Final for Proposed Waste Viridor

Page 7 of 40

Waterman Boreham Ltd

1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction

1.1 Waterman Boreham Ltd has been instructed by Viridor to advise on traffic and transportation

issues relating to proposals to develop a site for waste processing in Lostock Gralam.

1.2 This report provides supplementary information to assist Cheshire West and Chester Council

(CWCC) in the determination of a planning application for the proposed development.

Development Proposals Overview

1.3 The site is located approximately 2 kilometres (km) east of Northwich town centre and was

previously used for chlorine manufacture. It has been unoccupied since 2001.

1.4 It is proposed that the site be redeveloped to provide a Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), an

education centre and associated offices.

1.5 The WTP will incorporate a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant. Waste will be delivered

from throughout Cheshire to be processed. The MBT mechanically separates waste to produce

various recyclates before sending it through a biodrying process to also produce a solid recovered

fuel (SRF). The recyclates will be delivered to various end users. The SRF will be transported by

rail for use in Runcorn. The WTP will have an overall capacity of 220,000 to 250,000 tonnes per

annum.

1.6 The development has been assessed using a methodology agreed with CWCC Highways

Department.

Scope

1.7 Following this introduction, Section 2 of the report provides a comprehensive description of the

existing conditions affecting the site. This includes the local highway network and facilities for

pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.

1.8 Section 3 contains an analysis of the local area in terms of highway safety.

1.9 The development proposals are described in Section 4. This includes a description of the

development, the access arrangement and an explanation of how the site will operate.

Page 8 of 40


1.10 Section 5 assesses the suitability of the site within the context of national, regional and local

transport planning policy. The accessibility of the site by modes other than private car is assessed

in Section 6.

1.11 Section 7 contains the traffic assessment, and includes the agreed methodology for which the

impact of the development has been assessed. Section 8 presents the results of junction capacity

assessments and details all conclusions.

1.12 A Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) Management Strategy is contained within Section 9.

1.13 The report is summarised and concluded in Section 10.

Page 9 of 40


2. EXISTING CONDITIONS

Site Location and Site Access

2.1 The application site is a former ICI chemical works which produced chlorine until its closure in

2001. It is currently owned by Ineos Chlor and is occupied by derelict buildings and numerous

tanks and plant associated with its former use. Disused rail sidings are present to the north of the

site.

2.2 The site is located off Griffiths Road in Lostock Gralam, approximately 2 km east of Northwich

town centre. The site is shown from a regional perspective in Plan 1 and from a local viewpoint in

Plan 2.

2.3 The site is accessed via a private estate road shared with the Brunner Mond works and Solvay

facility off Griffiths Road.

2.4 The private estate road forms a priority junction with Griffiths Road. This access road extends for

approximately 650 metres into the wider industrial estate.

Surrounding Highway Network

2.5 There is a 60 metre diverging taper from Griffiths Road into the access to allow for deceleration of

HGVs. The turning radii at the junction are sufficient to accommodate the large articulated HGVs

that currently access the units adjacent to the site. It is considered these are suitable for the

proposed use.

2.6 Griffiths Road (A530) is a local distributor road linking the A559 Manchester Road to the north

with Middlewich to the south.

2.7 Griffiths Road consists of a single lane in each direction and has a number of bends and sharp

turns along its length. It is subject to a 40mph speed limit although it has been observed that

some vehicle speeds exceed this limit. There are two low bridges with height restrictions of 3.6m

and 4.8m to the north. This restricts access from Manchester Road for HGVs.

2.8 The junction with the A559 Manchester Road is approximately 1km to the north and takes the

form of a three arm priority junction. Manchester Road provides access to Lostock Gralam to the

east and Northwich to the west.

2.9 Approximately 600m to the south of the site Griffiths Road meets Middlewich Road (B5082) and

Penny’s Lane at a four arm staggered priority junction, with Griffiths Road being the major arm.

Page 10 of 40


Middlewich Road provides access to Northwich town centre to the north west. Penny’s Lane

provides local access only to a number of residential buildings.

2.10 South of this junction the A530 becomes King Street and extends for approximately 500m to the

junction with the A556 at a four arm priority roundabout. The A556 is the primary route for

accessing the local and regional strategic road network, including the M6 and M56.

Facilities for Pedestrians, Cyclists and Public Transport Users

2.11 Pedestrian connectivity reflects the industrial nature of the estate. However access for

pedestrians can be gained from Griffiths Road.

2.12 A traffic free cycle route passes close to the site along the Trent and Mersey canal. It links the site

with Rudheath to the south with Marston and Northwich to the north west.

2.13 With regard to public transport facilities, there are bus stops to the north of the site on Manchester

Road and to the south on Middlewich Road. Lostock Gralam rail station is located approximately

2km to the east of the site.

Page 11 of 40


3. HIGHWAY SAFETY

3.1 Five years of personal injury accident data, for the period 2003 to 2008, have been obtained for

the study area. The data is contained in Appendix 1.

3.2 The study area is defined by the junctions and links potentially affected by changes in traffic flows.

The junctions considered include:

• Griffiths Road / Manchester Road;

• King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road; and

• the A556 / King Street roundabout.

3.3 The links examined include Griffiths Road, between Manchester Road and Middlewich Road, and

King Street, between Middlewich Road and the A556. The site access junction with Griffiths Road

is considered within the wider link between Manchester Road and Middlewich Road. The data

have been considered for each link and junction individually to identify any local safety issues.

Griffiths Road / Manchester Road

3.4 A total of three accidents have occurred at the Griffiths Road / Manchester Road junction since

2003, resulting in six slight injuries. The three accidents all involved vehicles turning right into

Griffiths Road. Two were caused by vehicles colliding to the rear of a right turning car and one

was caused by a vehicle colliding into the back of a car which had slowed to allow a right turning

vehicle.

3.5 All accidents occurred between 2003 and 2005 and there have been no accidents since then.

3.6 No accidents occurred involving pedestrians over any arm of the junction.

King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road

3.7 The King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road junction was the site of six

accidents throughout the period. These were spread throughout the study period occurring in

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008. With regard to spread throughout the year, two occurred in

March, one in August, one in October and two in November. They occurred at all times

throughout the day from 08:00 to 19:15.

3.8 No accidents involved pedestrians and only one involved a cyclist. This occurred in 2006 when a

car collided into the back of the cyclist.

Page 12 of 40


3.9 Of the six accidents, four involved vehicles pulling out of Middlewich Road, and one was caused

by a vehicle waiting to turn into Middlewich Road. However, the frequency with which they have

occurred would indicate that there is no significant issue.

A556 / King Street roundabout

3.10 The A556 / King Street roundabout has been the site of 18 accidents in the past five years. These

are spread throughout the five year period. However no accidents occurred in 2004 or 2008.

3.11 The accidents resulted in 26 slight injuries: 23 to people travelling in cars, two to cyclists and one

to a motorcyclist.

3.12 The police have assigned a contributory factor to all accidents at this junction. They state that the

single greatest reason for accidents was rear end shunts on approach to the roundabout. This

accounted for seven of the accidents. Entering the roundabout without due care and attention

resulted in four accidents including two that involved the two cyclists. In both instances the

cyclists were already on the roundabout and were hit by vehicles. Dangerous driving whilst on the

roundabout (moving lanes without indicating) accounted for three accidents. The other four

accidents occurred as a result of general driver errors including excessive speed.

3.13 The nature of the accidents is representative of a large roundabout with high traffic flows.

Accidents on Griffiths Road and King Street

3.14 Accidents have also been analysed on two stretches of road:

• Griffiths Road; and

• King Street.

Accidents on Griffiths Road (between Manchester Road and Middlewich Road)

3.15 A total of four accidents occurred between the Manchester Road and Middlewich Road junctions

in the study period. This stretch includes the site access junction as well as other private access

junctions.

3.16 The four accidents resulted in a total of seven injuries, five slight and two serious. All accidents

occurred in the evening, suggesting the drivers were returning from work. Three of the accidents

occurred in July or August, suggesting that light conditions were not a factor.

3.17 One accident occurred in 2003, one in 2004, one in 2006 and one in 2007. This even spread of

accidents suggests that there they did not occur as a result of a temporary road condition or

problem.

Page 13 of 40


3.18 It does not appear that there is any one significant contributing factor, with a number of reasons

recorded by the police. These include loss of control and excessive speed.

3.19 One accident occurred at the Estate Road/Griffiths Road junction. This was caused when a

vehicle heading north braked suddenly and the vehicle behind drove into the back of it. There is

no indication what caused the vehicle to brake, or how fast the vehicle behind was travelling. As

only one accident has occurred at the site access within five years it is considered there is not an

accident safety problem that the development proposals would exacerbate.

Accidents on King Street between Middlewich Road and the A556

3.20 A total of four accidents were recorded on School Lane on the 450m stretch between Middlewich

Road and the A556. There are three side streets joining this stretch of King Street.

3.21 All accidents caused slight injuries and involved cars only.

3.22 Three accidents occurred at the junction with Cookes Lane, two when vehicles were pulling out of

Cookes Lane. One of the accidents was caused by excessive speed.

Conclusion

3.23 There does not appear to be any significant highway design or maintenance issues that cause the

pattern of previous accidents. It is considered that these issues would not be exacerbated by the

proposed development.

Page 14 of 40


4. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

Development Description

4.1 It is proposed that the site be developed to provide a Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), an education

centre and associated offices. Plan 3 shows the proposed layout of the scheme.

4.2 The site will provide a Waste Transfer Plant (WTP) for the local area surrounding Lostock Gralam.

Waste delivered to the site will either be locally collected from Household Waste Recycling

Centres (HWRC) or kerbside collections within the Lostock WTP catchment. In addition, waste

collected at other Waste Transfer Station (WTS) in Macclesfield, Crewe and Ellesmere Port will

be transported to Lostock Gralam for processing. A small percentage of waste treated at the WTP

will be residual commercial waste.

4.3 The WTP will also incorporate a Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant with mechanical

waste separation at the front end followed by a biodrying process to produce various recyclates

and a solid recovered fuel (SRF). The SRF will be transported by rail for use in Runcorn, with the

byproduct recyclates transported for use by an appropriate end user. The WTP will have an

overall capacity of 220 000 to 250 000 tonnes per annum.

Site Access and Circulation

4.4 Access to the site will be taken from the existing industrial estate road. This is considered to be

acceptable as the industrial estate road has been designed to accommodate the types and sizes

of vehicles that will visit the site.

Parking Provision

4.5 It is proposed that parking is provided for operational and administrative staff as well as for the

education centre. The location of the parking bays are shown in Plan 3.

4.6 Parking for disabled motorists will be provided in accordance with local standards.

4.7 Cycle parking will be provided in line with local standards and will be monitored by the site

operator.

Staff Levels

4.8 It is anticipated that 45 members of staff will be employed on site. These will include office

employees; plant operators; truck drivers; education centre staff and management.

Page 15 of 40


Education Facility

4.9 As part of Cheshire Waste’s commitment to inform residents about the waste and recycling

industry, the construction of an education centre also forms part of the development proposals. It

will be available for use by schools and other interested groups.

4.10 It is envisaged that approximately one coach per fortnight will visit the education centre. A coach

drop-off point is to be provided as part of the proposals.

Travel Plan

4.11 To encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport, a Framework Travel Plan is submitted to

support the application. This is attached as Appendix 11.2 to the Environmental Statement

(Volume 2).

Page 16 of 40


5. PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT

Introduction

5.1 There are three main sources of transport planning policy providing guidance and advice which

relate to this development:

• National planning policy as set out in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)

notes and Planning Policy Statements (PPS);

• Regional guidance provided in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS); and

• Local Cheshire-specific planning policy.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 Transport

5.2 The key objectives of Planning Policy Guidance 13 Transport are to:

• Minimise the need to travel;

• Support the development of land within urban areas; and

• Integrate land use policies in ways which help to reduce the growth of

motorised journeys, encourage alternative modes of travel and reduce

reliance on the motor car.

5.3 The development proposals include the use of large capacity waste vehicles, resulting in a

significant overall reduction in mileage.

5.4 The proposals are considered to be compliant with PPG13.

Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management

5.5 Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) suggests that planning authorities should be able to

demonstrate future capacity. The document goes on to state that sites should be assessed for

their suitability in terms of existing and potential infrastructure to support the sustainable

movement of waste.

5.6 When identifying sites to house waste management facilities PPS 10 states that consideration

should be made to “the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the

sustainable movement of waste, and products arising from resource recovery, seeking when

practicable and beneficial to use modes other than road transport.”

5.7 As a key component of the sites’ transport strategy is the removal of SRF to Runcorn by rail, it is

considered that the proposal is in line with PPS10. In addition this Transport Assessment (TA)

Page 17 of 40


demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity on the highway network to accept the vehicle

movements associated with the proposed development.

Regional Planning for the North West

5.8 The North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 includes planning guidance for

the location of waste management facilities in the North West. The guidance directly related to

transportation and waste is detailed below.

5.9 Policy EM 12 “Locational Principles” states that waste should be managed as near as possible to

the place of production. This reduces any unnecessary transportation of waste material over long

distances, helping to minimise overall traffic levels.

5.10 Policy EM 12 also states that “in considering the location of new waste management facilities,

(they) should take account of the availability of transport infrastructure that will support the

sustainable movement of waste, seeking when practicable to use rail or water transport.”

5.11 The key end-product produced at the site will be transported by rail to Runcorn. Therefore traffic

movements will be reduced to a minimum, in line with guidance in RSS for the North West.

5.12 In addition the Regional Waste Strategy for the North West, published in September 2004 states

that transfer, sorting and energy recovery facilities should be located at industrial sites or

premises. This is because they can be grouped together with traditional industrial buildings and

areas without significant impact on the surrounding environment.

5.13 As the proposed facilities are located in an area dominated by industrial use it is considered that

the development meets with recommendations within the RSS and RWS.

Cheshire’s Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (CJMWMS)

5.14 The CJMWMS was published in 2007 and sets out how Cheshire’s local authorities intend to

reduce, recycle, recover and dispose of Cheshire’s municipal waste between 2007 and 2020.

5.15 One of the key principles of the strategy is to deal with waste as close to its source as possible.

The provision of a MBT facility in Cheshire helps to ensure that waste produced in Cheshire is

managed in a sustainable way.

5.16 It is stated in the CJMWMS that the promoters, Cheshire Waste Partnership, favour locating the

waste processing facilities in a heavy industrial area to help mitigate potential negative impacts

arising from transporting materials throughout the county. The location within the Lostock Gralam

industrial area satisfies this recommendation. The strategy also states on page 26 that proposals

Page 18 of 40


such as a MBT will break more waste down, leading to a reduction in the tonnage that requires

final treatment and therefore to be transported onwards.

5.17 It is considered that the proposals are in accordance with national, regional and local transport

planning policy.

Page 19 of 40


6. ACCESSIBILITY ASSESSMENT

Introduction

6.1 As set out in Section 5, a key element of national, regional and local policy is to ensure new waste

developments are located in industrial areas close to the original source of waste. However, it is

also important to ensure that employment developments are not isolated. This supports the aims

of integrating planning and transport, providing more sustainable transport choices, and reducing

overall travel and car use.

6.2 The accessibility of the proposed development on the site is considered in this context for the

following modes of travel:

� Walking;

� Cycling; and

� Public transport.

Pedestrian Accessibility

6.3 While pedestrian facilities are not perfect along Griffiths Road they are considered to be

acceptable, with a footway on one side for much of its length.

6.4 The A559 Manchester Road has wide footways and appropriate lighting, connecting both

Northwich and Lostock Gralam, with the site. The A530 Middlewich Road again has wide

footways and appropriate street lighting. This provides a route for pedestrians accessing the site

from Rudheath to the south.

6.5 PPG13 states that walking is the ‘most important mode of travel at the local level and offers the

greatest potential to replace short car journeys, particularly under 2 kilometres’.

6.6 Research has indicated that acceptable walking distances depend on a number of factors,

including the quality of the development, the type of amenity offered, the surrounding area, and

other local facilities. The Institution for Highways and Transportation (IHT) document entitled

‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’ details suggested walking distances which are relevant to this

planning application. These are shown in Table 6.1.

Page 20 of 40


Table 6.1 Suggested Acceptable Walking Distances

Town Centres

(m) Commuting/School/

Sight seeing (m) Elsewhere (m)

Desirable 200 500 400

Acceptable 400 1000 800

Preferred Maximum 800 2000 1200

Source: ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’, IHT

6.7 To assist in summarising the accessibility of the site on foot, a pedestrian catchment plan has

been included as Plan 4. This shows distances appropriate for accessing employment:

catchments of 500m, 1000m and 2000m. These distances represent approximate walking times

of 6, 12 and 24 minutes respectively when walking at a leisurely 5 kilometres per hour. These

distances are termed ‘Desirable’, ‘Acceptable’ and the ‘Preferred Maximum’ by the IHT for

accessing employment, education and tourist sites.

6.8 Plan 4 shows that there are a number of residential areas within the preferred maximum walking

distance. This preferred maximum is also the distance stated in PPG13. The majority of these

areas are to the south of the site in the Rudheath area.

6.9 Due to the nature of the proposals and considering that demand to access the site by walking will

be limited, it is considered that accessibility for pedestrians is appropriate.

Cycle Accessibility

6.10 The site is accessible via both on-road advisory cycle routes and off-road cycle tracks. A cycle

route/towpath passes directly to the east of the site on the Trent and Mersey canal. This links

Runcorn to Sandbach, providing local accessibility to Northwich, Marston and Rudheath.

6.11 PPG13 guidelines state that cycling has the “potential to replace short car journeys, particularly

those under 5 kilometres”. To assist in assessing the accessibility of the site by cycle, Plan 5

presents a 5km cycle catchment for the site. This distance equates to a journey time of around

25 minutes, while cycling at a leisurely speed of 12 kilometres per hour.

6.12 The catchment area covers much of Northwich, Wincham and Lostock Gralam.

6.13 In conclusion, it is considered that accessibility for cyclists is appropriate.

Page 21 of 40


Bus Accessibility

6.14 The nearest bus stops to the development are located on Manchester Road approximately 1.6km

to the north of the site and on Middlewich Road and approximately 1.4km to the south. These are

outside the walk distance recommended by the Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT)

in its document ‘Guidelines for Planning for Public Transport in Development’. However the 400m

is the distance that would encourage bus use, not the maximum an employee would walk. Plan 7

shows local bus routes and service numbers stopping close to the site that some employees may

choose to use.

6.15 The Middlewich Road stops are utilised by service 1/1E which links Weaverham, Rudheath and

Gadbrook Park. The Manchester Road stops are utilised by service 45 which links Wincham with

Warrington and service 289 which links Altrincham and Knutsford. These services link the site to

significant residential areas although the distances from the stops to the site are greater than the

acceptable distances indicated in the guidance. Frequencies are summarised in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Bus Services available

Frequency (Per Hour) Bus

Service Journey

Mon – Sat (Day)

Mon – Sat (Eve)

Sunday

Middlewich Road Stops

1/1E Weaverham - Rudheath 4 4 1

Manchester Road Stops

45 Crewe – Nantwich 1 1 -

289 Northwich - Altrincham Every 2 Hours

Every 2 Hours

-

Source: Cheshire West and Chester

6.16 Whilst bus provision is less than ideal some staff members may choose to use bus as part of a

multi modal journey.

Rail Accessibility

6.17 Lostock Gralam rail station is located approximately 2.3km travel distance to the east of the site.

Whilst this may be a significant walking distance for some people, it would be easily achievable

on a bicycle.

6.18 Lostock Gralam rail station is on the Mid-Cheshire Line from Manchester Piccadilly to Chester.

Access is provided to a range of local destinations including Manchester, Liverpool and

Warrington.

6.19 Table 6.3 summarises the destinations and frequencies.

Page 22 of 40


Table 6.3: Local Train Destinations from Lostock Gralam

Source: National Rail website

6.20 Given the range of rail services available and the proximity of the rail station, it is considered that

the proposed development is accessible by rail as part of a multi modal journey.

Frequency (trains/hour) Destination

8-9 AM 12-1 PM 5-6 PM

Chester 1 1 3

Manchester 2 1 1

Altrincham 2 1 1

Northwich 1 1 3

Page 23 of 40


7. TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT

Introduction

7.1 It has been established that the proposed development accords with the aims of national, regional

and local transport planning policies and that its accessibility by means other than the private car

is reasonable.

7.2 A key by-product of the management process will be removed to Runcorn using the rail

connection. The majority of other movements will be made by private car, Refuse Collection

Vehicles or Heavy Goods Vehicle. This section of the report considers the likely traffic impact of

the proposed development.

Assessment Scope and Methodology

7.3 A Traffic Impact Assessment report was produced by Waterman Boreham in March 2009 to help

advise the applicant on issues affecting the development of the site from a transport perspective.

This was subsequently submitted to CWCC council for comments which have been incorporated

into this TA.

7.4 A comprehensive scope to the assessment has been agreed and correspondence confirming this

is included in Appendix 2.

7.5 The scoping correspondence covers:

• Extent of study area;

• Time periods to be assessed;

• Assessment years;

• Required information on trip generation, distribution and assignment; and

• The committed developments flows to be included.

Existing Traffic Conditions

7.6 Traffic surveys were undertaken on Friday 13th March 2009. The traffic count data can be found in

Appendix 3.

7.7 The surveys covered the following junctions, as agreed with CWCC:

• A556 / King Street roundabout;

• King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road priority;

• Griffiths Road / Proposed Site Access priority junction; and

Page 24 of 40


• Griffiths Road / Manchester Road priority junction.

7.8 The traffic counts were broken down into 15 minute intervals throughout the following time

periods:

• Friday: 0700 to 0930 hours; and

• Friday: 1630 to 1830 hours.

7.9 From this survey data the peak hours on the network were determined as follows:

• Weekday morning peak (AM): 0800 to 0900 hours; and

• Weekday evening peak (PM): 1645 to 1745 hours.

7.10 Figures 1 and 2 present the 2009 surveyed peak hours for the observed highway network for both

light vehicles and HGVs. The percentage of HGVs is also presented.

Assessment Years and Traffic Growth

7.11 As agreed with CWCC the following scenarios are to be modelled:

• 2009: Observed traffic flows;

• 2019 ‘Without Development’, including traffic flows for all committed

developments plus existing industrial estate traffic; and

• 2019 ‘With Development’, including traffic associated with the

development proposals.

7.12 The National Road Traffic Forecast (NRTF) low growth factor has been used to calculate

background traffic levels in 2019. Firstly existing industrial estate traffic has been isolated from the

network, as shown in Figures 3 and 4. This leaves the observed flows minus existing industrial

estate traffic, as presented in Figures 5 and 6. These flows have been factored up to 2019 using

the NRTF growth rate and the resultant flows are presented in Figures 7 and 8.

Committed Development

7.13 Five committed developments have been included in the assessments, as requested by CWCC.

These developments are:

• 08/0021/OUM An application for a Continuous Care Retirement

Community village, including a 96 bedroom care home (use class C2),

Page 25 of 40


with 170 apartments (use class C2), 8 apartments (use class C2/C3) and

4 retails units (use class A1);

• 08/0020/OUM Application for 306 residential dwellings;

• 08/0022/OUM. An application for 128 dwellings on land that is currently

mainly used for light industrial use;

• 2007/3384/FZ5 Precious and semi precious metal recovery plant with

fertiliser manufacture; and

• 2008/0034/FZ5 Development of a Bio Energy plant at the Bedminster

site.

7.14 The TAs for the residential development proposals only presented flows to the Middlewich

Road/Griffiths Road junction. For the purposes of this assessment these have been assigned on

to the network using observed turning proportions.

7.15 Flows generated by these developments can be found in Appendix 4. The traffic expected to be

generated on the network by each individual committed development can be seen in Figure 9.

Figures 10 and 11 present the accumulated committed development flows across the network.

Traffic Distribution

7.16 Traffic accessing the site will be, in the main, staff accessing employment, or waste vehicles

accessing the waste processing facilities.

Traffic Distribution –Staff

7.17 Staff trip generation has been distributed using existing turning movements. This is shown in

Figures 12 and 13.

Traffic Distribution – HGVs

7.18 Table 7.1 details the HGVs movements into the site, supplying the waste to be processed. The

data are presented by source location and total volume.

Page 26 of 40


Table 7.1 Waste Inflow

Facility Material Tonnage Payload

Weekly vehicle

numbers

Daily vehicle

numbers Daily vehicle movements

WCA bulked residual 34481 20 34 7 14

HWRC bulked residual 7242 20 7 2 4

Maccelsfield WTS

sub total 41723 9 18

WCA bulked

residual 37427 20 36 7 14

HWRC bulked residual 6620 20 7 2 4 Crewe WTS

sub total 44047 9 18

WCA bulked

residual 49884 20 48 9 18

HWRC bulked residual 10067 20 10 2 4

Ellesmere WTS

sub total 59951 11 22

WCA residual 42067 9 90 18 36

HWRC residual 8424 12 14 2 4 Industrial and Commercial 15000 10 29 6 12

Direct Delivery

sub total 65491 26 52

Total Inflow 211212 273 55 110 Source: Wardell Armstrong

7.19 In addition, waste that is processed on-site will need to be removed to the appropriate end

user/destination either transported by rail or by road. Table 7.2 presents the by-products that will

be transported by road.

Table 7.2 Waste Outflows

Facility Material Tonnage Payload

Weekly vehicle

numbers

Daily vehicle

numbers Daily vehicle movements

Metals 3474 17 4 1 2

Aggregate 8399 20 9 2 4 Various

Plastics 3507 20 4 1 2

Landfill Residual 11722 20 12 3 6

Total

Outflow 27102 29 7 14 Source: Wardell Armstrong

Page 27 of 40


7.20 Using the data provided in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 the distribution of HGVs accessing the site has

been calculated. These workings are presented in Appendix 5.

7.21 The total percentage distribution and assignment for both staff and operational movements are

shown in Figures 12 and 13.

7.22 In addition to the waste being moved from the site by road, a key part of the waste will be

transported by rail. It is predicted that 146,134 tonnes of SRF will be transported annually by rail

to Runcorn.

Traffic Generation

7.23 Traffic generation associated with the proposed MBT facility is likely to be at its highest outside of

peak hours, during 1000 to 1600 hours. However it is the AM and PM peak hours that are of

greatest importance to the highway network.

Trip Generation – HGVs

7.24 Table 7.1 indicates that there will be 55 vehicles travelling to the development each day from

either a Waste Transfer Station within Cheshire, or a direct delivery from the area surrounding

Lostock Gralam. In addition Table 7.2 demonstrates that there will be 7 vehicles accessing the

site to pick up recyclates and waste to be delivered elsewhere.

7.25 In total there will be 62 vehicles per day or 124 vehicle movements associated with the delivery or

removal of waste from the site. This figure includes six vehicles per day delivering commercial

waste to the site.

7.26 Based on waste management trip generation profiles for waste sites a total of 3.8% of HGV

movements can be expected to take place in the AM peak with 3.2% in the PM peak hour.

However to ensure robustness 5% has been used to calculate peak hour flows. This is presented

in Table 7.4. Profiles of a waste site in TRICS is included in Appendix 6.

Table 7.4 Peak hour HGV trip generation calculation

Two Way Daily Movements 124

PM Peak Hour (5% of daily flow) 6

Arrivals 3

Departures 3 Source: Consultants’ Estimate

7.27 This future forecast is calculated on a five day Monday-Friday week. It is expected that vehicle

movements during the weekends and Bank Holidays will be insignificant in number.

Page 28 of 40


Trip Generation – Staff

7.28 As detailed in Section 4 it is predicted there will be 45 employees on site. Due to the shift patterns

associated with staff working in the bio-drying tunnel it is predicted that the maximum proportion

of staff accessing the site during the peak hours will be 50%. Table 7.5 demonstrates how this

relates to trip generation.

Table 7.5 Peak hour staff trip generation calculation

Members of Staff 45

% travelling to work during peak hour 50%

Arrivals AM 23

Departures PM 23

Source: Consultants’ Estimate

7.29 Figures 14 and 15 present the total trip generation numbers for both staff and operational trips

assigned to the local network.

‘Without Development’ Flows

7.30 Figures 16 and 17 present the 2019 AM and PM ‘Without Development’ flows. These have been

calculated by adding the committed development flows plus the existing estate traffic to the

growthed 2019 network flows.

‘With Development’ Flows

7.31 The 2019 AM and PM ‘With Development’ flows are presented in Figures 18 and 19. These flows

have been calculated by adding the proposed traffic flows to the 2019 ‘Without Development’

scenarios.

Page 29 of 40


8. CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS

Introduction

8.1 To ensure that the key junctions in the vicinity of the site operate satisfactorily under existing and

proposed traffic conditions, capacity assessments have been undertaken at all surveyed

junctions. These are:

• A556 / King Street roundabout;

• Griffiths Road / Proposed Site Access priority junction;

• Griffiths Road / Manchester Road priority junction; and

• King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road priority

junction.

8.2 The following scenarios have been assessed in the AM and PM peak hours:

• 2009 Observed Flows;

• 2019 ‘Without Development’; and

• 2019 “With Development”.

A556 / King Street roundabout

8.3 The ARCDAY (Version 6) computer program has been used to assess the capacity of the A556 /

King Street roundabout. The results refer to the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) and queuing

predicted on each arm. A RFC of 1.00 or less indicates that an arm is operating within its

theoretical capacity. This is the maximum level of traffic it can theoretically cope with. A RFC of

0.85 or less suggests that the arm is operating within its practical capacity. This is the level of

traffic the arm can realistically cope with an acceptable degree of efficiency.

8.4 Table 8.1 presents the key results of the observed flows analysis. Full modelling results are

provided in Appendix 7.

Table 8.1 A556 / King Street Observed Flows

AM Peak Assessment PM Peak Assessment Arm

RFC Q RFC Q

A556 Chester Road 0.819 4.4 0.810 4.2

King Street South 0.519 1.1 0.525 1.1

A556 Chester Road West 0.703 2.3 0.607 1.5

King Street North 0.696 2.3 0.615 1.6

Page 30 of 40


Source: PICADY 6 Outputs

8.5 Table 8.1 shows that the roundabout currently operates within capacity in both the AM and PM

peak hours, with only minor queuing on any arm.

8.6 Table 8.2 presents the results for the 2019 ‘Without Development’ scenario, the reference case

for comparison purposes.

Table 8.2 A556 / King Street 2019 “Without Development”


RFC Q RFC Q

A556 Chester Road 0.909 9.0 0.909 9.0


A556 Chester Road West

0.779 3.4 0.682 2.1



8.7 The results for the 2019 ‘Without Development’ scenarios show that the roundabout is predicted

to operate within theoretical capacity in the reference case. The increases in background network

traffic and committed development flows mean that the A556 Chester Road arm is predicted to

operate above 0.85RFC in both peak periods, though well within 1.00RFC.

8.8 The results for the 2019 ‘With Development’ scenario are shown in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3 A556 / King Street 2019 “With Development”


RFC Q RFC Q

A556 Chester Road 0.913 9.4 0.914 9.4


A556 Chester Road West

0.785 3.6 0.689 2.2



8.9 Minor increases in RFC are predicted on all arms of the roundabout in both peak periods.

Maximum increases on the A556 Chester Road arm equal 0.004 RFC in the AM peak and 0.005

in the PM peak. The data show that maximum queue length increases in both the AM and PM

peaks are predicted to be 0.4 vehicles. It is considered that these increases are insignificant and

Page 31 of 40


immaterial to the operation of the junction when compared against the ‘Without Development’

scenario.

Griffiths Road / Site Access

8.10 The PICADY (Version 5) computer program has been used to assess the capacity of the Griffiths

Road / Manchester Road priority junction. As with ARCADY the results refer to the Ratio of Flow

to Capacity (RFC) and queuing predicted on each arm.

8.11 Table 8.4 contains the results of the observed flows model outputs. Full modelling results are

provided in Appendix 7.

Table 8.4 Griffiths Road / Site Access 2009 Observed Flows

AM Peak Assessment PM Peak Assessment

Arm

RFC Q RFC Q

Site Access 0.025 0 0.022 0

Griffiths Road 0.021 0 0 0

Source: ARCADY 5 Outputs

8.12 The results of the assessment indicate that the site access junction is currently operating well

within capacity during both the AM and PM peak periods.

8.13 The results of the 2019 ‘Without Development’ scenario are presented in Table 8.5.

Table 8.5 Griffiths Road / Site Access 2019 “Without Development”


RFC Q RFC Q

Site Access 0.091 0.1 0.125 0.1

Griffiths Road 0.036 0 0 0


8.14 It is predicted that the junction will operate well within capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours.

8.15 Table 8.6 presents the results for the 2019 ‘With Development’ scenario. It is at this junction

during this scenario that the development traffic will be most concentrated and therefore effects

will be at their worst.

Page 32 of 40


Table 8.6 Griffiths Road / Site Access 2019 “With Development”


RFC Q RFC Q

Site Access 0.108 0.1 0.161 0

Griffiths Road 0.051 0.1 0.0 0


8.16 It is demonstrated that 2019 “With Development” flows for both the AM and PM peaks will be no

more than 0.161RFC. Queuing is predicted to be no more than 0.1 vehicles, in the AM peak and

0 in the PM peak.

Griffiths Road / Manchester Road

8.17 The PICADY (Version 5) computer program has been used to assess the capacity of the Griffiths

Road / Manchester Road priority junction

8.18 The observed model results are presented in Table 8.7. Full modelling results are provided in

Appendix 7.

Table 8.7 Griffiths Road / Manchester Road 2009 Observed Flows


RFC Q RFC Q

Griffiths Road 0.619 1.5 0.593 1.4

Manchester Road 0.277 0.4 0.562 1.6


8.19 The results of the assessment indicate that the junction currently operates well within capacity

during both the AM and PM peak periods.

8.20 Table 8.8 presents the results for 2019 ‘Without Development’ scenario.

Table 8.8 Griffiths Road / Manchester Road 2019 “Without Development”


RFC Q RFC Q

Griffiths Road 0.812 3.5 0.792 3.0



Page 33 of 40


8.21 It is demonstrated that the Griffiths Road / Manchester Road junction is predicted to operate

within capacity in both the AM and PM peaks.

8.22 The results for the 2019 ‘With Development’ model run are presented in Table 8.9.

Table 8.9 Griffiths Road / Manchester Road 2019 “With Development”


RFC Q RFC Q

Griffiths Road 0.824 3.5 0.842 3.8



8.23 The 2019 “With Development” assessment indicates that all arms of the junction operate within

theoretical capacity during both the AM and PM peak periods.

King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road

8.24 The PICADY (Version 5) computer program has been used to assess the capacity of the King

Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road priority junction.

8.25 Table 8.10 presents a summary of the observed flows results.

Table 8.10 King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road Observed Flows


Arm

RFC Q RFC Q

King Street 0.008 0 0.008 0

Middlewich Road 1.096 26.2 0.781 3.2

Griffiths Road 0.117 0.1 0.165 0.2

Penny’s Lane 0.019 0 0.005 0


8.26 The results of the assessment indicate that the Middlewich Road arm of the staggered junction is

currently operating over capacity during the AM peak period. This is reflected by the predicted

queue of 26 vehicles. Observations have indicated that these vehicles are waiting to turn right

onto King Street and not left onto Griffiths Road where the WTP is located. It can therefore be

considered that the development proposals will not directly exacerbate the situation. All arms of

the junction operate within capacity during the PM peak period.

8.27 Table 8.11 presents the result of the 2019 ‘Without Development’

Page 34 of 40


Table 8.11 King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road 2019 Without

Development


Arm RFC Q RFC Q

King Street 0.013 0.0 0.008 0

Middlewich Road 1.279 55.1 0.935 7.9

Griffiths Road 0.152 0.2 0.217 0.2

Penny’s Lane 0.023 0 0.006 0


8.28 The stresses on Middlewich Road are predicted to be exacerbated by the increase in background

traffic and levels of committed development traffic. The RFC of this arm is predicted to increase

from 1.096 to 1.279 in the AM peak and from 0.781 to 0.935 in the PM peak. Queues of 55

vehicles are predicted. However the accuracy of the predicted queue can not be guaranteed as

predicted queuing grows exponentially and unrealistically once the RFC exceeds 1.00.

8.29 The results of the 2019 ‘With Development’ scenario is presented in Table 8.12.

Table 8.12 King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths Road 2019 With

Development


Arm RFC Q RFC Q

King Street 0.014 0 0.008 0

Middlewich Road 1.302 58.4 0.952 8.8

Griffiths Road 0.155 0.2 0.221 0.3

Penny’s Lane 0.024 0 0.006 0


8.30 The results of the assessment indicate that the junction would operate over capacity in the AM

peak. However only negligible increases in RFC of 0.023 are predicted; from 1.279 in the ‘Without

Development’ scenario to 1.302 in the ‘With Development’ scenario. Queue lengths are predicted

to increase by only 3.3 vehicles.

8.31 In the PM peak, the RFC on Middlewich Road is predicted to increase from 0.935 RFC to 0.952,

an increase caused by only one vehicle. It is considered that this increase is insignificant and

would not be perceptible to road users.

Page 35 of 40


Further modelling work

8.32 It has been demonstrated that the impact of the development is negligible. However CWCC

requested a LINSIG assessment for the King Street / Middlewich Road / Penny’s Lane / Griffiths

Road junction. Two scenarios have been assessed, one with a pedestrian phase for crossing

King Street and Middlewich Road, and one with no pedestrian phase.

8.33 LINSIG software measures the performance of a junction by Degree of Saturation (DoS). A DoS

of above 90% is considered to be above practical capacity, a DoS in excess of 100% is

considered to be above theoretical capacity. Maximum queuing throughout the hour is also

presented.

8.34 Signal data has been obtained from the LINSIG model produced to support planning application

number 08/0022/OUM. This data includes the signal staging plan, maximum green time and inter-

green times.

8.35 The results of the 2019 ‘With Development’ scenario with a pedestrian phase are presented in

Table 8.13. The model has been doubled cycled, i.e. a pedestrian phase is assumed to be

demanded every other cycle. Because of this a cycle time of 190 seconds has been used. Full

modelling results are provided in Appendix 7.


Development LINSIG Results with pedestrian phase


Arm DoS MMQ DoS MMQ

King Street 85.5 20.6 75.7 17.7

Middlewich Road Left 10.5 1.4 12.8 1.5

Middlewich Road Ahead and Right 84.1 13.1 77.4 9.4

Griffiths Road 65.0 9.6 77.5 15.5

Penny’s Lane 1.3 0.1 0.5 0.0

Source: LINSIG 2.4.10.0

8.36 The junction is predicted to operate within capacity should it be signalised as a result of the

committed development within the area.

8.37 Table 8.14 presents the results of the junction assessment without a pedestrian phase included.

Full modelling results are provided in Appendix 7.

Page 36 of 40



Development LINSIG Results without pedestrian phase


Arm DoS MMQ DoS MMQ

King Street 71.8 14.7 64.2 12.9

Middlewich Road Left 9.0 1.1 10.9 1.1

Middlewich Road Ahead and Right 70.4 9.5 63.8 6.8

Griffiths Road 48.5 7.0 60.2 10.8

Penny’s Lane 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.0

Source: LINSIG 2.4.10.0

8.38 The junction is predicted to operate well within capacity should there be no pedestrian phase at

the junction.

Page 37 of 40


9. HGV MANAGEMENT

9.1 CWCC requested that a Freight Management Strategy be submitted as part of this TA.

HGV Routing

9.2 As the site will function as a waste reception point in its own right, as well as processing waste

from Waste Transfer Stations (WTSs), waste will be delivered by one of two main ways. Waste

will arrive either from local HWRC and kerbside collections from within the Lostock WTP

catchment; or from WTSs based in Macclesfield, Crewe and Ellesmere Port. These WTSs bulk up

waste collected from HWRCs or kerbside from within these areas, before onward transit to

Lostock.

9.3 Low bridges to the north of the site prevent any HGVs using Manchester Road to gain access.

9.4 At the time of application it is proposed that waste arriving from the WTSs will arrive via the

following routes:

• From Macclesfied WTS: via Macclesfield WTS, Hulley Road, A523,

A537, A50, A5033, A556, and the A530;

• From Ellesmere Port WTS: via Ellesmere Port WTS, Newbridge Road,

Stanley Mill Road, M53, M56, M6, A556 and the A530; and

• From Crewe WTS: via Crewe WTS, A532, A534, A533, A54 and the

A530.

9.5 With regard to locally collected waste, it is envisaged that the majority of movements will use the

A556, with only a small number of local RCVs using Middlewich Road. It is understood that HGVs

should use the A556 where possible. It is envisaged that vehicles accessing the site from the

wider area (Macclesfield, Crewe and Ellesmere Port) will use the A556 as the route of choice.

9.6 The vast majority of waste by-products produced (SRF) will be transported by rail to Runcorn. A

small number of vehicles will be destined for undefined locations to remove the products of waste

to metal, aggregate, plastic and residual waste processors.

HGV Monitoring

9.7 Should monitoring of HGV movements be required, data collected at the waste site could be used

to determine volumes. Weigh bridges record vehicles entering the site to quantify the amounts of

waste that are processed.

Page 38 of 40


9.8 It should be noted that site operators have control over HGV movements but not locally used

Refuse Collection Vehicles (RCVs).

Page 39 of 40


10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

10.1 A summary of the key issues and conclusions to this report are set out below.

10.2 The proposed development would take place in an industrial setting, located off Griffiths Road in

Lostock Gralam, approximately 2 km to the east of Northwich town centre. The site formerly

housed a chlorine plant.

10.3 It is proposed that the site be redeveloped to provide a Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), an

education/visitor centre and associated offices. The WTP will have an overall capacity of 220,000

to 250,000 tonnes per annum and will employ approximately 45 members of staff.

10.4 Access will be taken via the existing private estate road off Griffiths Road. This provides access to

a number of industrial facilities and has been designed to accommodate HGVs.

10.5 It is considered there are no highways safety issues which would be exacerbated by the

development.

10.6 The proposals will be located in an existing industrial area, close to the original source of waste, in

line with national, regional and local transport planning policy. It is considered that access by

sustainable modes of travel is appropriate bearing in mind the proposed industrial use.

10.7 The site will transport a major by-product of the waste process by rail to Runcorn. This is in line

with national and regional planning guidance and will help to minimise the traffic impact of the

development.

10.8 A methodology for assessing the traffic impact of the proposals has been agreed with CWCC.

10.9 Capacity assessments demonstrate that the traffic impact of the development is predicted to be

negligible throughout the network.

10.10 The site access junction is proposed to operate well within capacity in both the morning and

evening peak hours in the assessment year of 2019.

10.11 Only minor increases in queuing of 0.4 vehicles are predicted at the A556/King Street roundabout

in the 2019 assessment year.

Page 40 of 40


10.12 The Griffiths Road/Manchester Road junction is predicted to operate within capacity during the

2019 morning and evening peak travel times.

10.13 The King Street/Middlewich Road/Penny’s Lane/Griffiths Road currently suffers from queuing and

delay on the Middlewich Road arm. This is predicted to worsen in the 2019 ‘Without Development’

scenario, due to the increases in background and committed development traffic. As a result of

the proposals increases of 0.023 RFC are predicted on Griffiths Road with an additional four

vehicles queuing. It is considered that these increases are minor and do not materially affect the

operation of the junction.

10.14 However, as requested by CWCC, the priority junction has also been modelled as a signalised

junction, in line with future plans for the junction as a result of the nearby committed development.

This shows that the junction is predicted to operate well within capacity should it be signalised.

10.15 As requested by CWCC a Freight Management Strategy is included within the report. This details

predicted routing of vehicles and suggests a method for monitoring use.

10.16 In conclusion, based on this Transport Assessment, it is considered that there are no

transportation or traffic reasons why the development proposals should not be acceptable to the

planning and highways authorities.

Documents

Final for Proposed Waste Viridor