Watford Health Campus LLP. Watford Fields Residents Association. Re: Wiggenhall Road Junction

Transcription

1 Watford Health Campus Partnership LLP Watford Health Campus LLP Watford Fields Residents Association C/o Jags Shah Tempsford Hall Sandy Beds SG19 2BD 27 th January 2016 Re: Wiggenhall Road Junction Dear Jags, I am writing further to your of 13 th January outlining the concerns of the Residents Association in respect of the construction and layout of the Wiggenhall Road junction that was approved under planning application reference 13/00971/FULM. Please find my responses to your questions below: 1. The Wiggenhall Road junction design is not fit for purpose. It allows Health Campus traffic to turn onto Wiggenhall Road however it does not allow existing Wiggenhall traffic to turn onto the new Link Road. This will lead to traffic chaos in the surrounding road network (as proved by the recent lane closure of Wiggenhall Road) The design of the Wiggenhall Road junction entirely meets its purpose in that it provides a junction across an existing road to provide emergency vehicles with faster access and egress from the hospital. In addition to faster emergency access, the road will also provide faster access for all traffic visiting the hospital and will therefore have a wider benefit as well. The Planning Officer's public report on the application to the Council's Development Control Committee who approved the planning application states that: 'The junction at Wiggenhall Road is designed to restrict vehicle movements to and from the Link Road. All vehicles can travel ahead only when entering and leaving the Link Road, with no left or right turn movements to or from Wiggenhall Road. This is to discourage drivers from using the Link Road as a short cut and thereby generating increased traffic flows on Wiggenhall Road. Under the section of the report entitled 'Traffic and Transport Impact', it goes on to state that one of the features of the junction is as follows:

2 'Signal controlled cross roads with banned turns to and from the Link Road from Wiggenhall Road. The restricted movements at this junction are fundamental to the function of the Link Road as an emergency route.' The design of the junction is therefore fully fit for its purpose in restricting drivers from using the Link Road as short cut to the detriment of its primary function as an emergency route to and from the hospital. The lack of a turning from Wiggenhall Road onto the Link Road within the current planning application directly reflects the arrangement of the earlier junction layout within the original planning application for the Health Campus that was submitted in 2007 and determined in This is not a new addition to the scheme. If we were to allow a left turn here, we would have to consider the impact of additional cars / vehicles of any alternative uses for the road and the affect they would have on the speed of access to the hospital. The reality is that any increase in traffic beyond that anticipated through the design process for the new road (which took into account current and future traffic modelling) would delay journey times for ambulances and, ultimately, remove the benefit of the road to the hospital. We have also been advised by highway engineers that introducing a left turn at the junction between Wiggenhall Road and the new road near the former Irish Club, is likely to attract additional re-routed traffic and that this combined with the lowering of junction capacity caused by a higher proportion of turning traffic is likely to lead to increase congestion in Wiggenhall Road. In this case, this would mean additional vehicles on Wiggenhall Road via the Hornets gyratory and Vicarage Road. Given the new road, in its approved format, will help relieve existing congestion around Vicarage Road and The Hornets, this would be counter productive. The new road has been designed to accommodate traffic for the hospital and the rest of the Watford Health Campus. It has not been designed to take the significant volumes of traffic likely to use it if there were to be a left-hand turn. The highways engineers have advised that if this were the case, a more substantial road design would have to be considered and agreed. This would require additional land take, earthworks and excavation within the redundant railway embankment and would have significant implications for Oxhey Park. You might be aware that local residents were involved in considering the impact of the new road on Oxhey Park. Whilst the Watford Health Campus team was able to modify the original design to mitigate some of the issues raised by the community, there will still be some additional noise generation within the Park as well as the obvious visual impact of the road for Park users. With the current design, the expected noise levels generated by the road are not excessive enough to warrant a specialised sound barrier, which would certainly be unsightly and, in fact, a hedge of native species is being planted to provide an attractive visual screen. If there were to be a left hand turn at the junction you have proposed, the increased use of the road would generate higher noise levels and the current mitigation may be insufficient. A specialised sound barrier

3 would have to be considered, which, as well as adding to the cost of the project, would significantly impinge on Oxhey Park. Unfortunately, the proposals you have asked us to consider cannot be taken forward as part of the Watford Health Campus development, the road network is constantly evolving and Hertfordshire County Council Highways regularly model existing traffic movements and roads to identify where changes and improvements might be made or are needed. We would expect this to be the case for the new road. As such, traffic flows will be monitored at the new junction and there is the potential for future modelling to be undertaken once the road is in operation to test this. 2. Why are the traffic survey reports (by Aecom) which indicate that Wiggenhall Road and the 2 interchanges at either end will not cope with the extra traffic being ignored? (traffic assessments attached) The extracts you attached to your are from the Transport Assessment report prepared by consultants Aecom for the planning application that allowed the roads to be built. The data they presented was not ignored. It has been analysed by the applicant s specialist and then by the highway authority s own engineers before being summarised for consideration by the Borough Council s planners and Development Management committee. I take it that you are principally referring to Table 8.7 in support of your contention that the junctions at either end of Wiggenhall Road (The Hornets and Deacons Hill/ Eastbury Road) will not cope with the extra traffic. The figures in red in the table do indeed indicate stress points on the network. However they do not mean that traffic would cease to move there, rather that there could be significant congestion. The implications of these findings are discussed and developed over the remainder of chapter 8 and then again in the Summary and Conclusions section, especially paragraph , of the Transport Assessment. Shortly after permission was granted by the Borough Council for the roads to be built, an application with full details of the master plan for the Health Campus was submitted. This had WBC reference 14/00511/OUTM and was accompanied by a new Transport Assessment. This followed an identical methodology and very similar format to the earlier report and so can be quite easily compared with it. You may find some comfort in this extracts from the Summary and Conclusions section: The resultant vehicular trip generation assessments indicate that the HMA both with and without development on land associated with Farm Terrace allotments would result in less vehicular traffic than the previous Consented Scheme. The HMA masterplan assessment (including development on FTA) would result in a decrease of 116 and 193 two way vehicle movements in the AM and PM respectively, or a decrease of 34 and 177 two allowing for the potential 1FE expansion of Laurance Haines primary school. The corresponding reduction in two way vehicle flows for the HMA without development on land at FTA are 154 and 235 respectively, or a decrease of 72 and 219 two way movements allowing for the potential 1FE expansion of the Laurance Haines primary school.

4 3. What Public consultation took place regarding the road? Residents at our WFRA general meeting on 30th Nov had no idea that traffic would be allowed to turn onto Wiggenhall road and that the footpath was being removed... Were the plans misleading or not fully explained/represented? Is this why there was few objections? Why were only 115 properties consulted by letter during the planning process? (pages from report attached) As a revision to an existing planning permission, the strategy for community engagement has the starting position of there being an agreed and implementable scheme that has already been the subject of much discussion. Prior to the submission of the planning application, we had a number of meetings with local resident groups and resident associations who helped to develop the plans. In 2013, three meetings were held with local Councillors, Friends of Oxhey Park and the Oxhey Village Environmental Group (OVEG) to discuss proposals for the road and take on board comments from users of the park. Some changes were made to the road following these discussions. A further meeting was also held in 2013 with Littlebury Residents Association in west Watford that dealt with issues relating to the road and the wider Health Campus project. Unfortunately, as there was no resident s association within Watford Fields at this time, we were not able to engage with an established group. The Planning Application for the road was submitted to Watford Council's Planning department on 12th September Due to the scale of the proposals, the application was classified as a 'major' planning application and therefore subject to the thirteen week statutory period for determination. The minimum legal requirements on public consultation for Major applications are the erection of site notices around the application site perimeter and a public advert within the local newspaper. For the planning application for the road, a total of nineteen site notices were put up around the site on 20th September These were located at Stripling Way, Vicarage Road, Rose Gardens, Dalton Way, Oxhey Park, Eastbury Road, Wiggenhall Road, Cardiff Road and Occupation Road. The Council also took the decision to place a larger than normal public advert within the Watford Observer that advertised the planning application and this was published on 20th September In line with the statutory requirements, a minimum of three weeks was given for any objectors to respond. The letters of notification, like the site notices and public advert, only notify residents that an application has been received and where to view it. Their purpose is not to explain the application. As such, they didn't refer to traffic movements or the removal of the footpath on the eastern side of Wiggenhall Road. These details would only have been evident from an examination of the submitted drawings and documents. In addition to the minimum legal requirement of site notices and public adverts, the Council also chose to send out 115 neighbour notification letters to properties adjacent to the site that were considered to be most impacted by the road. These were also given at least three weeks to provide any comments.

5 The planning application file including all plans and supporting statements was available to view at the Town Hall. The plans that are being implemented at present are exactly the same as those that were submitted to the Council within the planning application and which the Council undertook its statutory consultation procedure on. All detail relating to the planning application is set out either in the plans or the supporting information. The Council therefore exceeded their minimum statutory requirement in terms of consulting on the planning application for the road. 4 Why wait till for traffic congestion brings the area to gridlock (as proved by recent lane closure on Wiggenhall Road) before making expensive retrospective changes to the junction, or to surrounding roads which then become rat runs? The two obvious solution currently possible are to allow traffic to turn onto the Link Road or not to allow Access road traffic to turn onto Wiggenhall Road. The road is being delivered by the Watford Health Campus Partnership LLP, not Hertfordshire County Council as the Highway Authority. The County have agreed to adopt the road once it is complete as they support its principle, use and function. The main function of the road as an emergency route to and from the hospital is underpinned by the commitment of 7million of funding from the Department of Health. We are currently scheduled to complete the road in Autumn The main drivers for this are to provide the hospital with the new road as soon as possible as their temporary planning permission for the AAU department expires in 2017, and to ensure the road is built and operational prior to the Metropolitan Line Extension being operational. The LLP are also in contract with VolkerFitzpatrick to construct the road in accordance with the approved plans. Any changes to the junction design would potentially require additional land acquisition and a revised planning application. This would significantly delay the completion of the construction of the road, result in further roadwork disruption and delay the opening of the road for the hospital. I have explained above why traffic is not able to turn into the Link Road from Wiggenhall Road. I do not see why traffic should be restricted from turning from the Access Road onto Wiggenhall Road. If this were not to happen, all traffic would be pushed onto Dalton Way and would then have to come back onto the ring road and back onto Wiggenhall Road, depending on where vehicles are heading. This would be counterproductive and would just push traffic flows to a different part of Watford. I also don t see why you think not allowing the left turn will result in further congestion as, in terms of routes across Watford, it is no different to the current situation. With the design of the new road, we have tried to prioritise movement to and from the hospital. What this means for residents of Watford fields who need to get to the hospital by car is that they will no longer need to use The Hornets

6 gyratory, but can instead get straight to the hospital via the new road. This will also provide a faster route for both pedestrians and cyclists. 5. Why is the eastern footpath being removed? This goes directly against Policy T3 and GI1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy The footpath on the eastern side of Wiggenhall Road is being removed due to the requirement for an additional lane within Wiggenhall Road to allow for turns into the Access Road for the hospital. Due to the current highway boundary ending at the pavement edge and land to the other side of this being in the ownership of third parties, this was the limit of the highway corridor and we had to try and work within this when designing the carriageway and junction. Para of the Transport Assessment that accompanied the planning application for the road refers to the need for the removal of the pavement and also indicates that the proposal to remove the pavement also formed part of the original application for the Health Campus back in The loss of the pavement is also referred to within the Planning Officers report to Development Control Committee that summarised the road proposals when recommending the application for approval. Within the report, it states that 'The footpath on the eastern side of Wiggenhall Road is also to be removed. This is necessary to widen the road to accommodate right turn movements from Wiggenhall Road on to the Access Road. No replacement footpath has been provided due to third party land ownership (the BP Petrol Station) and also to discourage pedestrians from attempting to walk down the Link Road'. One of the objections to the proposal highlighted the loss of the pavement and this was again considered and discussed within the section of the report entitled 'Consideration of Objections Received'. The proposed mitigation for this is the new crossing to the north of Lammas Road and the realignment of the existing crossing adjacent to the river. This will provide a route to the park. In addition to this mitigation, the Partnership have also signed up to undertake further highway improvement works and provide contributions to Herts County Council in respect of Sustainable Transport of just over 1million. This has been secured via a Legal Agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The funds are secured as contributions towards the design and construction of highway improvement works, traffic management schemes, traffic studies, improvements to public transport and measures to encourage users of the development to travel by means of transport other than the private car. We will also be upgrading and improving traffic signals at Junction 5 of the M1 to improve traffic flows here. You have stated that 'The only answer we have received so far is that the new road was proposed in 2007 and planning permission was granted in It is inferred that nothing more can be done '. The loss of the pavement was proposed and considered as part of the 2007 application and on balance, was not considered to substantiate a reason for refusal by Members when a decision was made on the application. That planning consent remains extant and is implementable. Given this existing consent, it would have been difficult for

7 Members to justify refusal of the 2013 road application based on the loss of the footpath as the arrangement of the previous consent is a significant material consideration in the determination of the 2013 application. If a principle has already been deemed as 'acceptable' by Planning, it is very difficult to then take a different view on the same proposals and refuse the application on those grounds. It is fully evident from the Officer's report that the issue surrounding the loss of the pavement was made aware to Members at the time of determination of the planning application. In addition, the loss of the pavement would also have been considered by Herts Highways in their assessment of the scheme. They will have fully reviewed the Transport Assessment and was part of the evidence that led Herts County Council Officers to recommend that permission be granted for the construction of the roads to serve the Campus development. At the drop in session for the Watford Fields' residents, it was explained that the Health Campus Partnership would not be undertaking to construct a replacement footpath to the eastern side of Wiggenhall Road. The reasons for this have previously been set out in my response to Question 4 (above). We indicated that if residents lobby their local Councillors, discussions can be started with Herts County Council to investigate the cost and possibility of providing a replacement pavement. This will however require the negotiation and acquisition of land from third parties, and the preparation and submission of a revised planning application to the Council for consideration. Both local Councillors and Herts County Council feel this is the best approach. I trust this answers your queries but please let me know if you have any further questions. Yours sincerely Neil Farnsworth BA (Hons) MA Project Manager Watford Health Campus Partnership LLP