proposed schemes
would be consulted and would have the opportunity to raise their concerns at the
appropriate time.
Recommendation
1.6.23.5 The Plan be modified by the deletion of Policy TRP25 and its reasoned
justification.
141
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP26 A48(T) Minsterworth
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issue
relationship with specific proposals
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.24.1 The policy is deleted in the RDDLP as a result of the implementation of a traffic
calming scheme on the A48(T). The objection has effectively been resolved.
Recommendation
1.6.24.2 No modification be made to the Plan in response to this objection.
142
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP27 Support for Restoration of Gloucestershire Warwickshire
Railway (formerly TSM12 - amended)
Objections
See Appendix D, under TSM12, for the list of objections to this policy
Main Issue
justification for reference to the establishment of a long-distance footpath/cycleway
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.25.1 The policy supports the restoration and safeguarding of the route of the
Cheltenham to Stratford-upon-Avon railway line. It also states that the
implementation of the scheme should not compromise the establishment of a long
distance footpath/cycleway alongside the permanent way.
1.6.25.2 The Council considers that there is no compulsion in the policy for
Gloucestershire Warwickshire Steam Railway PLC (GWSR) to co-operate with
them in the implementation of a long-distance footpath/cycleway to run alongside
the rail line. Nonetheless, the wording of the policy suggests that the Council
might intervene to prevent development that could compromise the establishment
of a footpath/cycleway, even though it has no power to control development along
the route that is subject to the provisions of the 1983 Light Railway Order.
1.6.25.3 The likely proximity of the proposed footpath/cycleway to the rail line has not
been established, but GWSR considers that it would be impractical to run it
alongside the rail line and that it would compromise the operation of the railway.
In accordance with paragraph 5.22 of PPG12, local authorities should consult with
appropriate transport infrastructure authorities to ensure the feasibility of schemes
commencing within the lifetime of the Plan. It is clear that GWSR as the operator
and owner of the railway and route was not consulted about any plans for a
footpath/cycleway prior to the Deposit Draft Plan. Also, there is no evidence that
SUSTRANS has any definite proposal to use the route as part of the national cycle
network. The fact remains that the GW Railway is a fully operational rail line and
that opportunities to develop the footpath/cycleway alongside it are limited. The
policy does not fully recognise this fact and the implications of such a scheme do
not appear to have been properly explored.
1.6.25.4 Given that the Council has acknowledged that this element of the policy cannot be
implemented through compulsion, I see little merit in retaining it in the Plan. I
also refer to my recommendation on Policy TRP5 (Cycle Facilities) and
recommend that any reference to the use of the route for a footpath/cycleway
should be confined to the reasoned justification of Policy TRP5. The wording
should explain that the Council, together with SUSTRANS, will explore
opportunities to use the route for the development of a footpath/cycleway in a way
143
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
that would not compromise its operation as a rail line for through-running trains.
Recommendations
1.6.25.5 (i) Policy TRP27 be modified by the deletion of the final sentence.
(ii) The reasoned justification for Policy TRP27 be modified by the
deletion of the final two sentences.
(iii) The reasoned justification for Policy TRP5 be modified to explain
that opportunities to develop a footpath/cycleway along the route of
the GW Railway in a way that would not compromise its operation
for through-running trains will be explored by the Council and
SUSTRANS in conjunction with the railway company.
(iv) The Council should consider whether or not to include the proposed
footpath/cycleway route on any map given the uncertainties
surrounding its implementation and the fact that it is not able to
safeguard the line for this use.
(v) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to the
objection.
144
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
TRP Traffic – New Policy
Objections
See Appendix D for the list of objections on this matter
Main Issues
protection of public transport facilities and infrastructure from development that would
impair their function
protection of facilities for the transport of freight by rail, pipeline or waterway,
particularly in the Ashchurch area
need for policy linkage with the Gloucestershire Lorry Strategy
need for traffic reduction measures on the A46, A38 and around Junction 10 of the M5
Inspector's Considerations and Conclusions
1.6.26.1 Policies T.4 and T.6 of the GSPSR already deal with the first issue. The Plan
should include policies that relate to specific proposals or to specific measures.
The new policy proposed by the County Council is strategic in nature and applies
to all the districts generally, rather than relating specifically to the Borough.
Following the advice in PPG12 I do not consider that it would be appropriate to
include this proposed new policy in the Plan.
1.6.26.2 With regard to the need for a freight transport policy, Policy T.13 of the GSPSR
seeks to encourage the development of facilities for freight carriage by rail,
pipeline or waterway, while Policy T.6 requires the safeguarding of land for new
or re-opened rail facilities, including those for freight handling. There is no need
to repeat this broad policy framework in the local plan. However, the omission of
a specific safeguarding policy for Ashchurch’s freight handling facilities is subject
to an objection lodged at the Deposit Draft stage. In response to this a new Policy
TRP29 was brought forward for consideration by the Council but was not
included in the RDDLP. In my view there is a need for a specific policy for
Ashchurch that identifies the importance of its current and potential future roles in
rail freight handling and transfer. This would give effect to the GSPSR’s strategic
policy framework, which reflects national policy to encourage the transfer of
freight by sustainable modes, and it would help to ensure that future development
proposals for the MoD site and adjacent lands take full account of rail freight
matters. It would also accord with the County Council’s Rail Freight Strategy
which identifies the potential of Ashchurch in this regard. There is no reason to
expect that the local road traffic impact of new rail freight development at this
location could not be properly managed. I consider that the suggested wording of
the draft policy TRP29 would be appropriate.
1.6.26.3 A separate but complementary proposal for the allocation of land at Aston Fields
for housing, community and employment uses, including a new rail freight
terminal, is brought forward in one of the objections to the Plan. This is
145
Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011: Inspector's Report
considered elsewhere2 where I recommend that it should not be included as an
allocation. But this is not to dismiss the potential for developing rail freight
facilities at Ashchurch, whether by expanding the use of the existing MoD depot
or in some other way.
1.6.26.4 Turning to the third issue, this matter is already dealt with in Policies T.11 and
T.12 of the GSPSR and in my view these are sufficient to address the general
issues concerned. If the Council had identified a particular location where lorry
movements were a problem and tried to address this by specific measures, then it
would have been appropriate to include this as a proposal in the Plan, with
reference to the Gloucestershire Lorry Strategy. However this is not the case here.
1.6.26.5 In respect of the fourth issue, unless there are specific proposals to reduce traffic
flows on these roads it would not be appropriate to include reference to them in
the Plan. Although improvement works are on-going on the A46 at Ashchurch,
no specific schemes for inclusion under this heading have been identified on these
parts of the network. Nonetheless, the reduction of traffic flows and the promotion
of alternative modes of travel to the car are County- and Borough-wide objectives
that are promoted in the LTP. The potential for improvements at Junction 10 of
the M5 is considered under Policy TRP19.
Recommendations
1.6.26.6(i) The Plan be modified by the inclusion of a new policy entitled
`Protection of Potential Freight Railheads’ as follows:
`The railway siding at Ashchurch as identified on the Proposals Map will be
protected from development which would prejudice its future use as the
access for a road-rail interchange facility.’
(ii) A reasoned justification for the new policy be added as follows:
`In furtherance of a sustainable transport network it is important to enable the
transfer of freight traffic between road and rail. Apart from the requirement
for rail access, potential sites must also be well located on the principal
highway network. The Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review has
indicated that there is one location within the Borough which could fulfill the
role of a railhead; this is at Ashchurch. Whilst the development of such a
facility is unlikely in the short term, it is important that the potential for such
a use is protected. Any such proposal would be subject to the provision of
appropriate highway and other infrastructure and environmental mitigation
measures’.
(iii) The Proposals Map be modified accordingly.
(iv) No other modification be made to the Plan in response to these objections.
2
See LPOLNP Ashchurch - Aston Fields in Volume Three. .
146
