rebuttal poe of d.reid 09.05.12€¦ · land off grange road, hugglescote rebuttal proof of...

- 1 -

Site at Land North Of Grange Road, Hugglescote, LE67 2BT

Appeal by Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd

Rebuttal Proof of Evidence of Dr Douglas Reid

on behalf of Leicestershire County Council as local Highway Authority

to the Proof of Evidence of Mr Mark Edwards

dated April 2012 on behalf of Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd

Witness ref: LCC/LHA/03

Local Planning Authority reference: 10/01093/OUTM

Planning Inspectorate: APP/G2435/A/11/2165777/NWF

9 May 2012

JCT Consultancy Ltd Deepdale Enterprise Park Nettleham Lincoln LN2 2LL Tel: 01522 751010

Land off Grange Road, Hugglescote Rebuttal Proof of Evidence of Douglas Reid

- 2 -

Contents Page No.

1. Qualifications and experience 3

2. Scope of evidence 4

3. Traffic flows used for impact assessment 5

4. Basis for JCT LinSig modelling 6

5. JCT modelling results and comparisons 8

6. Lack of mitigation 9

7. Implications of traffic impact 11

8. Conclusions 13

Appendix A Traffic flow diagrams Attached

Appendix B LinSig model summaries Attached


- 3 -

1. Qualification and experience

1.1 My name is Douglas Reid. I have a BA (Cantab) degree in Engineering and

an MSc in Transport Engineering. I am a Chartered Engineer and member of

the Institution of Civil Engineers. Later in my career I gained a part-time PhD

in junction design and reducing traffic congestion.

1.2 I am a director of JCT Consultancy Ltd which specialises in traffic signals. As

well as consultancy services, JCT provides traffic signal training, and also

produces the LinSig computer program, used by most highway authorities and

consultants for the modelling and design of traffic signal junctions and

networks. I am the tutor for many JCT courses and work on the development

of LinSig for detailed traffic modelling in the UK and overseas.

1.3 Since training and qualifying as a civil engineer, I have gained 37 years of

experience in traffic and transportation. Much of this has been with local

highway authorities, involving extensive experience of traffic signal control

systems, junction design, major transport schemes and appraisals, strategic

transport modelling and the management and production of local transport

plans. I have supported key parts of this work at a number of public inquiries.


- 4 -

2. Scope of evidence

2.1 My evidence is solely concerned with the impact of the development on the

Hugglescote crossroads (HCR) traffic signal junction. It has been prepared in

response to the Proof of Evidence submitted by Mr Mark Edwards dated April

2012 on behalf of Bloor Homes East Midlands. It supports the response to

the same evidence by Mrs Rebecca Henson of Leicestershire County Council

regarding the impact on HCR, as well as the concerns regarding HCR as set

out in Mrs Henson’s Proof of Evidence.

2.2 I was commissioned to prepare this evidence because of doubts about the

validity of the HCR modelling in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards, his

proposed mitigation measure, and the lack of assessment of the previously

agreed higher distribution of development traffic through HCR. My evidence

specifically addresses the following matters:

• The need for a clear record of the traffic flows used to assess the impact

of the development on HCR at the disputed levels of distribution.

• The need for up to date LinSig modelling using the most recent

information on the current signal sequence and various time settings.

• A clear presentation of LinSig model results, including comparisons where

applicable with equivalent figures in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards.

• A response to the mitigation measure proposed in the Proof of Evidence

of Mr Edwards, showing how it would not be available to implement.

• A definitive assessment of the impact of the (previously agreed) higher of

the two disputed levels of distribution of development traffic through HCR.


- 5 -

3. Traffic flows used for impact assessment

3.1 The modelling of impacts at HCR in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards (see

Appendix L) are for the assessment year of 2020, and my evidence is all

based on that same year. The first sets of traffic flows needed for assessment

are the 2020 AM and PM base flows without the development. These were

obtained from the Savell Bird & Axon (SBA) Technical Note TN004 in its

Appendix B. The main body of SBA TN004 (without appendices) is contained

in the Evidence of Mr Edwards (see Appendix J). The 2020 AM and PM base

flows without development, together with the other flows I have used, are

shown diagrammatically in this proof of evidence (see my Appendix A).

3.2 For preparing the JCT LinSig model, the extra traffic flows arising from the

development were first calculated as if there would be a notional 100%

distribution towards HCR. These notional flows were therefore the inflows

and outflows for the whole development, and could be taken from the Proof of

Evidence of Mr Edwards (see Appendix B, Para. 2.1.3). At HCR the turning

proportions were calculated using the percentages in the Proof of Evidence of

Mr Edwards (see Appendix H, Figure 2 and Para 4.14) as follows:

• Turning to/from north (Central Road): 12.76% / 36.1% = 0.353

• Ahead to/from west (Ashburton Road): (4.47%+12.63%)/36.1% = 0.474

• Turning to/from south (Station Road): 6.24%/36.1% = 0.173

3.3 The resulting turning flows for the notional 100% distribution to HCR are set

out in my Appendix A and were entered into the JCT LinSig model of HCR to

enable any distribution percentage to be rapidly calculated and tested. The

remaining flow diagrams in my Appendix A are the disputed 8.3% and 36.1%

distributions of the development traffic added to the base flows, as calculated

within the JCT LinSig model, and used in my subsequent modelling.

3.4 For the previously agreed 36.1% distribution, the total approach traffic flow

figures in my Appendix A are very close to the figures in the SBA LinSig

modelling of the 36.1% distribution, as detailed in Appendix E of the SBA

Technical Note TN004, but not included in the Proof of Evidence of Mr

Edwards as noted above (see 3.1).


- 6 -

4. Basis for JCT LinSig modelling

4.1 My JCT LinSig model of HCR is based on up to date details of how the traffic

signals operate in terms of the sequence and time settings, for example the 7

secs green man time rather than the 6 secs in the SBA LinSig model. The

details are from a recent traffic signal configuration document supplied by

Leicestershire County Council (LCC). My other JCT LinSig parameters are

mainly in line with the SBA LinSig model details referred to above (see 3.4),

including saturation flows, right turn storage and non-blocking storage in front

of the north (Central Road) and south (Station Road) stop lines.

4.2 Two important differences between the JCT and SBA LinSig models are:

• For the north (Central Road) and south (Station Road) right turns, the

maximum flow whilst giving way is the standard LinSig default value of

1439 pcu/hr instead of SBA specified value of 1400 pcu/hr.

• More significantly, for both these right turns which have to give way, the

coefficient applied to the oncoming traffic is the standard LinSig default

value of 1.09 instead of the SBA specified value of only 0.01.

4.3 Regarding the second bullet above, the SBA coefficient value of only 0.01

models both right turns as if they hardly had to give way at all, and is a highly

optimistic and misleading representation of the turn behaviour. Correcting the

value to 1.09 causes a realistic accumulation of vehicles waiting to turn right

during green, and particularly from the north (Central Road) represents the

way that more than one waiting right turner will block other vehicles from the

same lane going straight on or turning left towards the development. No such

blocking can occur in LinSig with the SBA specified coefficient of 0.01.

4.4 The SBA LinSig model details referred to above (see 3.4) consist of pages

printed out by LinSig with the user of the model shown as a named officer of

Leicestershire County Council (LCC), possibly because earlier LinSig models

were supplied by LCC to assist the Coalville Transport Study (CTS), in which

Mr Edwards was involved. However, I consider it inconceivable that any LCC

LinSig modeller could have chosen to replace the LinSig default values that

should always be used for right turners giving way to oncoming traffic.


- 7 -

4.5 A further difference in the JCT LinSig modelling is the cycle time used in the

PM peak. With sufficient traffic demand, the current time settings allow cycle

times up to 82 secs without the pedestrian green man or 97 secs with the

pedestrian green man. This results from the PM peak maximum green times

in the recent traffic signal details referred to above (see 4.1). If two such

cycles run consecutively the overall period of 179 secs gives an average cycle

time of 90 secs. This average has been used with alternating pedestrian

green man periods in all the JCT PM peak modelling.

4.6 Whilst the existing volumes of traffic at the junction may not always extend the

cycle times to the maximums currently allowed, the JCT PM peak base LinSig

modelling, with growth to 2020 and increasing right turn blocking, shows a

level of congestion that would definitely result in the maximum allowable cycle

times. However, this modelling does not assume any growth in pedestrian

demand causing more frequent appearances of the pedestrian green man.

4.7 The JCT and SBA LinSig models in the AM peak both use the same cycle

time of 90 secs, and both have the pedestrian green man appearing in every

cycle. It should be noted that vehicles at all four stop lines are stopped at red

for the green man period, and that frequency of pedestrian demand has an

important affect on junction capacity for vehicles.


- 8 -

5. JCT modelling results and comparisons

5.1 The key JCT LinSig results are shown in the form of junction layout diagrams

(see my Appendix B). For each modelled scenario, the apportionment of

green time within the cycle time has been optimised to minimise the worst

degree of saturation in any lane. This worst value directly determines the

practical reserve capacity (PRC) of the junction. The LinSig optimisation at

the specified cycle time thereby maximises the capacity of the junction as a

whole. Where the PRC value is negative, there is a degree of overload at the

junction, and degrees of saturation in one or more lanes exceed the standard

practical capacity threshold of 90%, with congestion to be expected for part of

the hour or longer. PRC values therefore provide a straightforward basis for

assessing traffic signal junction capacities and development impacts.

5.2 The SBA LinSig results for 2020 without development and with the 8.3%

distribution are in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards (see Appendix L). The

SBA LinSig results for the previously agreed 36.1% distribution are in SBA

Technical Note TN004 as previously referred to (see 3.4).

5.3 The JCT LinSig PRC results, with the corresponding SBA figures in brackets,

are as follows:

• 2020 AM peak without development: PRC -5.7% (SBA -2.9%)

• 2020 PM peak without development: PRC -11.4% (SBA -12.8%)

• 2020 AM peak with 8.3% distribution: PRC -7.9% (SBA -4.5%)

• 2020 PM peak with 8.3% distribution: PRC -13.6% (SBA -7.9%)

• 2020 AM peak with 36.1% distribution: PRC -19.9% (SBA -16.1%)

• 2020 PM peak with 36.1% distribution: PRC -26.1% (SBA -18.8%)

5.4 Regarding the second bullet above it should be noted that the SBA PRC

figure of -12.8% was modelled using an average cycle time of 75 seconds and

is therefore not comparable with all the other figures at the 90 secs cycle time.

Had SBA instead used the 90 secs cycle time, a PRC in the order of -5%

would probably have been obtained. The most likely reasons for the more

favourable SBA results have been noted (see 4.2 and 4.3).


- 9 -

6. Lack of Mitigation

6.1 During the AM peak (see 5.3) the PRC of the HCR in 2020 would worsen from

-5.7% to -7.9% with the 8.3% distribution, but to -19.9% with the previously

agreed 36.1% distribution. The Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards contains no

proposals for mitigating any impact in the AM peak.

6.2 During the PM peak (see 5.3) the PRC of the HCR in 2020 would worsen from

-11.4% to -13.6% with the 8.3% distribution, but to -26.1% with the previously

agreed 36.1% distribution. The Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards (see 4.4.17

and Appendix L) claims to provide sufficient mitigation of the 8.3% distribution

impact by increasing signal timings in the PM peak.

6.3 The claimed PM peak mitigation is based on an average cycle time of 75 secs

without development being increased to an average 90 secs cycle time with

development (see 5.4). On this basis the SBA PRC of -12.8% at 75 secs

cycle time without development would be reduced to the SBA PRC of -7.9% at

90 secs cycle time with development at 8.3% distribution, more than mitigating

the impact of development.

6.4 The SBA average PM peak cycle time of 75 secs is based on a video survey

at the junction and is described in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards (see

Appendix J, Table 2 and 3.1.3/4). The survey recorded 48 cycles in the PM

peak hour, equating to an average cycle time of 75 secs. The SBA LinSig

modelling assumes that this 2012 observed cycle time would be unchanged

without the development in 2020. This assumption is made despite the

predicted general traffic growth from 2012 to 2020 of about 12%.

6.5 I have previously described (see 4.5) how the maximum allowable PM peak

cycle time is currently an average of 90 secs if the pedestrian stage is

demanded in every alternate cycle, but does not extend to this value under

current levels of traffic demand. The SBA observed average PM peak cycle

time therefore results from the current numbers of vehicles passing over the

approach detectors and extending the green times.


- 10 -

6.6 With general traffic growth of about 12% to 2020, the green times will naturally

extend year by year up to the maximum values currently set at the junction.

Without any intervention by LCC, the average cycle time will therefore

naturally extend from 75 secs to 90 secs. The 2020 PM peak PRC of -11.4%

from the JCT LinSig modelling at the 90 secs cycle time without development

(see 5.4) indicates that this cycle time will be reached without intervention

long before 2020.

6.7 Because the PM peak average 90 secs cycle time is currently allowed at the

junction and will be naturally taken up by short term traffic growth, there will be

no opportunity to implement an average cycle time increase from 75 secs to

90 secs as a mitigation measure to offset the impact of development. This

latter cycle time increase in just the PM peak is the only proposed mitigation in

the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards (see 4.4.16/7 and Appendix L).

However, he refers to the length of two consecutive cycles and describes the

increase as being from a 150 secs to 180 secs double cycle, but meaning the

same thing as the above 75 secs to 90 secs increase in average cycle time.

6.8 In summary, mitigation by increase of cycle time would clearly not be available

to implement with development because the current time settings, without any

intervention by LCC, will result in a natural increase in cycle time to the 90

secs average without any development and long before 2020.

6.9 The position at HCR with either the 8.3% distribution, or previously agreed

36.1% distribution, would therefore be one of full detriment with no proposed

mitigation if the development were to proceed. This lack of mitigation at HCR

is a key conclusion in the Proof of Evidence of Mrs Henson (see 16.7).


- 11 -

7. Implications of Traffic Impact

7.1 Because HCR in 2020 would be congested in both peaks without the

development, any extra traffic demand would have a disproportionate impact

on queues and delays. The 8.3% distribution would worsen the PRCs by

2.2% in both the AM and PM peaks (see 5.3). However, traffic delays would

increase to a much greater extent, as indicated by the average delays

calculated from the LinSig summary results (see my Appendix B). In the 2020

AM peak the increase would be from 84 secs to 91 secs (i.e 8%). In the 2020

PM peak the increase would be from 101 secs to 123 secs (i.e. 22%).

7.2 With the previously agreed 36.1% distribution as expected, the development

impact at HCR would be much more severe (see 5.3). The AM peak PRC

would worsen by 14.2%, and the PM peak PRC would worsen by 14.7%. In

the 2020 AM peak the delay increase would be from 84 secs to 169 secs (i.e

101%). In the 2020 PM peak the delay increase would be from 101 secs to

241 secs (i.e. 139%). Whilst 241 secs or 4 minutes would be the average

delay from all four directions over the PM peak hour, I would expect delays

well in excess of 5 mins on certain approaches for parts of the hour. All these

values of delay are the typical times that an everyday user of the junction

might expect to experience.

7.3. As regards overall queuing at the junction, the impact can most simply be

quantified by adding together the queue values for all four arms in the LinSig

summary results (see Appendix B). With the 8.3% distribution the combined

four queues in the 2020 AM peak would increase from 54 to 59 pcu (i.e. 9%).

In the 2020 PM peak the increase would be from 79 to 89 pcu (i.e 13%). With

the 36.1% distribution the combined four queues in the 2020 AM peak would

increase from 54 to 97 pcu (i.e. 80%). In the 2020 PM peak the increase

would be from 79 to 156 pcu (i.e 97%).


- 12 -

7.4 With the 8.3% distribution at HCR, and based on the above results, the Proof

of Evidence of Mr Edwards (see 4.4.22) is not reliable in claiming that where

the development would cause adverse impact in the future year scenario,

measures to mitigate the impact have been proposed. For the AM peak no

mitigation is proposed at HCR, and for the PM peak the proposed cycle time

increase (see 6.7/8) is currently allowed by the signal settings at HCR and will

naturally take place without the development long before 2020.

7.5 With the previously agreed and much more realistic distribution of 36.1%, the

above results (see 7.2/3) clearly demonstrate a severe and unacceptable

impact at HCR if the development were allowed to proceed as currently

proposed.

7.6 At the time of agreement to the 36.1% distribution, SBA did, but no longer,

proposed to fund an upgrade of the HCR to the MOVA method of control.

This is described in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards (see Appendix L

(4.1.1/2)). MOVA (Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation) is a more

sophisticated version of the Vehicle Actuation (VA) which currently operates at

HCR. This upgrade from VA to MOVA was claimed to reduce peak hour

delays by 13%, thereby implying some degree of mitigation.

7.7 I do not consider that MOVA would give any increase in capacity at peak

times, because it would be unable deal sensibly with the effects of right turn

blocking (see 4.3). Any lengthening of individual cycle times by MOVA above

current VA settings would exacerbate right turn blocking on the north (Central

Road) approach, apart from being detrimental to pedestrian waiting times. If

implemented, I am convinced that the maximum MOVA peak cycle times

would have to be capped at the existing maximum VA settings.

7.8 The TRL and DfT trials referred to in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards

(see 4.1.2) did record MOVA delay savings of 13% compared with VA, but

these were over the whole working day, consisting of mainly off-peak hours.

At off-peak times at HCR, when there would be no congestion, I am confident

that MOVA would reduce delays, but this would in no way go towards

mitigating the impact of the development at congested peak times.


- 13 -

8. Conclusions

8.1 My evidence is solely concerned with the impact of the development at the

Hugglescote crossroads (HCR) traffic signal junction. I am a director of JCT

Consultancy Ltd, who are commissioned by Leicestershire County Council to

provide full information on the development impact at this junction and

respond to the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards of Savell Bird & Axon (SBA).

8.2 Using the best available information, I have prepared an up to date LinSig

model to assess the capacity of the HCR without and with the development

and both the 8.3% and previously agreed 36.1% distributions of traffic towards

HCR. All the traffic flows used and the summary outputs of the LinSig model

are documented in the Appendices to this evidence.

8.3 Comparisons with the LinSig results in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards

show my capacity figures to be worse in all comparable scenarios. This is in

part due to an optimistic error affecting the SBA modelling of right turners

when they have to wait in the junction giving way to oncoming vehicles.

8.4 My LinSig model results with the 8.3% distribution show a significant adverse

development impact at HCR over and above the congestion expected without

development. My detailed account of cycle time setting in the PM peak shows

that no signal timing mitigation would be available to implement as claimed in

the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards.

8.5 My LinSig model results with the previously agreed 36.1% distribution show

that the development would cause a particularly severe and unacceptable

impact on congestion at the HCR traffic signal junction. In the 2020 PM peak

average delays would increase by 139% up to 4 mins, but with delays well in

excess of 5 mins on some approaches for parts of the hour.

8.6 The findings in my evidence regarding the HCR junction fully substantiate the

position of Leicestershire County Council set out in the Proof of Evidence of

Mrs Henson, and also her response to the Proof of Evidence of Mr Edwards.

Appendix A – Traffic Flow Diagrams

Fig A1 – 2020 AM Base Flows Fig A2 – 2020 AM 100% Development

Note: The north (Central Road) approach is at the top of each diagram. The traffic flows in

Fig A2 are used only as an intermediate step in LinSig for calculating the 8.3% and

36.1% development flows included in Fig A3 and Fig A4 below.

Fig A3 – 2020 AM Base + 8.3% Dev Fig A4 – 2020 AM Base + 36.1% Dev

Fig A5 – 2020 PM Base Flows Fig A6 – 2020 PM 100% Development

Note: The north (Central Road) approach is at the top of each diagram. The traffic flows in

Fig A6 are used only as an intermediate step in LinSig for calculating the 8.3% and

36.1% development flows included in Fig A7 and Fig A8 below.

Fig A7 – 2020 PM Base + 8.3% Dev Fig A8 – 2020 PM Base + 36.1% Dev

Appendix B – LinSig Result Summaries

B1 The following six pages show the LinSig summary results for the six scenarios

modelled for my evidence (see 5.3). The table at the top of each diagram indentifies

each scenario and gives the overall result in terms of PRC and total delay. The PM

peak overall cycle time shown as 180 secs is for the combination of two consecutive

cycles, one of which includes the pedestrian green man period.

B2 Each page shows a schematic representation of the HCR geometric layout with

numerical results in each approach lane indicating traffic flow (pcu/hr), degree of

saturation (%age) and queue (pcu) as referenced by the Key at the bottom of the

diagram.

B3 The delay figures in my evidence (see 7.1/2) are obtained from total delay figure

(pcu.hrs) divided by the summation of the four approach flows (pcu) to give the delay

for each pcu (hrs), and then multiplied by 3,600 to give the delay for each pcu (secs).

B4. The Each lane approaching and leaving the junction is indicated by the grey shaded

shapes with a heavy black line to one side. Each of the numbered arms consists of a

one way direction of flow. The four exit lanes show just the traffic flow, but have zero

degrees of saturation and queuing.

B5 The black lines emanating from each lane number circle indicate the allowed turning

movements (i.e. left, ahead and right). The dotted line indicate where right turners

have to give way to oncoming vehicles.

B6 The white rectangles in front of two of the lines indicate right turn storage of 3 pcu in

front of stopline with one pcu offset to the right showing the how many can wait

without blocking (see 4.3)

Hugglescote CrossroadsPRC: -5.7 %Total Traffic Delay: 33.3 pcuHr

Arm

1 -

Cen

tr al R

oad

113

.495

.1%

338

Arm 2 - Grange Road

1 10.6 91.0% 273

Arm

3 -

Sta

tion

Roa

d

11 5

.092

. 6%

420

Arm 4 - Ashburton Road

115.093.8%394

Arm

5 -

10.0

0 .0%58 4

Arm 6 -

10.00.0%320

Arm

7 -

10.

00.

0%25

4

Arm 8 -

1 0.0 0.0% 267

A

B

C

D

KEY

Demand In Flow Deg. Sat. MMQ

Results For Scenario: 2020 AM Peak Base

Cycle Time: 90 PRC: -5.7% Tot Delay (pcuHr): 33.26


Arm

1 -

Cen

tral R

oad

127

.697

.8%

548

Arm 2 - Grange Road

1 24.6 100.2% 421

Arm

3 -

Sta

tion

Roa

d

19.

866

.1%

381


117.197.5%312

Arm

5 -

10.0

0.0%5 54

Arm 6 -

10.00.0%206

Arm

7 -

10.

00.

0%47

0

Arm 8 -

1 0.0 0.0% 432

A

B

C

D

KEY


Results For Scenario: 2020 PM Peak Base



Arm

1 -

Ce n

tral R

oad

112

.291

.9%

342

Arm 2 - Grange Road

1 12.5 94.1% 301

Arm

3 -

Sta

tion

Roa

d

118

.19 7

.1%

4 22


115.895.0%399

Arm

5 -

10.0

0.0 %594

Arm 6 -

10.00.0%331

Arm

7 -

10.

00.

0%25

9

Arm 8 -

1 0.0 0.0% 280

A

B

C

D

KEY


Results For Scenario: 2020 AM Base + Dev ( 8.3%)



Arm

1 -

Cen

tral R

o ad

135

.010

2.2%

557

Arm 2 - Grange Road

1 25.1 101.4% 436

Arm

3 -

Sta

t ion

Roa

d

19.

867

.9%

385


118.6101.3%324

Arm

5 -

10.0

0.0%559

Arm 6 -

10.00.0%231

Arm

7 -

10.

00 .

0%47

3

Arm 8 -

1 0.0 0.0% 439

A

B

C

D

KEY


Results For Scenario: 2020 PM Base + Dev ( 8.3%)



Arm

1 -

Cen

tral R

oad

11 5

.997

.7%

354

Arm 2 - Grange Road

1 23.4 103.2% 392

Arm

3 -

Sta

tion

Ro a

d

132

. 310

7.9 %

428


125.8104.0%416

Arm

5 -

10.0

0.0%626

Arm 6 -

10.00.0%366

Arm

7 -

10 .

00.

0 %27

5

Arm 8 -

1 0.0 0.0% 323

A

B

C

D

KEY


Results For Scenario: 2020 AM Base + Dev (36.1%)



Arm

1 -

Cen

tr al R

oad

156

.511

1.1 %

587

Arm 2 - Grange Road

1 51.5 113.5% 488

Arm

3 -

Sta

tion

Roa

d

11 0

.471

. 8%

400


137.7110.6%365

Arm

5 -

10.0

0 .0%57 7

Arm 6 -

10.00.0%317

Arm

7 -

10.

00.

0%48

2

Arm 8 -

1 0.0 0.0% 464

A

B

C

D

KEY


Results For Scenario: 2020 PM Base + Dev (36.1%)


rebuttal poe of d.reid 09.05.12€¦ · land off grange road, hugglescote rebuttal proof of...

Documents