Access, Transport and Traffic Assessment for Dickens Yard Proposal
This page sets out SEC's assessment of the Transport, Traffic and Access provision and considers the impact of any related issues that will arise.
Summary
Nearly all the problems with transport are due to the much increased size of the development when compared to the planning brief.
1. Residential parking
The 301 spaces may be appropriate for the 698 housing units in a “low car use” development, but the original 250 units would have required fewer than 100 spaces.
2. Public parking
After allowing for a continuation of some existing use, 282 spaces exceed the brief of 200 spaces by about 25%. This is partly the result of a net increase of 8,000 m² in retail floor space, compared to 7,000 m² in the brief.
3. Servicing
Space for commercial vehicles servicing residential and commercial areas seems to have been under-provided, and could cause congestion on the road.
4. Vehicle access
Entry and exit to all basement parking through a single portal on Longfield Avenue, with an uncontrolled right turns at entry for commercial vehicles as well as most cars, will create congestion and risk to all users, especially cyclists.
5. Pedestrian access
Integration of the development with other parts of the town centre and Haven Green/Ealing Broadway station is dependant on plans for an improved public realm for the whole of the centre, which are not yet committed or do not even exist.
6. Traffic generation
Vehicular traffic will increase by at least half as much again as would have been the case of a development of a size specified in the brief. This will lead to unacceptable volumes particularly at the Longfield Road/Uxbridge Road junction, which will be near to or exceed capacity at peak hours. There are no measures to implement the aim of preventing more car traffic using neighbouring residential roads. Undertakings to restrict commercial vehicles from using Gordon Road are probably unenforceable.
A. Planning Policy
Apart from the general provisions of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and the Ealing Town Centre improvement strategy, Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Dickens Yard site contained in the planning brief of June 2004 has several objectives for access and transport. These should be used to judge how far St. George has met the brief. The following are direct extracts:
3.3 The Town Centre strategy
· promotes improved public transport, walking and cycling facilities
· promotes improvements to the quality and location of car parks – but with an aim of not increasing overall the number of car parking spaces within the whole Centre whilst still maintaining commercial viability.
4.1 All development proposals must include an extended town centre public car park.
4.3 A vital factor…is how the site physically links with the rest of the town centre.
5.1 This development will require a strong physical link to the rest of the town centre.
5.3 Design must…promote the permeability of the site by providing safe, attractive pedestrian connections through and around the site.
5.5 The Council wants to avoid extra traffic on residential roads. Development proposals will need to include measures to deter this as far as feasible.
5.5 Rear servicing to Nos. 14-36 New Broadway must be accommodated…access rights currently exist across the site…and must be continued.
5.6 Accessibility
Pedestrian access can be improved by
· Creating a new and dynamic public space as the “front door”
· Widening the pedestrian path linking to Springbridge Road and, if practicable, removing the steps
Vehicles should enter and leave the site from the direction of Uxbridge Road rather than ...Gordon Road.
5.7 Parking
· No overall increase in the number of public parking spaces in the centre …(but)…adequate parking is a key factor in supporting the viability and vitality of town centres…
· Approx 200 spaces should be provided on Dickens Yard.
· Parking should also serve new non-residential development.
· Residential development should only cater for low car ownership…(with no)…residents’ on-street parking permits.
· A City Car Club should be established.
5.10 Access to open space
The closest [open space] is Haven Green increasing the importance of improving the pedestrian route to Springbridge Road at the north-eastern corner of the site.
Cabinet on 4 December 2007 approved a plan to negotiate access via Springbridge Mews and the car park, but this will not be concluded until the Dickens Yard scheme “has gone unconditional”.
B. Proposed provisions
1. Parking
The plan provides for
a. Car parking.
· 282 public spaces at 1st basement level, replacing the present 295 (of which 7 are now disabled and 5 loading). 15% will be for disabled. This is a ratio of 1 space for 32 m² of retail area.
· 301 residents’ bays (43% provision), c.10%? disabled, at 2nd basement.
b. Cycle/motor cycle bays
· 786 cycle spaces (one per unit) split between lower and upper basement levels
· 5 motorcycle bays for residents on 2nd level
· 40 cycle spaces for employees of the mixed use units and 5 public m/c spaces on the upper basement
· 66 secure public cycle racks at ground level across the site
c. A “car free agreement” to be imposed, so that residents will not be able to apply for on-street parking permits (but can of course apply for parking places in the basement).
2. Servicing
A limited number of bays in the second basement for refuse collection and deliveries
3. Access
· All vehicle access will be from Longfield Avenue into the basement through the portal in Block A.
· A residential drop-off point is provided in Heritage Court at the rear
· Emergency vehicles can enter the site from Longfield Avenue at Heritage Court and Victoria Lane, and from Market Square by the church.
· Entry and access for all commercial vehicles will be controlled so that they are instructed to enter only from the direction of the Uxbridge Road. Private vehicles will be free to enter from the Gordon Road end as well.
· Pedestrian access is from all these points, plus the lane to the east of the Town Hall (Dickens Walk). There are no specific plans for changed access to the Springbridge Road car park or Springbridge Mews.
4. Traffic impact
· Total traffic flows in the area have calculated using the figures submitted for the Arcadia development as a base line.
· Mitigation measures are assumed through changes to the SCOOT system (public electronic traffic control) to reduce the impact of increased traffic on the Uxbridge Road and in particular the Longfield Ave junction. These are unspecified but limited in impact.
C. SEC Comment
1. Parking
(a) Cars
· Residential
301 car spaces for the 698 housing units, at 43%, is a balance between the Council maximum standard of one space per unit for family housing (5 habitable rooms) and a “low car ownership” target for the site. A high proportion of the units (276) will be studio or 1-bed, and 50% of the total affordable, giving an average of 2.6 habitable rooms per unit. The number of spaces is therefore as high as could be reasonably expected, except that the proportion of disabled bays may be low given the number of units for the elderly (73).
· Retail/public
The total number of 282 replacement public spaces provided in place of the present 295 is at a ratio to retail space of 1:32 sqm, excluding other non-residential uses. This compares with the present ratio of 1:15.6 sqm for Ealing centre as a whole, and will reduce the town centre figure to 1:19.3. No allowance has been made to accommodate any of the present authorised weekday users of the DY car park, including existing retail units and staff/visitors to the Town Hall and Perceval House, who currently fill the car park to capacity. While most of these will be displaced totally, some continued use should be assumed, but is unquantified.
The retail strategy set out in the Design and Access Statement says that
“The key objective is to ensure that Dickens Yard tenant mix is able to attract not only the residents of Ealing but the wider borough and more affluent areas thus competing with other chic London suburbs. This will create Ealing as the customer destination of first choice and prevent the current consumer leakage to nearby centres and thereby retaining more expenditure in Ealing meeting sustainability objectives.”
The comparison retail provision is to be a ”distinctive offer of retail brands that are currently not present in Ealing [which] will ensure a wider draw and will maximise the footfall to Dickens Yard and help to re-position Ealing as a premier shopping destination.”
“Aspirational” shoppers visiting comparison stores are more likely to be car drivers than those visiting less “up market” sites. The trip generation figures in the Transport Assessment (TA) assume 43 in and out movements in the pm weekday peak hour, none in the morning, and 75 on Saturdays (no assessments have been made for other periods). However there is an inconsistency in these results when taking into account the character of the target shopper and the fact that on both weekdays and Saturdays the DY car park, with a larger number of spaces, is presently at capacity. The TA acknowledges that “the development will decrease the number of car parking spaces per sqm of retail floor space [in Ealing centre as a whole], and thus encourage the public to travel into the Town Centre by more sustainable transport modes by providing no additional public car parking”. It goes on to say that “it is unlikely that the development will draw large numbers of shoppers from other centres”. This must challenge the key element of the retail strategy.
(b) Cycles/motor cycles
Given the proportion of elderly accommodation, a ratio of one cycle space per dwelling seems excessive. Some of this might be re-allocated to disabled car space. There are no guide figures for motor cycle space, but the allowance seems low.
2.. Servicing
The number of loading bays (1 LGV and 3 HGV) for both residential and retail servicing equates, at the 20 minutes average per visit allowed, to a capacity of 96 calls in an eight hour day. As the trip assessment in the TA is 31 for residential and 38 for retail without allowing for existing units, this seems low,, and could lead to bunching of vehicles in Longfield Avenue.
As with parking, there seems to have been no allowance made in the figures for servicing 14-36 New Broadway.
3. Access
(a) Vehicles
· The total number of car movements in the peak hours is assessed in the TA as 104 (am weekdays), 150 (pm weekdays), and 183 (Saturdays). This excludes any am retail visitors, commercial vehicles and, as noted above, any continued existing users and is therefore likely to be an under-estimate. Because of the capacity constraints at the Longfield Avenue/Uxbridge Road junction, a high proportion of leaving traffic will turn right to Gordon Road. This, coupled with the inward movement from the Uxbridge Road, will create considerable congestion at the (uncontrolled) entrance and at the Gordon Road junction.
· No assessment has been made of the impact of increased traffic at the Longfield Road/Castlebar Road and Longfield Road/Gordon Road junctions, which is a bus route and is already heavily congested at peak times.
· LGV/HGV users are to be subject to restrictions obliging them not to use the Gordon Road route. However there is no indication of how this is to be controlled, and LGVs in particular are likely to ignore the directions when faced with jams on the Uxbridge Road.
(b) Cycling
The TA recognises that Longfield Avenue is a recommended cycling route as a “quieter road”. However cyclists entering and leaving the site will have to share the same access point as cars and commercial vehicles, and the increased cross-over flows will destroy much of this safer environment.
(c) Pedestrians
The majority (52%) of peak hour trips by residents of the development are assessed to be on foot, mainly towards the station to pick up bus, tube or train connections. However the TA wrongly splits these between the existing routes via Gordon Road and New Broadway, ignoring the fact the walkers are likely to take the shortest route to Haven Green, which will be from the north-east corner of the site (Springbridge Mews). This highlights the importance of improving this route, for which no allowance has been made.
Because the footpath alongside the Springbridge Road car park is outside the development site, responsibility for providing an adequate access remains with the Council. Cabinet on 4 December 2007 agreed to negotiate access rights across land at the front of Springbridge Mews and rights to undertake works to Springbridge Road Car Park for access to and from Haven Green. However no action has been committed until after planning permission is granted to the St George scheme. This is the limit of the Council’s commitment, and there remains no plan to review the whole of the town centre public realm, including linkages between Dickens Yard and the High Street/Broadway Centre.
4. Traffic
(a) Cars
The TA calculates that there will be around residential 100 car trips in and out of the site at peak hours, and an additional 43 car trips generated by weekday retail visitors only at the pm peak This assumes no retail trips before 10 am, and may be unrealistic.
(b) Commercial
Visits to the site by LGVs/HGVs are assessed at only 69 a day (presumably producing 168 trips). As above, this seems an under-estimate, as it does not allow for any existing use to be continued. If as noted above there is any bunching of arrivals meaning that all 5 bays are full, there will be queuing in Longfield Avenue waiting for admission.
(c) Total
It is claimed that there will be no net rise in am peak traffic in Longfield Avenue, because of the loss of existing users. Evening peak will rise by 8% and Saturdays by 10.5%, 75% - 80% of it in the direction of the Uxbridge Road. However this will bring the A4020 junction close to full capacity, meaning growing queues. Alternatively, the natural tendency for drivers to seek a less congested route will probably mean that in practice a higher proportion will go north onto Gordon Road, particularly if the public car park proves more attractive to residents to the north and west than the alternatives (Springbridge Road/Town Centre), which involve negotiating the Broadway. This would negate the commitment to avoid traffic increases on the residential roads to the north of the site. The tables also hide the fact that there would be a significant increase in traffic during off-peak hours, as retail visitors stay for an average of 2 hours, generating four times as many trips as long-stay commuters.