Highways Agency - Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers

Related pages

• Executive summary
• 1 introduction
• 2 description of the route
• 3 policy objectives
• 4 route functions
• 5 land use and development control statement
• 6 route problems and performance
• 7 route outcomes
• 8 strategy impact statement
• 9 the next steps

5 land use and development control statement

5 Land Use and Development Control Statement

5.1 Introduction

The Land Use and Development Control Statement (LUDCS) comprises of the following elements

• The Existing Planning Context
• Land Use Development Pressures
• The Development Control Strategy

Development of a Land Use and Development Control Statement (LUDCS) is an integral part of the RMS process. Its purpose is to provide the HA with a stand alone source of information that provides the development control strategy for the route. This will allow the HA to contribute effectively to the development and formulation of policy documents at all levels of government and allow an open and transparent approach to individual planning applications.

The HA has undertaken extensive consultation with local planning authorities on land use and development control along the RMS route.

It is not envisaged that the land use pressures will have a major influence on the overall RMS. Future functions of the route will not change unless the strategic employment site, identified in RPG1, straddling the A184 is taken forward. If this takes place, then a detailed review will be necessary. There are several problems that exist however, and these are that individual junctions are already operating at or above capacity during peak hours. Future development will only put these under further pressure. These issues are discussed further in this report.

The Planning Context (section 5.2 below) will identify the relevant planning authorities, planning systems and documents that are applicable to the route. An understanding of the Land use Development Pressures (section 5.3) affecting the route will be essential in order to understand the future problems and issues to be addressed along the route. The Development Control Strategy (section 5.4) will consider each of these issues and provide guidance to both the HA and other relevant parties (e.g. developers, LA's, etc.) on how the route will be managed in the future, it will expand on the advice provided in Circular 4/2001 which sets out the HA's overall Development Control Policy.

5.2 The Planning Context

5.2.1 Changes to the Planning System

The Government is committed to a "plan led" system of land use planning and development control. Until July of this year the system of development plans was established under the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. Under this, County Councils and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) produce Development Plans. In the North East of England these are set in the strategic context of Regional Planning Guidance 1 (RPG 1).

In May 2004, the Government's Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act received Royal Assent. This Act repeals sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, adds to and amends other legislation, and introduces new sections of legislation. The effect is to set out a fundamental reform of the development planning system, with the aim of simplifying the system.

Different parts of the Act will be enacted at different times over 2004 and 2005; for example Regional Planning Guidance is replaced by statutory Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS's), and existing RPG's became the RSS in September 2004.

The Act also abolishes structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans and replaces them with a new single level of plan. This would be known as a Local Development Framework (LDF). LDF's will comprise a series of Local Development Documents (LDD's), some of which would have development plan status and will consist of statements of core policy and some action plans, where there is pressure for change. These will be subject to independent examination. Other LDD's will have the status of what is currently known as supplementary planning guidance.

There is now a transition period and certain parts of the Act still require changes to be laid before parliament before they come into force. During this period it is necessary to continue to rely on existing development plans that have been adopted or approved before commencement. It is proposed that whatever constitutes the development plan in an area will retain development plan status (i.e. be 'saved') for three years from commencement of the new Act. This three year 'saved' period will also apply to draft plans, once adopted. During this three-year period, the Local Authority would bring forward new Local Development Documents to progressively replace the policies in the 'saved' plan. The policies in any 'saved' structure plan will be progressively replaced by revisions to the RSS. (It should be noted that undeveloped land use allocations in existing development plans are not automatically carried forward into Local Development Documents

In addition to these proposed changes national planning policies as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG's) are currently being revised and will become shorter Planning Policy Statements with the aim of providing greater clarity of advice.

5.2.2 National Planning Policy

Not withstanding the changes to the planning system (as outlined in section 5.2.1) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG13) set out the existing national planning policy in respect of transport. In accordance with Annex B of PPG13 the Highways Agency (HA) encourages local planning authorities (LPAs) to consider alternatives to the use of the private car in devising access to local developments. The HA will take these alternatives into account, providing they have been agreed and secured, when it assesses the scale of or need for relevant highways works.

5.2.3 Regional Planning Policy

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), is the renamed RPG1, that set out the existing regional planning policy, which should be read in the context of the Government's Ten-year Plan for Transport (Transport 2010) published in July 2000, although policy direction has recently been updated in the Future of Transport published in July 2004. A Regional Transport Strategy was prepared in 2002 by the Regional Planning Body, the North East Regional Assembly. It provides regional priorities for transport investment and management across all modes. The RTS is an integral part of the RSS.

In some cases strategic studies (for example Multi-Modal Studies) provide a way of identifying planning and transport options within a corridor or area. In the case of the Tyne and Wear area the Government Office undertook a study known as TAMMS (Tyneside Area Multi Modal Study). Options emanating from this strategic study have been considered by the Assembly and its recommendations were subsequently submitted to and considered by the Secretary of State for Transport.

5.2.4 Local Planning Policy

Several Local Planning Authorities (LPA) cover the route; each one is required to prepare a Development Plan. This provided the existing framework for development, development control and conservation. The format of the Development Plan is dependent on the nature of the Local Authority and took the form of either a Structure Plan, a Local Plan, or a Unitary Development Plan. A list of the LPAs that are relevant to this RMS are identified in table 5.1.

In future there will be Local Development Frameworks with a series of Local Development Documents but up to 2004 Structure Plans have set the strategic framework for development within each county. District Councils have produced Local Plans that set out the locations in which particular types of development should take place, an indication of the overall density of that development, together with policies that govern spatial development within their area. County Councils also produced Mineral Plans and separate Waste Plans that indicate the framework for development within each county.

Unitary Authorities have prepared a Unitary Development Plan for their area; this set the existing framework for area wide development. These were a combination of structure and local plans and may also contain details of Minerals Plans and Waste Plans.

In addition, Local Highway Authorities prepare Local Transport Plans (LTP's) that look specifically at transport issues and set out Authorities' proposals in this field over a 5-year period.

In summary the local development plans that have been reviewed in this study and their status are indicated in Table 5.2. The key findings and potential impacts of a review of the relevant policies are identified in Table 5.3.

5.2.5 Application of DfT Circular 04/2001

The DfT (as DTLR) Circular 4/2001 sets out national development control policy for the trunk road and motorway network. In order to maintain safety and free flow of traffic, policy in the past has been to discourage the formation of new accesses to trunk roads.

Paragraph 6 of Circular 4/2001 states 'Of particular importance is that trunk roads should not be regarded as a convenient means of dealing with local problems, for example, by proposing additional junctions on them simply in order to relieve traffic pressures within the local area.

Circular 4/2001 also applies to developments near existing trunk road junctions where the effect of development would be material on the junction.

Where a proposed development will affect the trunk road the DfT Circular 04/2001 "The Control of Development Affecting Trunk Roads" requires developers to provide sufficient information, whether in a Transport Assessment or separately, to allow the impact of the development on the trunk road to be assessed. The Transport Assessment would be examined by the HA Land Use Team to assess whether it adequately describes the impact of the development on the trunk road. This will enable appropriate conditions to be applied to the planning permission or, in exceptional cases, the direction of refusal.

The HA considers that the level of congestion on parts of the route is such that anything except a minimal increase in traffic entering or leaving these areas during peak periods should be regarded as material (i.e. not the indicative national figure of 5% referred to in Section 12 of Circular 04/2001).

DTLR Circular 04/2001 is unaffected by the changes introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Highways Agency's obligations to maintain safety and the free flow of traffic on trunk roads will remain unchanged.

5.2.6 National Procedures and Policy - Control of Advertisements

Planning Policy Guidance Note 19 (PPG19) sets out national planning policy in respect of control of advertisements. Paragraph 15 deals with public safety issues including the potential for advertisements to distract drivers.

Further advice on assessing the public safety implications of the display of an advertisement is given in Appendix B to the Annex to DOE Circular 5/92. Appendix B also requires LPAs to take advice from the Secretary of State for Transport before granting consent of an application for an advertisement, where it appears to the LPA that this may affect the safety of trunk road users. The HA provides this advice on behalf of the Secretary of State.

PPG19 is unaffected by the changes introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Highways Agency's obligations to provide advice as whether advertisements affect the safe and free flow of traffic on trunk roads will remain unchanged (at least until the advice of the PPG is replaced by a planning policy statement).

5.2.7 Land Use Planning Procedure

Under the 'plan led system' local planning authorities produce development plans that set out in what locations particular types of development should take place.

PPG12 advises that LPAs and the Highway Authority consult with each other as part of the preparation of development plans. This opens up a constructive dialogue with local planning and highway authorities in advance of the drawing up of development plans and local transport plans. This ensures that the trunk road network is properly integrated into the planning process and that factors which might affect its operation, are given early audience.

In general, Local Development Frameworks reflect policy statements about the impact of traffic on the highway network, but do not specify improvements to the motorway and trunk road network or the local road network. Developers must agree any necessary improvements to the motorway or trunk road with the HA and the Local Planning Authority when a planning application is submitted.

5.2.8 Planning Application Procedure

The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 requires Local Planning Authorities to consult the HA about planning applications that may affect the operation of the motorway and trunk road network. For example, where a development would create a material increase in the amount of traffic entering or leaving a motorway.

In some cases proposed development will only be acceptable if measures are on the trunk road network to mitigate the impact of the proposed development. Circular 4/2001 gives guidance on the operational life required of these measures, how developers should agree them with the HA, how they will be conditioned into planning permissions and how developers should pay the HA for them.

The HA is likely to direct the LPA not to permit an application where the developer has not supplied an adequate Transport Assessment and the HA believes one is necessary to establish the effect of the development on the trunk road. The HA will withdraw this 'holding direction' when the developer supplies adequate information and the HA has had the opportunity to assess it.

Measures required to accommodate development, including measures on trunk roads, may be delivered more effectively if they are funded on a joint basis by a number of developers in an area. The HA encourages LPAs to draw up development briefs where appropriate to identify these measures. The HA will help LPAs to incorporate any measures on trunk roads into these briefs. The HA will also seek to facilitate mechanisms to collect and distribute payments for the measures needed, however, the HA would not expect to be a 'purse holder' and for legal reasons cannot be a party to agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A joint fund would have to reimburse the HA using Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 for any measures on the trunk road.

The HA encourages developers to discuss development proposals with the HA at an early stage. This will help both parties to understand the full implications of the proposals and avoid unnecessary cost, delay and disappointment.

Where a development would have significant transport implications, most commonly an increase in vehicular movements, the developer is normally expected to provide an assessment of the effects of the development on transport. The HA encourages local planning authorities to consider public transport alternatives to access new developments rather than by car and, where these alternatives have been agreed and secured, will take these into account in assessing the scale of, or need for, relevant highway works (Planning Policy Guidance Note 13, Annex B). If a development may adversely affect the strategic road network, it is generally helpful for developers to discuss the implications with the HA before submitting a planning application. Developers may be required to pay for any improvements needed to cater for traffic over the following fifteen years.

Developers should also be aware that significant individual developments, or cumulative developments, might have the potential to create 'exit blocking' whereby traffic queues back along slip roads on to the main carriageways of the motorways. This is a significant safety issue and the HA may, when consulted on such an application, make a representation to the LPA recommending that if mitigation to prevent exit blocking is not incorporated into the design, that the application be refused.

The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 is unaffected by the changes introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Order Act 2004. These procedures for the assessment of planning applications and the issue of Directions or recommendations to be used in determining planning applications will remain unchanged until such time as the Order is rescinded.

5.3 Land Use Development Pressures

A review of existing and future land use has been undertaken that has identified areas of land that might increase traffic pressures along the RMS route.

The UDP's, Structure and Local Plans for Unitary Authorities, County Councils and LPAs (these were the planning documents in place at the time of this assessment) through which the A194(M)/A184/A19 passes have been reviewed and 56 sites noted (see Table 5.3). In addition, details of planning applications have been identified along the route.

The 56 sites identified all involve land use allocations/development that is of sufficient scale or would have an accumulative effect, generating significant additional traffic on the A194(M)/A184/A19 and its junctions. The majority of these sites are concentrated on the A19. There is, however, a study recently commissioned by the City of Sunderland Council that will investigate the feasibility of accommodating a Strategic Employment Site on land either side of the A184. The employment site could range between 40 and 200 hectares in size. A final report is expected during 2005.

The land use development pressures have been tabulated for each section of the RMS route and are shown overleaf in Table 5.3. They show both land use allocations and status and current planning applications. A set of Plans showing the locations of these Land Use and Development pressures is included in Appendix F.

5.3.1 Pressures Identified in Minerals Local Plans and Strategies

5.3.1.1 Northumberland

A review of the Minerals Local Plan indicates that there are no sites identified that are planned for development.

5.3.1.2 Tyne and Wear

There is limited existing and proposed minerals activity in the Tyne and Wear metropolitan councils areas. They are not heavily involved with existing or proposed minerals activity and maintain their strategies from policies outlined in their Unitary Development Plans.

Whilst transport of minerals takes place on the highway network there are thought to be no significant development proposals in the short term.

5.3.2 Pressures Identified in Waste Plans and Strategies

Waste polices are under development in most local authorities due to various changes in targets for recycling and changes which reduce the attractiveness and availability of landfill sites.

General policies on waste are covered in the Unitary Development Plans in the Tyne and Wear metropolitan boroughs and Northumberland in their Joint Structure Plan. Northumberland has issued a separate Waste Local Plan whilst South Tyneside and North Tyneside have issued separate strategy documents. The others are preparing new strategies, which are currently unavailable for reference.

A review of the current Northumberland Waste Local Plan has indicated that an existing landfill site at Seghill is identified as a site for expansion. This appears from a review of available information to be the only development that effects the route.

There may, however, be pressures to revise strategies in light of the EU Landfill Directive where there is a progressive requirement in the reduction of the amount of biodegradable municipal waste disposed to landfill.

5.3.3 Impact Assessment

The impact assessment provides an initial assessment of the likely impact future land use and development could have upon the route. In general, a simplified approach has been used, the assessment evaluates the development pressures along each section of the RMS route and assesses the likely impact these pressures will have upon the capacity of the highway infrastructure.

5.3.3.1 Link Capacity

Daily congestion along the route has been assessed using the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC), this is the ratio of daily traffic flow to a congestion reference traffic flow (calculated in accordance with the HA guidance contained within TA 46/97). The following table summarises these results

(Note: NTC - New Tyne Crossing)

As the RFC approaches unity, delays due to congestion will increase as the demand approaches the available capacity.

The results indicate that each of the links will be able to accommodate the growth in traffic over the period of the RMS and that there is sufficient spare capacity to accommodate the land use aspirations contained within the various UDP's.

5.3.3.2 Junction Capacity

Section 1 - A194(M)

Directly adjacent to the A194(M) there lies a number of areas designated predominately for economic development. Should these areas be developed, it is likely that the additional traffic generated would filter onto the A194(M) increasing operational pressures upon the following junctions:

• B1288/A182 Albany
• A195 Follingsby
• A194(M)/A184 White Mare Pool

Available data indicates that the White Mare Pool junction is currently operating beyond capacity during peak periods, resulting in congestion and driver delays.

Improvements to this junction are currently being implemented and will address the existing problems.

Section 2 - A184

There are studies underway investigating the feasibility of providing a strategic employment site in the vicinity of the A184. This may be between 40 and 200 hectares in size. This would have an effect on the route, specifically to the operational performance of the A184/A19 Testo's junction.

Testo's junction currently operates at capacity during peak periods with minimal spare capacity to accommodate any additional traffic. Should the strategic employment site go forward, it is likely that additional traffic would reduce performance.

There is a Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) Scheme for this junction.

Section 3 - A19 (south of the Tyne Tunnel)

The main development pressures associated with this section are located in the vicinity of the south portal of the Tyne Tunnel and along the southern bank of the River Tyne. This area has been designated for continued and increased industrial development.

Should development of this nature occur during the RMS time frame, the additional traffic generated would impact upon the following junctions:

• A194 Lindisfarne
• South portal to the Tyne Tunnel

Both these junctions currently experience operational problems during peak periods with drivers facing congestion and lengthy delays. It is likely that further development would increase delays.

The junction at the south portal to the Tyne Tunnel would be improved if a second crossing is constructed.

Section 4 and 5 - A19 (north of the Tyne Tunnel to Holystone Junction)

There are a significant number of UDP Land Use Allocations and Proposed Development Plans identified along these sections. The majority of the land use has been designated for economic and residential use, along with areas of retail.Newly created development in this area has already added to traffic pressures at the following junctions:

• North portal to the Tyne Tunnel
• A1058 Silverlink

Current analytical data suggests that the A193 Wallsend Road junction performs satisfactorily now and will do so for the foreseeable future. The A186/A191 Holystone junction currently operates satisfactorily. Improvements are planned at the junction to accommodate committed development. Comments received during the RMS indicate that congestion problems are being experienced at Holystone junction.

The A1058 Silverlink junction is not currently operating satisfactorily as it suffers from peak hour queuing.

Should development continue in this area, then it is likely that the amount of additional traffic that would be generated will have a detrimental effect on the operational performance of all four junctions along these two sections.

The A1058 Silverlink junction is under consideration for entry to the TPI.

Section 6 - A19 (between Holystone and Moor Farm Junctions)

A significant length of this section runs through greenbelt and immediate development pressures are restricted as a result. However, there are developments and highway improvements away from the route that will increase pressure on the A189 Moor Farm and A1056 Killingworth junctions, for example Cramlington developments along the A189 and the A1056 highway improvements (Sandy Lane).

Both junctions presently experience congestion and delays during peak periods and further proposals would intensify the congestion and delays.

The Moor Farm roundabout is under consideration for entry to the TPI

Section 7 - A19 (between Moor Farm and Seaton Burn Junctions)

As with Section 6, a significant length of this section runs through greenbelt and as a result immediate development pressures are restricted.

The junction with the A1 at Seaton Burn and the A1068 Fisher Lane roundabout both currently experiences congestion and delays during peak periods and it is likely that further pressure from additional traffic would be experienced.

The Seaton Burn A1 junction and A1068 Fisher Lane Roundabout have obtained entry to the TPI.

5.4 The Development Control Strategy

5.4.1 General

The RMS route is made up of three differing standards, these are:

• The A194(M) - This is of a 2 lane motorway standard with grade separated junctions at 1.5, 2.7 and 2.0 km spacing. It is rural in nature.
• The A184 - This is a dual 2 lane carriageway with direct access to farms
• and residential properties along its section. At either end of the 2.7 km section there is presently an interchange and roundabout. It is rural in nature.
• The A19 - This is a dual 2 lane carriageway with alternating grade- separated and at-grade junctions/interchanges along its length. Spacing of junctions/interchanges vary between 0.8 km and 2.8 km along this section. There is no direct access along its length and it is both rural and urban in nature.

Junctions and accesses are sources of possible conflict and a balance needs to be struck between providing access and maintaining safety. It appears that junctions and accesses are already sufficiently numerous and closely spaced to serve developments. The HA is likely to oppose any new accesses to or junctions on the A194(M)/A184/A19 both in terms of their effect on safety and the tendency for closely spaced junctions to attract local traffic on to strategic roads.

It is not envisaged that the land use pressures will have a major influence on the overall RMS. Future functions of the route are unlikely to change unless a strategic employment site near to the A184 is taken forward. If this takes place then a detailed review will be necessary.

An estimated traffic growth of 14% on the A194(M)/A184/A19 over the period 2004 to 2014 is envisaged. Over this period, the link capacity of the route is unlikely to be adversely affected by traffic growth, however, future development will only add pressure to junctions. Section 5.4.2 outlines an approach that will seek to minimise the impact of future land use and development on the RMS route. Detailed study and consultation will however, still be necessary to determine in detail any possible future impact.

Some long-term improvements have been identified. At present two schemes are included in the Governments Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPIs), these are improvements to Testo's roundabout and Seaton Burn interchange (including Fisher Land Roundabout). Ministers have also asked the HA to develop schemes for the Moor Farm, and Silverlink junctions for TPI entry.

5.4.2 Approach to Development Plan Representations and Individual Planning Applications

Table 5.4 sets out specific guidance on the approach the HA will adopt in response to Development Plan Representations and individual Planning Applications along specific sections and at specific locations along the route.

In general the Highways Agency supports the aim of sustainable development but emphasises the need to minimise traffic generation onto the trunk road network. To this end the HA recognises the importance of preparing effective travel plans, including enforceable targets for reducing levels of traffic generation, especially at peak times. These should be included in the proposals put forward by developers. This is in accordance with Government policy and reiterated in the latest White Paper, "The Future of Transport" published in July 2004.

5.5 Route Outcomes

The following Route Outcomes are of particular relevance to the LUDCS:

• RO1: To identify short and long term measures to address congestion and seek to improve journey time reliability.
• RO4: To facilitate and support sustainable regeneration and employment opportunities.
• RO10: To improve facilities that will contribute to integration of different forms of public transport.
• RO11: To maintain and develop relationships with relevant stakeholders and other bodies with an interest in the route.
• RO12: To improve facilities for Heavy Goods Vehicles and contribute to the integration of different forms of freight transport.

Further to RO1, the degree to which junction capacity will be affected by further development has not been assessed in detail. Further investigation should be undertaken:

• to confirm the existing and future capacity of the junctions and the route,
• the pressures likely to be exerted by the development,
• identify committed or approved development taking place,
• identify measures needed to cope with pressures, (expanding on the findings of the A19 Corridor Study) and
• liaise with LPA's over a future strategy.

Further to RO10, it is recognised that there is a need to encourage drivers to change their mode of transport. There is potential to encourage this change alongside the measures and strategies being made by local authorities, transport operators and Nexus. Park and Ride is one of the measures that can contribute to mode change and the HA supports in principle the provision of Park and Ride Sites where appropriate, that reduce congestion on the trunk road network.Further to RO11, discussions should be pursued with Planning Authorities regarding the review of the Structure Plans, Unitary Development Plans and Local Plans. In revisions to Local Plans and LTPs, the HA encourages local planning and highway authorities, to include policies and/or measures that:

• Ensure traffic leaving the A194(M)/A184/A19 can exit without dangerous tailbacks on to the main carriageway;
• Prevent the peak capacity of the A194(M)/A184/A19 being exceeded as a result of joining traffic.