feasibility study for development options at burgess hill · feasibility study for development...

Feasibility study For development options at burgess Hill

�

Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: SiteCapacity

Chapter 3: TransportImpacts

Chapter 4: SummaryofFindingsandConclusions

Annex B: AssessmentofSocialandCommunityInfrastructure–OptionAandB

Annex C: Transport Analysis Technical Note


�


�

1 - Introduction

1.1 Background

AtkinsconsultantswerecommissionedinJanuary2005toundertakeafeasibilitystudytoexaminethepotentialforadditionalstrategicdevelopmentonlandaroundBurgessHill.TheobjectiveofthestudywastoexploreandgainanunderstandingoftheissuesandimplicationsfordevelopmentaroundBurgessHillandinvestigatewhetherthereareanyareascontiguouswiththeBurgessHillurbanareawhichcouldbedevelopedtoprovideviable,sustainablenewcommunitiesofupto5,000dwellings.

TheFinalReport,whichwassubmittedinSeptember2005,assessedtheenvironmentalopportunitiesandconstraintsandidentifiedpotentialdevelopableareaswithinthestudyareawhichinformedthethreesitedevelopmentoptions.Twooptions(OptionsAandB)illustratedthepotentialtoaccommodate5,000dwellingsinlargeselfcontainedurbanextensions.OptionCdemonstratedhowthedwellingscouldbedistributedwithinsevensitesaroundBurgessHill.

AnevaluationofthekeyissuesforeachoptionwasundertakenandissummarisedintheFinalReport(PartII).OptionCwasconsideredtobethemostsustainableoptionfornewdevelopmentandwastakenforwardforfurtheranalysis.

AtkinshasnowbeencommissionedtoundertakeasimilarlevelofanalysisonOptionsAandB.

ThisaddendumshouldbereadinconjunctionwithPartsIandIIoftheSeptember2005FinalReportwhichprovidetheplanningpolicycontext,anassessmentofthelandscapeandenvironmentalopportunitiesand

constraintsinthestudyareaandanevaluationoftheInterimsiteoptions.

1.2 Content and Structure of Addendum Report

Thisdocumentissetoutin4chapters.Chapter2identifiesrefinedboundariesforsitedevelopmentOptionsAandBandthecapacityofeachOption.Thelandbudgetshavebeeninformedbyanassessmentofthesocialandcommunityinfrastructureneedsassociatedwiththepotentialpopulationofeachsiteoption.Sitecapacitiesareillustratedwithlayoutplanstodemonstratehoweachoptionmightbedevelopedtotryandachieveasustainablecommunity.

Chapter3looksatthetransportimpactsassociatedwiththedevelopmentofeachoptionandhowthesecouldbemitigated.

Chapter4providesasummaryofthefindingscomparingOptionsA,BandC.


�


�

2 - Site Capacity

2.1 Site Layouts

SiteareaboundariesforOptionsAandBhavebeenrefinedinlightoftheadditionalanalysisundertakenaspartoftheFinalReportandfurthersitevisits.Thecapacityofeachsitehasbeencalculatedbasedonindicativesitelayouts.Figures2.1and2.3illustratethesitelayoutsforeachoption.

OptionAcoversanareaofsome68.7haandOptionBanareaof130.9ha,excludingsignificantwoodlandandfloodplainareaswhicharenotsuitablefordevelopment.AdevelopmentscheduleidentifyingasustainablemixoflandusesforeachoptionisincludedinTable2.1.

Table 2.1: Development Schedule

Land Use (Ha)/Site Option A Option BDistrictcentre 0.35 0.49Education 6.05 8.62Openspace 16.84 32.34Indoorsportsandotherbuiltfacilities

0.28 0.28

Employment 1.01* 2.5Residualdevelopablearea

45.2 86.7

Totalparcelarea 68.7 130.9

No of DwellingsHighdensity(60dph) 1084 2080

Mediumdensity(40dph) 723 1387

Lowdensity(30dph) 271 520TotalDwellings 2079 3987

*to be provided off site (assumes continuation of existing travel to work patterns)

2.2 Identification of Social and Community Infrastructure

Thelandbudgetsforeachmasterplanhavebeeninformedbyanassessmentofthesocialandcommunityinfrastructureneedsassociatedwiththedevelopment.Anassessmenthasbeenmadeoftheadditionallandandfloorspacerequirementscoveringemploymentneeds,localretailing,educationfacilities,primaryhealthcareinfrastructure,openspaceandindoorrecreationfacilitiestosupportsuchacommunitypost2016.ThefullfindingsofthisassessmentareincludedasAnnexB.

Theassessmentconsiderstherequirementsrelatingtoeachlanduseintotalfollowedbyascheduleidentifyingthesizingofsitesandthebalanceofusesrequiredtosupporteachsite.Theschedulerepresentsatargetlandusemixwhichhasinformedthemasterplanningprocess.

2.3 Indicative Land Budget

ThelandusebudgetisbaseduponoverallcommunityandInfrastructurerequirementsforthepopulationsofeachsiteoption.Thelocationofthefacilitieshasbeenbaseduponthefollowingprinciples:

n Tomaximisetheopportunitiesaffordedbyadditionalfacilitiesprovision;

n Topromotesustainablepatternsofservicedelivery;and

n Topromoteeachparcelandthetownasawhole.

Althoughtheintentionisprovideadegreeofcommunityselfsufficiency,facilitieshavealsobeen

sitedtomaximisethebenefitstoexistingcommunitieswheretheyarepoorlyprovidedforatpresent.Afterapplyingemploymentdensitiestoconvertjobsintogrossemploymentfloorspacethereisarequirementtoprovideforanadditional25,910m²ofemploymentfloorspaceforOptionAand58,822m²forOptionBassumingnosurplusemploymentlandorpremisesat2016.Thiswouldequatetoanemploymentlandrequirementofupto1.01haforOptionAand2.5haforOptionBafterapplyingplotcoverageandbuildingheightassumptions.Thisassumesacontinuationofexistingtraveltoworkpatterns,where23%oftheworkforceworkwithinBurgessHill(2001census).ForOptionA,theemploymentcomponentoftheschemeisprovidedtothenorthoftheA2300adjacenttothesewagetreatmentworks,whichrepresentsasuitableemploymentlocationandenablesthenumberofresidentialunitswithintheschemetobemaximised.

2.4 Housing Density Balance and Capacity Estimate

Afteraccountingforcommunityinfrastructureneedsanddistributorroadstheresiduallandhasbeenplannedforhousingdevelopment.Thehousingdensitymixforeachoptionhasbeenbaseduponthemaximisingtheefficientuseoflandandtoenableprovisionofarangeofdwellingtypesandsizes.Thehousingdensitymixforeachoptionhasbeenbaseduponamixof30%lowdensity(30dwellings/ha),40%mediumdensity(40dwellings/ha)and40%medium-highdensity(60dwellingsperha).Therationaleistoprovidearangeofdwellingtypesandsizeswithineachsite.Thedistributionofmediumandhighdensityhasbeenconcentratedaroundthe


�

neighbourhoodcentreandalongbusroutesinordertomaximiseaccessandtheviabilityoftheseservices.Lowdensitydevelopmenthasbeenlocatedaroundmoreenvironmentallysensitiveareaswithinparcelsandadjoiningthecountrysideedgetosoftenthevisualimpactofdevelopment.

Table2.2summarisesthehousingdevelopmentcapacityofbothoptions.Thereisoverallcapacityfor2,079dwellingsinOptionAand3,987dwellingsinOptionB.ThelowercapacityforOptionAreflectsthepotentiallysignificantvisualandlandscapeimpactsofanydevelopmenttothesouthofthesite.

2.5 Urban Design Considerations

Thesiteboundariesandsubsequentsitecapacitieshavebeeninformedbylandscapeandecologicalassessmentswhichtakeintoaccountthefloodplains.TheseassessmentsareillustratedintheFinalReport.Theindicativelayoutsillustratehoweachoptioncouldaccommodateasustainableself-containedcommunitywhichintegrateswiththesurroundingenvironment,avoidscoalesencewithneighbouringurbanareasandtakesaccountofthetransportnetworkconstraints.Table2.2identifiesthekeyurbandesignissuesassociatedwiththemasterplanlayouts.

Table 2.2: Urban Design Considerations

Urban Design Considerations/Site

Option A Option B

Access SiteiscloselyrelatedtoboththeA2300andA273,requiringshortconnectionstothesiteandthereforereducingtheimpactofadditionalhighwayinfrastructureuponthewiderlandscape.

Thesiteadjoinsthenorthernedgeoftheexistingsettlementandthereforeproposedfacilitiesandopenspacecouldservetheexistingcommunities.Accesstothissitemayimpactuponthewiderlandscape.

Integrationwiththecountrysideedge

Existingsitevegetationintegratestheproposedhousingwithintheeasternandsouthernsiteareas.Thecountrysideedgeadjoiningthewesternedgeofthesitehoweveritwouldbenefitfromplantingtointegratetheproposeddevelopmentwiththeadjoiningagriculturallandscape.Considerationshouldbegiventooff-siteplantingtoprovideasettingtothedevelopment.

Thesiteissetwithinastrongexistinglandscapestructuremadeupofaseriesofsmall-scalearablefieldsandpublicopenspacesadjoiningthenorthernsettlementboundary.

Considerationshouldbegiventooffsiteplantingtotheproposedwesternedgeandnorthernedgesofthedevelopmentwhichdoesnotdirectlyrelatetothesettlementedge(thisincludesagriculturallandandBurgessHillGolfCourse).

Integrationwiththesettlementedge

Thesiteadjoinsthesettlementedge,howevertheA273maybeperceivedasaphysicalbarriertoeast-westmovementbetweenthesiteandBurgessHill.

Thesiteadjoinsthenorthernedgeoftheexistingsettlementandthereforeproposedfacilitiesandopenspacecouldservetheexistingcommunities.Thedensity,scaleandformoftheproposeddevelopmentalongthesouthernedgeofthesiteshouldrelateinscaleandformtotheadjoiningresidentialareas.

LandscapeDesignations

Therearenolandscapedesignations,howeverlandtothesouthisdesignatedlocallyasaGreenCrescent.

Therearenolandscapedesignations,howeverconsiderationofSNCIsiteadjoiningtheeasternedgeofthesiteisrequired.

LandscapeStructure Astrongexistingpasturelandscapestructurewithexistingwoodlandblocksandtreebelts.Theremayberequirementforsomefurtherplantingtolocallyscreendevelopmentonthewesternedgeoftheproposedsite.ThewesternedgeofthesiteandtheinterfacewiththeexistingdevelopmentatGoddard’sGreenwillneedtobecarefullyconsideredtoretainthelocallydistinctivecharacteroftheGoddard’sGreenjunctionandcountrylaneswhichborderthewesternsiteboundary.

Thesiteissetwithinastrongexistinglandscapestructuremadeupofaseriesofsmall-scalearablefieldsandpublicopenspacesadjoiningthenorthernsettlementboundary.Considerimpactuponlocallandscapeamenityofthewideragriculturallandscape.


�

Urban Design Considerations/Site

Option A Option B

VisualImpact Therewouldbevisualimpactupondwellingswithintheimmediatevicinityofthesite,impactuponanumberofPublicRightsofWaywhichruneastwestacrossthesiteandlandtothesouthofthesite.ViewsarealsopossibleandviewsfromDanworthLanewithinthesiteareaandfromitsjunctionwithPomperLanetothesouth.

Thereissomeimpactuponmediumdistanceviewsfromthesouth,includingdwellingsonPomperLaneitselfandthedwellingsatOaklandsPark.

DevelopmentwouldbevisiblefromtheexistingsettlementedgeofBurgessHill,fromresidentialproperties,albeitthesewouldbeglimpseviews.Whereverpossiblethedevelopmentshouldmaintaininformalopenspacebetweenthesiteandtheexistingsettlementedgetoamelioratevisualimpact.

Theviewsintothissitewouldbeamelioratedbytheexistinglandscapestructure.ViewsofthesitearepossiblefromB2036andA273whichpassestothesouthofthesite,aspartoftheBurgessHill‘ringroad’andnorth-souththroughthesite.ItisalsovisiblefromanumberofPublicRightsofWay,includingonewhichpassesalongFreeksLaneandthroughBedlandsFarmandthenorthernresidentialedgeofBurgessHill.OtherPublicRightsofWayfollowtheriverwhichpassesthroughthesiteinaneastwestdirectionandabridlewaywhichislocatedonthenorthernsiteboundary,whichconnectsaseriesoffarms,including,HookhouseFarm,HolmbushCottagesandHolmbushFarm.

Viewswillbepossiblefromthefarmsmentionedaboveandtheresidentialareas,adjoiningMapleDrive,whichoverlookthesouthernedgeofthesite.Viewsofthewesternedgeofthedevelopment(proposedlowdensityhousingtothewestoftheBurgessHillGolfCourse)wouldbepossiblefromthesecondaryschoolatthejunctionoftheA2300andJaneMurrayWayandhousingwithintheresidentialareaofTheAcornstothesouthoftheA273.

Somewidervisualimpactsmaybeassociatedwiththelinkroadwhichcanbeamelioratedwithlocalisedwoodlandplantingandgroundmodelling.

Pedestrian/cyclelinksandPublicRightsofWay.

FootpathconnectionscanbeconnectedintoanumberofexistingPublicRightsofWayandaneast-westconnectioncanbemadeviaGatehouseLaneandnorth-southviaDanworthLane.

Theexistingnorth-southlane,FreeksLane,canprovideadirectpedestrianandcycleconnectionfromthesitetoBurgessHilltowncentre.Footpathsalongthewatercoursecanbeintegratedintoasite-widefootpathnetwork

BuiltandNaturalHeritage

Settingoflistedbuildingwillneedtobepreservedandenhancedwithoffsiteplantingalongthewesternboundaryofthesite.

Nolistedbuildingswithinsite.

Floodplain ThesouthernboundaryofthesiteadjoinsthefloodplainofthePookBourne.SustainableurbanDrainageSystem(SuDS)maybesoughtbyEA.

ThesiteisbisectedbythefloodplainextendingnorthfromFairplaceBridgealongthewatercourse.EAmayseekSuDSmeasures.

*While site surveys have evaluated the relative visual impacts of development upon the whole landscape area within the study area, detailed masterplanning should be informed by further assessment to fully establish impacts and mitigation measures.


�


�0


��

3. Transport Impacts

ThischaptersummarisestheanalysisoftransportationneedsandimpactspresentedinAnnexC.Measuresareidentifiedtoimprovetheaccessibilityofpotentialdevelopmentsitesbymodesoftravelotherthantheprivatecaraswellasaccommodatingnecessaryprivatecartrips.

3.1 Existing Conditions

KeydemographicindicatorssuggestMidSussexhasthehighestrailmodeshareandthejointhighestpublictransportmodeshareforjourneystoworkcomparedwithotherdistrictsinthearea.ThissuggeststhattheoverallpublictransportmarketinBurgessHillisreasonablyhealthy.

BurgessHilliswellservedbyexistingbusservicescomprising‘town’servicesand‘infrequentrural’services.Italsohastworailstations,BurgessHillandWivelsfield,connectedtoLondonBridge,GatwickandBrighton.ThereisnodirectrailconnectiontoLondonVictoria.

BurgessHillliestotheeastoftheA23TrunkRoad,whichconnectstotheM23southofCrawleyandprovidesanorth-southroutebetweentheM25andthecoast(Brighton).ThetownisconnectedtotheA23viatheA2300.

ExistingtrafficdatasuggeststhatthekeyhighwaylinksinBurgessHillareclosetotheoreticalcapacityandthatlocalisedhighwayimprovementswouldberequiredtosupportanymajordevelopmentproposals.

Existingon-siteobservationsuggeststhatcongestioninBurgessHillisconcentratedaroundkeyjunctionswithinthetowncentreandstationsduringpeakperiods.

3.2 Development Potential

AsiteassessmentframeworkhasbeendevelopedtoprovideapreliminaryassessmentofoptionsforstrategicdevelopmentinBurgessHill.Thesiteassessmentframeworkformedthebasisofadetailedtripgeneration,distributionandassignmentexercise.InthiscasefordevelopmentOptionsAandB.

OptionAislocatedtothewestofBurgessHill.ThesiteisboundedbytheA2300tothenorthandtheA273totheeast.TothesouthofthesiteliesfarmlandandtothewestliesGatehouseLane.

OptionBislocatedtothenorthofBurgessHill,closetotheexistingSheddingtonBusinessCentreandstraddlingtheB2036andA273.ThesiteisboundedbytheA273tothesouthandfarmlandontheremainingedges.

Thedevelopmentsiteshavebeenanalysedinthepreviouschaptertoassessthenumberofdwellingsthatcanbeaccommodated.Table3.1showsthetotalnumberofdwellings,studentsandemployeespredictedforeachdevelopmentsite.

Table 3.1 – Development Options Land Use

Land Use Option A Option B

Housing 2079units 3987unitsPrimarySchool 210students 365students

SecondarySchool 700student(434on-site)

1100students(834onsite)

Employment 178employees(53on-site)

390employees(114on-site)

ThefiguresshowninTable3.1haveformedthebasisforthetransportassessmentwork.

3.3 Development Trip Generation

Amulti-modaltripgenerationspreadsheetwasdevelopedusing2001CensusdataandNationalTravelSurvey(NTS)datafortheperiod1998-2000.Thetripgenerationanddistributionexercisecomprisedthefollowingstages:

n Stage1:Tripsperhousehold;n Stage2:Tripsbyjourneypurpose;n Stage3:Internaltrips;n Stage4:Sitetripattraction;n Stage5:Modalsharebyjourneypurpose;n Stage6:Totalexternaltripsbyjourneypurposeand

mode;n Site7:Totalinternaltripsbyjourneypurposeand

mode;andn Stage8:Distributionofexternaltripsbyjourney

purposeandmode.

ThisprocessprovidedthetotalnumberofAMpeakPMpeakanddailymulti-modaltripsgeneratedbyeachdevelopmentsiteoption.ThetripsweredistributedtoeachwardinBurgessHillandfourexternalzones(north,east,southandwest).

Thedevelopmenttripswerethenmanuallyassignedtothehighwaynetworkandapublictransportpassengerload,patronageandrevenueestimationwasundertaken.

Themajorsourcesofdemandforpublictransportandhighwaytripsunderbothdevelopmentscenariosareasfollows:


��

n NorthofBurgessHill;n MeedsWard(towncentre);n DunstallWard;andn VictoriaWard(Tescossuperstore).

ThispatternreflectsthelocationoftripattractorswithintheBurgessHillareaitself(forshopping,leisureandwork)andtothenorthofBurgessHill(manyworktripattractorsarelocatedhere).

3.4 Development Impact and Mitigation

Traffic Assignment and ImpactInordertodeterminetheimpactofthedevelopmentofOptionAandOptionBontheexistinghighwaynetworkwithinBurgessHillthedevelopmentcartripsfromthetripgenerationexercisehavebeenmanuallyassignedtothehighwaynetwork.Theassignmentflowsrepresentdemandflows,i.e.theroute(s)trafficwouldideallytakeifcapacitywasavailable.

InadditionalinkcapacityanalysishasbeenundertakenbasedonexistingtrafficflowsprovidedbyMidSussexDistrictCouncilwhichhavebeengrowthedto2016toprovidebase2016flows.Thesehavebeencomparedtobase2016withdevelopmentflowstogainanunderstandingoftheimpactofthedevelopmentoptionsontheexistinghighwaynetwork.TheresultsaresummarisedinTable3.2forOptionAandTable3.3forOptionB.

BasedontheinformationpresentedaboveandsitevisitstodeterminetheexistingpatternsoftrafficcongestionwithinBurgessHillthefollowinghighwayinfrastructureimprovementswillprobablyberequiredtosupportthedevelopmentofOptionsAandB.

n OptionA:

1 Newjunctionaccessestothedevelopmentsite;

2 PossibleupgradingofA2300andpartsofA273todualcarriageway;

3 Possiblejunctionimprovementsinthetowncentre.

n OptionB:

1 Newjunctionaccessestothedevelopmentsite;

2 MajorupgradingoftheA273/B2036junction,possiblybythecreationofasingleroundaboutatthislocation;

3 Junctionimprovementsinthetowncentre;

4 PossibleupgradingoftheA273betweenthesiteandtheA2300todualcarriageway;

5 PossibleupgradingoftheA2300todualcarriageway;

TheimprovementsareillustratedinFigures3.1and3.2.

Figure3.2illustratesthataccessfromtheeasternportionofOptionBtothetowncentreshouldbeviatheA273andnotFreeksLaneasthisisaresidentialroadwhichisalreadyheavilycongested.

Public Transport Assessment

AnalysisofthepredictedpublictransportdemandsindicatedthatforbothoptionsnewconnectionstoBurgessHilltowncentreshouldbeprovided,andthatconnectionstotheTriangleCentreandTescoswouldalsobeadvantageous.

Thus,forOptionAitisproposedthattheexistingroute36ismodifiedsothatitmakesacompletelooparoundthewesternhalfofBurgessHill,andalsorunsthrough

thecentreofthenewdevelopment.ForOptionBitisproposedthatanewbusrouteiscreatedrunningfromtheTriangle,viathedevelopmentsiteandthetowncentre,toTescos(seeFigures3.3and3.4).

Thelowerlevelsofdemandforrailservicesandthegreaterconstraintsfacingchangestothismodemeanthatcomparablerailproposalshavenotbeendeveloped.However,keychangesproposedtorailservicesintheNetworkRailRouteUtilisationStrategywerehighlightedintheOptionCanalysis.

EstimatedcostsforthetwooptionsweredevelopedusingtheAtkinsbuscostmodelwithrevenuespredictedbasedontheforecastusageandafareratesimilartoexistingtowncentreservices.AcomparisonofcostsandrevenueswiththeforecastpatronagelevelsindicatesthatOptionAmayrequiresomeongoingrevenuesupport,whilethegreatersizeoftheOptionBdevelopmentindicatesthatitcouldbefinanciallyselfsustainingoncethedevelopmentiscomplete.

Provision for Pedestrians and Cyclists

Inordertosupportthedevelopmentofeitheroptionitisrecommendedthatthatadequatepedestrianandcyclecrossings,cycleandwalkroutes,cyclelanesandcyclestorageisprovidedbetweenthesiteandlocaldestinationsandservices.ForOptionAitisrecommendedthattheexistingcrossingbetweenthesiteandtowncentre(A273GatehouseLane)isimproved,whilstforOptionBFreekslaneshouldbecomeadedicatedwalk/cyclelane.

Inadditionthemixed-usenatureofthedevelopmentsitesmeansthatalargeproportionofdevelopmenttripswillremaininternaltoeachsite,thesetripsshouldbeencouragedbyprovidingsafe,welllit,walkingandcyclingroutesthroughoutthesite.


��

Table 3.2 - Development Traffic Impact Summary: Option A

Table 3.3 - Development Traffic Impact Summary: Option B

Road Development Conditions Analysis Future ConditionA2300 Increaseinflowinbothdirectionsduringpeak

periods.TrafficrunningbetweenthedevelopmentandtheA23

Delaysduringpeakperiods.Upgradingtodualcarriagewaymayberequired.

A23 Increaseintrafficflow,particularlynorthboundduringtheAMpeakandsouthboundduringthePMpeak.

AssociatedwithtripsfromnewdevelopmentwithworkdestinationsoutsideBurgessHill.

Freeflowing.Mayimpactuponnarrowsectionsofcarriageway.

A273 Increaseintrafficflow,particularlytothenorthofthedevelopmentsite.

AssociatedwithdestinationstothenorthofBurgessHillandinthetowncentre.

Likelytoremainfreeflowingwithminorcongestionduringpeakperiods.

B2036 Increaseinflow,particularlyalongthenorthernsectionthroughthetowncentre.

TrafficfromthedevelopmentaccessingBurgessHilltowncentreandstations.

MayimpactuponexistingcongestioninthevicinityofWivelsfieldStation.Junctionimprovementsmayberequired.

A273/B2036tothenorthofBurgessHill MaybeusedasaratrunfortrafficfromthedevelopmentaccessingtheA23/M23.

Ratrunningtraffic. Trafficmanagementmeasuresmayberequired.Capacityshouldnotbeincreasedalongthissectionofroad.

Road Development Conditions Analysis Future ConditionA2300 Increaseinflowinbothdirectionsduringpeak

periods.TrafficrunningbetweenthedevelopmentandtheA23

Delaysduringpeakperiods.Upgradingtodualcarriagewaymayberequired.UpgradingofA273/B2036junctionrequired.

A23 Increaseintrafficflow,particularlynorthboundduringtheAMpeakandsouthboundduringthePMpeak.

AssociatedwithtripsfromnewdevelopmentwithworkdestinationsoutsideBurgessHill.

Freeflowing.Mayimpactuponnarrowsectionsofcarriageway.

A273 Increaseintrafficflow,particularlytothenorthofthedevelopmentsiteandbetweenthesiteandtheA2300.

AssociatedwithdestinationstothenorthofBurgessHillandinthetowncentre.

Congestionduringpeakperiods.MajorupgradingofA273/B2036junctionrequired.A273willbecomedualcarriagewaybetweenthesiteandA2300.

B2036 Majorincreaseinflow,particularlyalongthenorthernsectionthroughthetowncentre.

TrafficfromthedevelopmentaccessingBurgessHilltowncentreandstations.

WillimpactuponexistingcongestioninthevicinityofWivelsfieldStation.Junctionimprovementsrequired.

A273/B2036tothenorthofBurgessHill MaybeusedasaratrunfortrafficfromthedevelopmentaccessingtheA23/M23.

Ratrunningtraffic. Trafficmanagementmeasuresmayberequired.Capacityshouldnotbeincreasedalongthissectionofroad.


��

Total Transport Costs

Table3.2demonstratesthatthetotaltransportcostsnecessarytosupporttheproposeddevelopmentsitesareapproximately£15.6millionforOptionAand£20.4millionforOptionB.Costperdwellingwouldbeapproximately£12,200forOptionAand£8,800forOptionB(basedon40%affordablehousing).ThehighercostperdwellingforOptionAreflectsthelowernumberofhouseswhichthissitecanaccommodate(seeAnnexCforadetailedbreakdownofcosts).

Table 3.4 Transport Costs Summary

Option

Public TransportCosts

Highway Costs

Total Costs Cost Per Dwelling

A £472,820 £14,690,000 £15,162,820 £12,156

B £1,074,262 £19,900,000 £20,974,262 £8,768

ItislikelythatalloftheproposedimprovementsassociatedwitheachdevelopmentsitewillbeimplementedthroughSection106agreementsandpaidforbythedeveloper.

3.5 The Way Forward

Theresultsofthistransportstudysuggesttheproposeddevelopmentof2,079housestothewestofBurgessHillunderOptionAcouldbesupportedbyassociatedimprovementsintransportnetworks.HoweverthisOptionwouldresultincongestionandwouldrequireinvestmentinhighwayinfrastructureworksandpublictransportservices.TheproposedsiteiscutofffromthetowncentrebytheA273anditwouldbeveryimportanttoensurethatthedevelopmentislinkedtothetownbyappropriateanddirectpedestrianandcycleroutes.

Theresultsofthistransportstudyalsosuggesttheproposeddevelopmentof3,987housestothewest

ofBurgessHillunderOptionBwouldhaveagreaterimpactandcouldonlybesupportedbyassociatedimprovementsintransportnetworks.ThisOptionwouldresultincongestionandwouldrequiremoresubstantialinvestmentinhighwayinfrastructureworksandpublictransportservicesinvolvingagreaterlandtakeespeciallyinthetowncentreandwouldalsoneedtobelinkedtothetownbyappropriateanddirectpedestrianandcycleroutes.

OptionBcouldhaveadetrimentalimpactonvillagestothenorthofBurgessHill.Asmallernumberofunitsonthesitemaybeappropriatetodecreasethisimpact.Thisstudyisstrategicinnatureandhasusedavailabletrafficcount,buspatronageandraildata.ThishasallowedthestudytotakeanoverviewofthetransportimpactofthedevelopmentofhousesonOptionsAandBintermsofexistingandproposedinfrastructure.However,thestrategicnatureofthestudydoesnotallowthetransportimpacttobeassessedatalocalscale.Itisrecommendedthatifthedevelopmentoptionsareprogressedtothenextstage,furtherstudyatalocalscaleshouldbecarriedout.Thiswouldneedtoincludejunctionassessmentsand,forOptionBandimpactassessmentintheHaywardsHeatharea.


��


��

4 - Summary of Findings and Conclusions

TheaimofthisAddendumreportistoidentifywhetherthereispotentialforadditionalstrategicdevelopmenttoprovideupto5,000dwellingsonlandidentifiedasOptionAandOptionBtoaccommodatepost2016housingneeds.Thestudywasundertakenintwostages,firstlyasiteanalysisandsecondlyanassessmentofthelikelysignificantimpactsonthesurroundingtransportnetwork.

4.1 Site Analysis

ThefirststageinvolvedacomprehensivesiteanalysistoidentifyopportunitiesandconstraintstodevelopingareascontiguouswiththeBurgessHillurbanareaandtodeterminethepotentialcapacityoftheseareas.Thisinvolvedundertakinglandscapeandecologicalassessmentsanddeskbasedassessmentsofsite-specificwasteandinfrastructurerelatedissues.TheresultsoftheseassessmentsareincludedwithintheBurgessHillFeasibilityStudyFinalReport(September2005).TheFinalReportidentifiedthreepotentialdevelopmentoptions.Twooptions(OptionsAandB)illustratedthepotentialtoaccommodate5,000dwellingsinlargeselfcontainedurbanextensions.OptionCdemonstratedhowthedwellingscouldbedistributedwithinsevensitesaroundBurgessHill.OptionCwasidentifiedasthepreferredoptionandtakenforwardformoredetailedanalysisofthesitecapacitiesandassociatedsocial,communityandtransportinfrastructurerequirements.

ThisaddendumprovidesthesamelevelofdetailedanalysisforOptionsandBinordertoenableamorerobustcomparisonbetweenthethreedevelopmentoptions.

ThemostsignificantconstraintstodevelopmentofOptionAarethefloodplain,impactonlocallandscapecharacter,viewsfromtheimmediatevicinityandlongdistanceviewsfromHurstpierpointandtheSouthDownsandproximityandcoalescenceissuesrelatingtoHurstpierpoint.

ThemostsignificantconstraintstodevelopmentofOptionBarethefloodplain,whichbisectsthesite,thelocalnaturereserveandSNCItotheeastandtheproximityofHaywardsHeathtothenorth.

Althoughthemajorityoftheareasareinagriculturaluse,thereareareasofwoodlands,hedgerowsandstreamswhichshouldbeprotected.Theseareascouldbeincorporatedwithinanypotentialdevelopmenttoprovideastronglandscapeframeworkandenhancethelimitedbiodiversity.

Anassessmentofthecapacityofexistingcommunityfacilitiesandtheneedfornewfacilitiestoservethenewcommunitieswasundertakentoinformthelandusemixoftheproposeddevelopmentsites.Table2.2identifiestheissuesassociatedwitheachsitewhichshouldbeconsideredfurtheraspartofanydetailedmasterplanning.Therewillbeinevitableadverseimpactsonoutlyingpropertiesandfarmswiththedevelopmentoflargeurbanextensionsandassociatedinfrastructurewhichwillneedtobecompensated.Therewillalsobenewimpactsonthesurroundinglandscapeandamenitiesoflocalresidentswhichwillrequireadditionaldetailedassessmentandmitigation.

4.2 Impact Assessment

Stagetwoinvolvedassessingtheimpactsofthemaximumsitecapacityonthesurroundingtransportnetworkinordertodeterminewhetheradverseimpactscouldbesatisfactorilymitigated.TheTransportAnalysislookedatpotentialtripgenerationandthedistributionandassignmentofvehiculartripstothelocalhighwaynetwork.Alinkcapacityassessmentwasalsoundertakentoidentifythecapacityofthenetworktoaccommodatemoretrafficandinformtheneedforinfrastructureimprovements.

TheresultsofthisanalysissuggesttheproposeddevelopmentofOptionAandOptionBinBurgessHillcouldbesupportedbyassociatedimprovementsintransportnetworks.Thiswouldincludeinvestmentinadditionalbusservicesandupgradingofexistingcarriagewaysandjunctions.DevelopmentofOptionBwouldresultinmoresignificantcongestionanddelaysduringpeakperiodsandwouldrequiremajorinvestmentintocarriagewayupgradingandjunctionimprovements.Itwouldbenecessarytoensurethatthedevelopmentsitesarelinkedtothetowncentrebyappropriateanddirectcycleandpedestrianroutes,toensurethatthesitesarefullyintegratedwithexistingdevelopmentinBurgessHill.

Thistransportstudysuggeststhatthecostperdwellingassociatedwiththetransportproposalswouldbe£12,200forOptionAand£8,800forOptionB.ItisrecommendedthatifthedevelopmentoptionsforBurgessHillareprogressedtothenextstage,furtherstudyatalocalscaleshouldbecarriedout.Thiswouldincludejunctionand/ornetworkmodelling.


�0

4.3 Conclusions

Table4.1summarisesthekeyissuespertainingtoeachsiteoption(OptionsA,BandC)andprovidesanevaluationofhoweachoptionperformsinrelationtokeycriteria.ThetabledemonstratesthatOptionCperformsbestinrelationtoallcriteriaexpectinfrastructurecosts.TransportcostsforOptionCwouldbebetween£13,500and£13,800perdwelling,thismayrequirefundinginadditiontodevelopercontributions.

OptionCrepresentsanopportunitytoprovidetherequirednumberofdwellingswiththeleastimpactonthesurroundinglandscapeandtransportnetwork.Theoptionwouldallowforsuccessfulintegrationwithexistingcommunities,goodcycleandpedestrianaccesstothetowncentreandprovideaneasternlinkroadtoservethenewcommunitiesandimproveaccessaroundBurgessHillforexistingcommunities.Distributingthehousingrequirementratherthanconcentratingitinalargeself-containedcommunitywillalsoimprovetheviabilityandvitalityoftheexistingtowncentre.


��

Table 4.1: Burgess Hill Site Options Evaluation

Option/Criteria

Site Capacity Transport Accessibility

Integration with surrounding environment

Impact on Transport Network

Infrastructure Costs Impact on Viability of Town Centre

Option A 2,079Shortfallof2,921dwellings

SecondhighesttransportandaccessibilityscorecomparedtoOptionBandOptionCwithlinkroad.

Thesiteadjoinsthesettlementedge,howevertheA273maybeperceivedasaphysicalbarriertoeast-westmovementbetweenthesiteandBurgessHill.ThewesternedgeofthesiteandtheinterfacewiththeexistingdevelopmentatGoddard’sGreenwillneedtobecarefullyconsideredtoretainthelocallydistinctivecharacteroftheGoddard’sGreenjunctionandcountrylaneswhichborderthewesternsiteboundary.

Minorcongestionanddelaysduringpeakperiod.MayimpactuponexistingcongestioninthevicinityofWivelsfieldStation.Junctionimprovementsmayberequired.

Nosignificantutilitiesinfrastructurecosts.Minorupgradingandjunctionimprovementcosts.

Howeverhighcostperdwellingduetolownumberofhouses.

FurthestoptionfromthetowncentreandclosesttotheA23.OptionwouldcompriseselfcontainedcommunitydividedfromexistingurbanareabyA273whichmayreducepotentialforintegrationwithexistingcommunities.

Limitedpotentialtoimproveviabilityofexistingservicesthroughfinancialcontributionsandincreasedusage.

Option B 3,987Shortfallof1,013dwellings

Lowesttransportandaccessibilityscore.

Thesiteadjoinsthenorthernedgeoftheexistingsettlement.However,accesstothetowncentremustbeviatheA273andnotFreeksLaneinordertoavoidunacceptablecongestion.Thedensity,scaleandformoftheproposeddevelopmentalongthesouthernedgeofthesiteshouldrelateinscaleandformtotheadjoiningresidentialareas.Theviewsintothissitewouldbemitigatedbytheexistinglandscapestructure.

Congestionanddelaysduringpeakperiods.Majorupgradingofcarriagewaysandjunctionsrequired.WillimpactuponexistingcongestioninthevicinityofWivelsfieldStation.Junctionimprovementsrequired.

Utilitiesinvestmentrequiredtobringwatertosite.Majorupgradingandjunctionimprovementcosts.

Thisoptionwouldcompriseaselfcontainedcommunitywhichmayreducepotentialforintegrationwithexistingurbanarea.

Limitedpotentialtoimproveviabilityofexistingservicesthroughfinancialcontributionsandincreasedusage.Proposedfacilitiesandopenspaceinthesouthofthesitecouldservetheexistingcommunities.

Option C 5,014Surplusof14dwellings

Highesttransportandaccessibilityscorewiththeproposedlinkroad.

Thedensity,scaleandformofdevelopmentineachsitewouldrelatewelltotheexistingurbanareas.Minimalvisualimpactonsurroundingareaswhichcouldbemitigatedwithplanting.Somewidervisualimpactsmaybeassociatedwiththelinkroad.Groundmodellingandlandscapingcouldhelptomitigate.

EasternlinkroadrequiredtosupportdevelopmentofOptionC.Minorimpactsonexistingroads.

Significantutilitiesinfrastructureinvestmentduetocapacityofelectricityandgasandphysicalobstructionswhichhinderservicingofwatertosites.Significanttransportcostsduetorequirementforeasternlinkroad.

Thisoptionwouldimprovetheviabilityofthetowncentrethroughincreasedfinancialcontributionsandusage.Proposedfacilitiesandopenspacewouldserveexistingcommunities.

TheproposedlinkroadwouldimproveaccessibilityaroundtheeastofBurgessHilltothebenefitofexistingcommunitiestotheeastoftherailwayline.

feasibility study for development options at burgess hill · feasibility study for development...

Documents