PLANNING COMMITTEE (EAST)

24 May 2016

MINUTES

Held at Council Chamber, Elizabeth House, Church Street, Stratford-upon-AvonMeeting commenced: 6.15 p.m. Meeting ended: 9.40 p.m.

Present: Councillor Danny Kendall (Chairman), Councillors M Cargill, M Giles, M Gittus, P Richards and C Williams

Apologies: Councillor Andrew CrumpCouncillor Peter BarnesCouncillor Mike Brain, Substituted by Councillor Peter RichardsCouncillor Christopher Kettle, Substituted by Councillor Mike GittusCouncillor Christopher Mills, Substituted by Councillor Molly GilesCouncillor Anne Parry, Substituted by Councillor Mark Cargill

35. Disclosure of Interests

Under this heading the Chairman informed the meeting that whilst some members of the Committee may have been involved in previous decisions relating to the inclusion of Gaydon Lighthorne Heath (GLH) as a strategic housing site within the emerging Core Strategy (and in respect of related road works, if applicable) but they had been advised by the Monitoring Officer that this did not prevent them from participating in the meeting, as the issues were considered to be completely different in terms of legal framework etc.

Councillor Williams informed the meeting that having received advice from the Monitoring Officer it had been confirmed that he had not compromised himself and that, accordingly, he would remain as a member of the Committee to determine the application.

Councillor Cargill reported that he had received communications in respect of the application.

36. Application No. 15/00976/OUT - Land At, Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath

APPLICANT CEG Land Promotions Limited, The Bird Group of Companies Limited, Richard Peter Mann, Frank Richard David Webster White, Richard David White, Isaac Fletcher Watson, Mr and Mrs D F Burn

APPLICATION SITE Land at Gaydon/Lighthorne HeathPROPOSAL Outline application (with all matters reserved

except for principal means of access to the highway) for construction of a residential development (up to 2000 houses, including extra care housing), village centre (including primary school, community hub, health centre, retail and other services (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2)), managed ecological reserve, public open space, recreation areas (including sports pavilion), play areas, acoustic bunding and associated infrastructure including roads, primary

Planning Committee (East) 24 May 2016

substation, sewers and attenuation ponds and demolition of identified buildings and structures

SPEAKERS Cllr Laura Steele – Lighthorne Parish Council – objecting

Cllr. John Brine – Gaydon Parish Council – objecting

Cllr David Booth – Lighthorne Heath Parish Council – objecting

Andy Turner – Chairman Chesterton & Kingston Parish Meeting – objecting

Annette Conway – Resident - objecting

Rod Chaytor for FORSE – objecting

Cllr Adam Dugmore - Bishops Itchington Parish Council – objecting

Roger Tustain – Nexus Planning – on behalf of applicant

Paul Boileau – Brookbanks Consulting – on behalf of applicant

Cllrs Harris, Kettle and Mills - District Council Ward Members

Ben Simm from Warwickshire County Council Highways Department attended the meeting and answered questions raised on the Highway implication of the application.

Janet Neale from Warwickshire County Council attended the meeting and answered a question relating to Education.

The following updates since the preparation of the Officer’s report were circulated to the Committee as set out on the attached sheets:

(a) a preliminary update report circulated to Members of the Committee on 20 May 2016; and

(b) a final update report circulated at the meeting.

Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting a motion of GRANT was proposed by Councillor Richards and seconded by Councillor Cargill.

Thereafter, by 5 votes to 1 vote, it was

RESOLVED:

That subject to the:-

(a) referral of the application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (as it comprises retail/leisure/office development outside a town centre in excess of 5,000sq.m in floor area) and the Secretary of State not notifying the authority within the statutory period that the matter is to be ‘called in’; and

(b) completion of a S106 Agreement and/or appropriate measures being in place to secure appropriate payments under the Community

Planning Committee (East) 24 May 2016

Infrastructure Levy, with the financial contributions as clarified in the final update report, with delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Housing in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee in respect of any final negotiations, to secure the following:-

(i) Primary and Early Years Education - the provision of land (2.7ha minimum) for the development of a 3 form entry (3FE) primary school with nursery and day care facilities on site, plus an appropriate contribution (likely to be around £4.68m).

(ii) Secondary/6th Form Education: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £5m) for the expansion of Kineton High School.

(iii) Special Educational Needs: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £352,000) to support the development of a new facility.

(iv) Alternative Bus Access Kineton High School: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £400,000) towards a bus/coach park, pick up and drop off facility.

(v) Kineton High School Bus Service: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £533,000) for additional buses.

(vi) Widening of B4100 (eastern end): Detailed design of the off-site highway works and a mechanism for delivery.

(vii) M40 Spur Improvements: Detailed design of the off-site highway works and a mechanism for delivery.

(viii) Harwoods House Junction Improvement: Detailed design of the off-site highway works and a mechanism for delivery. [NB This Scheme may alternatively be secured by planning condition]

(ix) B4100 Banbury Road Scheme: Detailed design of the off-site highway works and a mechanism for delivery and the details being referred to the Planning Committee for determination as soon as practical.

(x) Bus service improvements: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £2.42m) for a high quality bus service linking the development with other settlements.

(xi) Cycling infrastructure and facilities: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £600,000) for cycling infrastructure and facilities between the site and Leamington Spa.

(xii) Sustainable Travel Pack: Total maximum contribution of £150,000 required (£75 per dwelling) for provision of packs to each household.

Planning Committee (East) 24 May 2016

(xiii) Rights of Way: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £218,880) for the improvement of local public rights of way.

(xiv) Libraries: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £43,776) for mobile library service and local stock

(xv) Multi-purpose primary medical care facility: The provision of land, the equivalent of a 4 GP practice with associated car parking, plus an appropriate contribution (likely to be around £1,157,700).

(xvi) Defibrillator: Provision on site on the external elevation of a public building (or a contribution of around £1500 in lieu)

(xvii) Acute Health Care: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £2,079,930) to meet patient demand. (NB If the contribution is not considered to be CIL compliant then it will not be collected)

(xviii) Bio-diversity Impact Assessment scheme: to be submitted, agreed and implemented, and appropriate monitoring costs paid.

(xix) Police: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £404,740) for the recruitment and equipping of officers and staff, police vehicles, premises and ANPR cameras.

(xx) Affordable Housing: overall total provision of 35% with exact tenures, mix, location and distribution to be agreed and approval, as necessary, of an Affordable Housing Statement, Delivery Plan and Scheme.

(xxi) Community hub: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £2.3m) for the provision of the Community Hub (adjusted as necessary to reflect any costs associated with providing accommodation for police/GP facilities).

(xxii) Roof over Kineton High School swimming pool: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £1.16m for 2000 dwellings).

(xxiii) Sports Hall: Provision on site as necessary.

(xxiv) Bowls Club Land: Safeguarded for 5 years for such use.

(xxv) Public Open Space: Strategy for minimum provision of:

5.06ha of parks, gardens, and amenity green space

3.3ha of unrestricted natural accessible green space

1.1ha of on-site children and young people play areas,

7.46ha of outdoor sports areas

Planning Committee (East) 24 May 2016

1.76ha of allotments and community gardens, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

(xxvi) Public Open Space Management and Maintenance: Strategy to be submitted plus appropriate commuted sum financial contribution if necessary.

(xxvii) CCTV Cameras: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £135,012) for the installation and 10 year maintenance and monitoring of two CCTV cameras in the new village centre.

(xxviii)Upgrading of facilities and environmental improvements in Lighthorne Heath: An appropriate contribution (likely to be around £300,000).

(xxix) Environmental enhancements for local villages: An appropriate contribution (likely to be up to £2m for 2000 dwellings) for measures to mitigate the environmental impact of additional highway flows in local villages.

(xxx) Community Champion Post: Establishment and funding for a minimum of 20 hours per week, for a 10 year period, to assist with community integration and implementation of community schemes.

(xxxi) Provision of new settlement village facilities: Approval of appropriate provisions for phases of the development.

(xxxii) Monitoring fees: Appropriate contribution to cover fees for on-going monitoring of the development for phased contributions to be triggered, or submission of a quarterly monitoring report in lieu.

the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT outline planning permission, subject to the following, the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers:

the 63 conditions contained in the report, with conditions 7 and 58 amended/clarified in accordance with the preliminary update report; and

the 16 notes contained in the report.

37. Urgent Business

There were no items of urgent business.

CHAIRMAN

This page has been left intentionally blank

FINALUpdate Report for Planning Committee East: 24.05.2016

Committee Planning Manager: Richard Gardner

NB A Preliminary Update report was circulated on 20.5.16 in advance of the Planning Committee Meeting to give all interested parties additional time to consider the items therein. This Final Update Report includes additional items to be updated following the Preliminary Update Report.

15/00976/OUT – Land at Gaydon / Lighthorne Heath

Kineton Parish Council (20.5.16) Additional comments (summarised by Officers, full version on planning file):-

Acknowledge the phenomenal amount of work that has been generated by the application and associated meetings.

Note Ben Simm (WCC Highways) extensive response to matters. Concerned that the analysis regarding local villages impacts is based on road

capacities. Highlight that DCLG ‘Guidance on Transport Assessments 2007’, considers that ”a

particular example of material impact would be a worsening of congestion. In congested areas, the percentage traffic impact that is considered significant or detrimental to the network may be relatively low (possibly below the average daily variation in flow)”

Welcome the half hourly bus service through Kineton and consider this would need to carry on to Banbury Road to provide safe transport for High School children.

Concerned that the service ignores the number of pupils travelling to the school wishing to be there at the start of the school day and departing at the end.

A lack of necessary school service will lead to additional car journeys to the High School.

Insufficient attention to mitigation of resulting traffic problems in Kineton.

WCC Highway Authority (23.5.16) – Response to matters raised in Councillor Kettle submission dated 20.5.16. See attached document.

Councillor Kettle (24.5.16) – (verbally to Case Officer) Highlights the lack of detailed response from WCC Highways to his request for the assumptions used for the TA and modelling work.

- Submission of Cycling UK Campaign Briefing 7c (November 2015) ‘Cycling to school or college’.

Clarification of financial contributions (Pages 83-85) - The figures for items (x) Bus Service Improvements, (xi) Cycling infrastructure, (xix) Police (premises element), (xxi) Community Hub and (xxvii) CCTV are based on a 3,000 homes total.

Page 1

Minute Item 36

Appendix 6

PRELIMINARYUpdate Report for Planning Committee East: 24.05.2016

Committee Planning Manager: Richard Gardner

NB This version of the Update Report is being circulated on 20.5.16 in advance of the Planning Committee Meeting to give all interested parties additional time to consider the items therein. Any additional items to be updated after this Preliminary Update Report will form part of the Final Update Report to committee.

15/00976/OUT – Land at Gaydon / Lighthorne Heath

Members Site Visit – This took place on 19 May 2016 between 09:30-14:15. Members in attendance were:-Councillor Brain (committee)Councillor Cargill (committee substitute)Councillor Gittus (committee substitute)Councillor HowseCouncillor Kettle (Ward Member)Councillor Mills (Ward Member)[It is understood that some other committee members who were unable to attend made separate arrangements to view the site and surrounds]

Officers in attendance were:-Robert Weeks (Head of Planning and Housing, SDC)Richard Gardner (Planning Manager – Applications & Committee, SDC)Tony Horton (Senior Planner & Case Officer, SDC)Joanne Archer (Principal Development Management Engineer, WCC)Janet Neale (Infrastructure Delivery Manager, WCC)Ben Simm (Senior Development Management Engineer, WCC)

Officers gave a briefing relating to the background and context of the allocated site and presented key elements of the planning application. A tour of the application site and surrounds was undertaken which included the following:-

Lighthorne village The ‘Old Quarry’ Lighthorne Heath village and facilities B4100 Application site (including access points) Kingston Grange Farm & Ponds JLR & AML access points New B4100 dual carriageway and M40 J12 works Old Gated Road/IM Properties site Chesterton/Chesterton Green Chesterton Windmill Bishops Itchington/B4551 Gaydon/B4551 Kineton/B4551

Members considered various matters during the site visit including:- Traffic implications for Strategic Road Network Traffic implications for Local Highway Network Traffic implications for local villages Treatment of B4100 including traffic speeds and crossing points

Page 2

Public Rights of Way networks Impacts on Heritage Assets and their settings including Conservation Area, Listed

Buildings and Scheduled Monuments Landscape character and Visual impacts Impacts on Ancient Woodland, trees and hedges and associated wildlife Impacts from M40 noise Impacts on existing residents including from noise & disturbance Impacts on local businesses Social integration and cohesion Community facilities and environmental improvements Distance and accessibility from the site to Kineton High School

Site Constraints (Page 2) 7th bullet point – Tree Preservation Order TPO/024/001, SDC/693 was confirmed on 19 May 2016.

Lighthorne Parish Council (17.5.16) - Additional Comments (abridged and only those not previously reported):-

The Brookbanks TA uses a figure of 3,000 vehicles for JLR traffic in AM & PM periods. This is grossly understated given the number of employees at JLR (6,000 in 2014 and quoted in excess of 12,000 at the recent EIP). This makes the modelling results worthless and the conclusions drawn inaccurate and misleading.

Awaiting WCC Highways to provide JLR figures used in the modelling. WCC have audited the Brookbanks TA without questioning whether the JLR figures

were accurate or current. The TA should be prepared after completion of the J12 upgrade and using 2016 figures.

Ward Member Councillor Kettle (20.5.16) – Additional information obtained from British Cycling advising that children are enthusiastic cyclists and a high proportion could chose to cycle to school with resulting benefits to health, personal attainment and independence along with reduced travel by car and lower congestion and pollution levels. The majority of cyclists travel between 12-18mph with the average commute to a Secondary School being 3.7 miles (around 15.5 minutes). Lighting is an important but not crucial factor although local authorities should ensure that streets and paths that are well used should be well lit to improve safety.

Ward Member Councillor Kettle (20.5.16) – Additional comments – see attached document + related Appendix (TRICS Good Practice Guide).

WCC Highway Authority (20.5.16) – Additional clarifications and responses to highway matters raised at and following on from a meeting of the local Parishes and Ward Members with Officers held on 11.5.16 – see attached document.

Condition 7 (Page 86) – NB. If the Core Strategy Inspector considers that this element of proposed Policy CS.18 (D) is unacceptable then this condition will be deleted or modified as necessary.

Condition 58 Archaeology (Page 91) - should be a Pre-Reserved Matters Condition rather than Pre-Commencement.

Page 3

This page has been left intentionally blank

Your ref: 15/00976/OUT Highway Authority ref: 150976 Robert Weeks Head of Environment & Planning STRATFORD-ON-AVON DISTRICT COUNCIL Elizabeth House, Church Street Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 6HX FAO: Carol Stephens

Communities

PO Box 43 Shire Hall Warwick CV34 4SX DX 723360 WARWICK 5 Tel: (01926) 418063 Fax: (01926) 412641 bensimm@warwickshire.gov.uk www.warwickshire.gov.uk

23rd May 2016 Dear Mr Weeks PROPOSAL: Outline application (with all matters reserved except for principal

means of access to the highway) for construction of a residential development (up to 2000 houses, including extra care housing), village centre (including primary school, community hub, health centre, retail and other services (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2)), managed ecological reserve, public open space, recreation areas (including sports pavilion), play areas, acoustic bunding and associated infrastructure including roads, primary substation, sewers and attenuation ponds and demolition of identified buildings and structures.

LOCATION: Land At Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath APPLICANT: CEG Land Promotions Limited, The Bird Group of Companies

Limited, Richard Peter Mann, Frank Richard David Webster White, Richard David White, Isaac Fletcher Watson, Mr and Mrs D F Burn.

Warwickshire County Council, hereby known as the ‘Highway Authority’, has undertaken a full assessment of the planning application and the revised Transport Assessment and additional information at the request of Stratford District Council.

This letter provides clarification to matters which have been raised by Councillor Chris Kettle in his submission entitled Ward Members Comments dated Friday 20th May 2016.

This response builds on the additional written responses the Highway Authority has provided on highway matters dated 11th May 2016 and 20th May 2016 and SDC Ward Member meetings on the 2nd December 2016 and 26th February 2106.

Page 5

Minute Item 36

Appendix 7

Your ref: 15/00976/OUT Highway Authority ref: 150976

2

SUMMARY:

The Highway Authority has undertaken a robust assessment of the planning application and supporting information. The Highway Authority has also provided additional responses providing clarity on a variety of matters.

The Highway Authority provided a comprehensive response on the 13th January 2016 which clearly justifies the Highway Authority decision and provides clear commentary on the analysis which has been undertaken.

The submitted Transport Assessment, Technical Notes, Trip Generations , Modelling and Mitigation Schemes have been reviewed in depth and concluded that the development can be accommodated on the highway network subject to mitigations schemes and public transport improvements which have been either conditioned or secured through planning obligations.

Therefore in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework the impact of the development cannot be considered severe and there are no justifiable grounds for objection.

ANALYSIS: The following text provides responses on the items which have been raised in Councillor Kettle’s submission.

Junction 12: This matter was raised at the meeting with the SDC Ward Members on the 26th February 2016 and again during the meeting with the Parish Councils on the 11th May 2016. It has also been commented on in the Highway Authority response to Parish Council enquiries dated the 20th May 2016.

Planning regulations and guidance published by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport explicitly provide guidance on why it is unacceptable for applicants and planning applications to be delayed due to external matters which are the responsibly of third parties.

The Highway Authority therefore holds and maintains a series of traffic models which enable the highway network to be assessed to reflect typical conditions in accordance with Department for Transport guidance.

In such an event of an application being deferred for such a reason, the applicant is able to apply to the Planning Inspectorate for ‘None Determination’.

In this scenario the planning application which will then be determined by the Planning Inspectorate rather the Local Planning Authority. This process also enables the Local Planning Authority to have costs awarded against them.

Page 6

Your ref: 15/00976/OUT Highway Authority ref: 150976

3

Transport Assessment: The matters raised by Councillor Kettle in terms of the background and explanation to how the position of no objection was achieved was provided in the highway Authority response sated the 11th May 2016.

The main issue is that Councillor Kettle states that the Highway Authority stated in 2nd December 2015, at a meeting with the Ward members and Planning Officers that the TA was not fit for purpose. This is a misleading statement and taken out of context. At the time of the meeting the Highway Authority had an objection lodged against the planning application dated the 2nd June 2015.

This response raised concerns regarding the modelling which had been undertaken at the time and provided constructive advice on what was required to make the modelling acceptable to the Highway Authority in accordance with guidance and standards identified by the Department for Transport.

This took a long period of time for the applicants and transport consultants to undertake and complete the work which was submitted. The additional work was submitted in a series of technical notes in December 2015. These were reviewed by the Highway Authority and enabled it to revise its response to no objection subject to conditions and financial obligations as set out in the Highway Authority response dated the 13th January 2016.

The additional information which is also provided within the revised TA overcame the original comments submitted by the Highway Authority.

Therefore for clarity at the meeting on the 2nd December 2015 the Highway Authority was still awaiting the provision of additional information, and therefore stated that at that time the document was ‘not fit for purpose’ in modelling terms. However this matter was overcome through the provision of the required information which addressed the issues within the Highway Authority response dated 2nd June 2015. Which enabled the Highway Authority to move to a position of no objection.

Councillor Kettle also raised that the TA is not robust as it only focuses on a development of 2,000 homes and not the wider 3,000 homes which has been identified for the allocated site within the Stratford on Avon Core Strategy and therefore is not a realistic assessment.

The reason that the TA focuses on a development of 2,000 dwellings is that this is the proportion of the development site located within the applicants ownership, with the remaining 1,000 dwellings forming part of the planning application 15/04200/OUT.

However it should be noted that all the modelling which has been undertaken is an assessment of the full 3,000 homes development as identified within the SoADC Core Strategy to identify the mitigation which needed to be funded by developers of both development sites.

Page 7

Your ref: 15/00976/OUT Highway Authority ref: 150976

4

To confirm again the TA is robust and conforms to the guidance and standards published by the Department for Communities and Local Government and Department for Transport.

Core Assumptions: The core assumptions are provided within the Transport Assessment. The Highway Authority is providing these details however due to existing work commitments as the statutory consultee and the scale of the request which Councillor Kettle has demanded it is taking the Highway Authority longer to provide these.

In no way should this be taken as that a full assessment has not been undertaken by the Highway Authority. It has been robustly assessed by the Highway Authority as has been described above.

Brookbanks have provided the assumptions which have been clearly utilised are demonstrated in Technical Note: TA Further Refinement Test dated the 3rd June 2015 in Appendix H of the Transport Assessment submitted in April 2016. These have been reviewed and accepted by both the Highway Authority and Highways England.

Errors in the Transport Assessment: The Highway Authority is aware of these errors and has mentioned them repeatedly to Brookbanks. However it should be noted that errors occur in a number of Transport Assessments received by the Highway Authority, however amended documents are not required as the Highway Authority.

This is because for any Transport Assessment submitted within a planning application the Highway Authority undertakes a full audit in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

As part of the assessment the Highway Authority routinely reviews and checkes numbers provided within the main Transport Assessment with the supporting data in the appendices.

The Highway Authority also undertakes its own calculations and assessments utilising the information provided within the Transport Assessment to ensure the outputs which are derived are correct.

This process has been repeatedly done in rider the applicants to overcome the Highway Authority objection which was submitted on the 2nd June 2015 and superseded on the 13th January 2016, as mentioned earlier in this response.

JLR response to the revised Transport Assessment: The Highway Authority provided a response to this letter in our response dated the 11th May 2016, which stated,

Page 8

Your ref: 15/00976/OUT Highway Authority ref: 150976

5

‘Gerald Eve, acting on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has submitted a letter, dated 5th May 2016, to Stratford on Avon District Council raising concerns on transport and highway matters. These matters are identified below with a response to address these concerns.

Transport Matters: JLR have raised concerns about the treatment of the B4100 and most notable direct driveways onto this road which would lead to reversing raising significant highway safety concerns and delaying the operation of the corridor.

The Highway Authority has consistently told JLR through correspondence and at meetings that private driveways from housing along the B4100 for individual houses will not be accepted. The reasoning for this is that the B4100 is a classified road and the highway Authority has a clear standard which states that all vehicles accessing classified roads from driveways must demonstrated the vehicle can exit the drive in a forward gear.

In addition the highway Authority has reiterated that driveways directly on to the B4100 should be resisted to the applicants. However this matter will be reviewed in greater detail through the Reserved Matters applications.

Junction Analysis: JLR raise concerns about the junction impact assessment that wider assessment is needed including individual off-site junction junctions to understand consideration of the effects of the proposed development.

The Highway Authority is satisfied that a robust assessment has been undertaken by Brookbanks which it has fully audited. The impact of the development has been fully identified utilising Warwickshire County Council’s M40 Paramics Transport Model. Those junctions which require mitigation have been identified and full mitigation has been identified and assessed. The Highway Authority is satisfied that the modelling undertaken has effectively tested the impact on the highway network.

The Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposed access improvements at the Aston Martin Lagonda Roundabout are satisfactorily and accommodate the proposed level of growth from the development operating within operational capacity with minimal delays and delay.’

TRICS Councillor Kettle is using the TRICS Good Practice Guidelines as a method to audit the trip generation and profile which has been identified within the Transport Assessment.

This document is not for such a purpose and is a toolkit to enable users to successfully navigate the programme to identify suitable trip generations and profiles for development sites. It is a recognised tool which is endorsed by the Department for Transport.

Page 9

Your ref: 15/00976/OUT Highway Authority ref: 150976

6

To support this application the Highway Authority required the applicants to utilise trip rates which had been derived for the Long Marston Depot site from the TRICS database. These rates are higher than standard rates to reflect the rural location of the Long Marston Depot Site. Whilst also being applied to Gaydon / Lighthorne Heath, they have also been utilised from Long Marston Airfield and the Codex Sims site which are both rural sites in nature.

These trip rates have been approved by the Highway Authority and Highways England.

JLR Figures: The Highway Authority has already provided a response on this matter in our response to the Parish Councils on the

The Highway Authority and its modellers Vectos Mircrosim have reviewed the data provided in the model. Based in this analysis the traffic count data within the model is based on 2011 traffic count data at the JLR access. The table below shows the breakdown of traffic data for JLR within the Transport Assessment and the 2015 count data submitted by JLR to support their planning applications.

2011 Base Extant TA Total 2015 count Difference

AM PEAK 07:00-08:00 2431 973 3404 2669 +735 08:00-09:00 1341 383 1724 1633 +91 09:00-10:00 639 129 768 545 +223

TOTAL 4411 1485 5896 4847 +1049 PM PEAK

16:00-17:00 2078 909 2987 2565 +422 17:00-18:00 1522 644 2166 1921 +245 18:00-19:00 610 282 892 1013 -121

TOTAL 4210 1835 6045 5499 +546

Whilst it is demonstrated that the 2015 counts are higher than the 2011 modelled values. However the TA total JLR flows utilised in the TA are a combination of the 2011 Base traffic flows and vehicle trips identified through JLRs extant planning permissions.

When the two are combined the flows for JLR utilised within the TA are considerably higher in comparison to the 2015 count apart from the 18:00 – 19:00 hour assessment. Furthermore across the core modelled period, the demands are 20% higher in the AM and 9% higher in the PM when compared to the 2015 gate count data. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the TA more than takes account of the current traffic levels.

It can also be argued that not all of the extant had been built out yet but the above analysis demonstrates that, with the most congested AM period, the JLR/AML site would need to generate an additional 20% traffic increase before it reached the level

Page 10

Your ref: 15/00976/OUT Highway Authority ref: 150976

7

accounted for within the modelling. Therefore it is also clear there is sufficient headroom with model flows for the extant to deliver an additional 20% increase in traffic volumes before the levels identified within the TA are exceeded.

This matter was also raised at the Examination in Public of the Local Plan when considering the allocation of the site within the Stratford on Avon Core Strategy. Admittedly it is confusing as the section is entitled Committed Developments which is misleading.

Table 8b actually prefers to the proposed allocation of the 100ha employment land earmarked by JLR but has not legal standing under planning, as it is does not have planning permission for any use at present.

Brookbanks have utilised this site as a further sensitivity test for the 100ha site on top of the JLR modelled trips identified the point above.

So using the AM peak as an example

2015 Gate Count Flows 07.00 – 10.00 – 4847 vehicles

TA Total Traffic Flows 07.00 – 10.00 – 5896 vehicles

TA Total Traffic Flows + 100ha employment (sensitivity test) – 8245 vehicles

So in summary, trip gen for the period is 8245, Brookbanks table would lead you to believe that the number is only 2349 which is clearly wrong but it shouldn’t come under a committed development heading, it is additional trip gen that has no status other than potentially being allocated within the plan.

Whilst it is beneficial for us that Brookbanks have considered the impact of this additional development demand and used it to identify an over-arching mitigation strategy we can only ask them to consider, within the TA, developments which have status and it is clear from the analysis of the trip generation assumed within the model, when compared to the 2015 gate count, that this is the case.

Employment and Education Vehicle Movements – an Alternative Approach

Councillor Kettle’s methodology and assessment is fundamentally flawed and does not conform to Department for Transport and Department for Communities and Local Government Guidance for the assessment of transport implications

Firstly data has been utilised for Stratford on Avon District. This is too high level and does not consider differing travel behaviour within the locality. In addition the data represents travel behaviour over a 24 hour period.

The main flaw in the assessment will Councillor Kettle has undertaken is that the 24hour traffic has been applied just to the peak periods, assuming all residents travel in this period. This is a major flaw which results in the methodology.

Page 11

Your ref: 15/00976/OUT Highway Authority ref: 150976

8

As a result the outputs provided by the analysis are not representative as it assumes that all residents travel in the AM peak, this is incorrect and misleading. It also exaggerates the trip generation which the site will generate.

In conclusion this data it can be discounted as being unrepresentative and methodically flawed, in addition it does not conform the guidance published by Central Government.

Cycling:

The Highway Authority provided a response on this matter in our letter dated the 11th May 2016. And at the meeting with the SDC Ward Members and Parish Councils on the 11th May 2016.

The Gaydon to Leamington cycle route is the highest priority in terms of new cycling infrastructure from the Lighthorne Heath development as it has the potential to assist a range of journeys to work and generate the greatest increase in cycle journeys

The initial estimate of 30 minutes for the time it would take for schoolchildren to cycle 7kms may be slightly high and perhaps closer to 25 minutes is more reasonable for this distance (although future residents at the western edge of the development near the Old Gated Road would have a journey to school of more than 30 minutes). However it’s still true to say that this is a relatively long route for school children to cycle which, together with the rural nature of the route, may deter some people from using it. In addition it is understand that buses (funded by the developer) will be provided between the Lighthorne Heath site and Kineton, as it is over the 3 miles threshold, which some school children / parents may consider a preferable option.

In terms of deliverability, it appears from highway boundary plans that there are a number of sections where there are likely to be difficulties constructing cycling infrastructure due to the lack of highway land. A minimum width of 3 metres would be required to construct a cycle track: this is based on accepting that the path could potentially be as narrow as 2 metres (cycling design guidance recommends 3 metres, but the rural nature of the route means that less width may be acceptable), but it would be necessary to have a 1 metre verge between the path and the carriageway to separate cyclists from vehicles due to the speeds on this route. There is limited highway verge width along many sections of the route and therefore land acquisition from third parties would be required.

Yours sincerely Ben Simm Ben Simm Development Group

Page 12

Your ref: 15/00976/OUT Highway Authority ref: 150976

9

**FOR INFORMATION ONLY** COUNCILLOR STEVENS – FELDON COUNCILLOR WILLIAMS – KINETON

COUNCILLOR KENDALL – WELLESBOURNE

Page 13

This page has been left intentionally blank

1

Cycling UK CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING Cycling to school or college

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns Briefing 7c (November 2015) 0844 736 8450

Cycling to school or college

THIS BRIEFING COVERS: School/college travel facts; the benefits of cycling to school/colleges; school travel plans and policies;

cycle training, other activities and facilities; management and risks.

HEADLINE MESSAGES Cycling to school or college helps pupils develop their physical health and fitness. It can also help

boost their confidence, independence and sense of self-worth, plus their navigational and road-craft

skills.

Equally, promoting cycling to school is a good way to tackle local congestion, pollution and road

danger created by the school run.

Involving pupils, parents, teachers and school governors in joint action to make the trips they

generate more sustainable can unite a school community and provide a learning experience in

social and environmental responsibility and project management.

Cycling is a skill for life. Encouraging as many children as possible to see it as viable transport helps

ward off car dependency in adulthood, and contributes to reducing the volume of motor traffic in the

future.

KEY FACTS

About 50% of primary school children say they want to cycle to school, but in England only

around 1% of children aged 5-10 and 2% of children aged 11-15 cycled to school in 2014.

In the Netherlands, around 49% of primary school children cycle to and from school, 37% walk

and only 14% are brought and collected by car. In secondary school, the cycling share is even

higher.

At 47%, cars are the most common form of transport used for the school/college run; travel for

education is responsible for about 29% of trips between 8 and 9 am.

The average distance travelled to get to school/college is approximately 3 miles.

In the UK, about 30% of children aged 2-15 are either overweight or obese and, without action,

25% of them could be obese by 2050. In England, only round 21% of boys and 16% of girls

aged 5-15 meet the current physical activity levels for their age group.

10-16 year-old boys who cycle regularly to school are 30% more likely and girls seven times

more likely to meet recommended fitness levels.

Children who walk or cycle to school concentrate better than those who are driven there.

Page 15

Minute Item 36

Appendix 8

2

Cycling UK CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING Cycling to school or college

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns Briefing 7c (November 2015) 0844 736 8450

Cycling UK VIEW Involving the whole school community (pupils, teachers, governors and parents), schools and

colleges should:

o Actively recognise the health, social, environmental and educational benefits of encouraging

students and staff to cycle;

o Develop, act on and monitor School Travel Plans that have cycling at their core; and publish pro-

cycling policies;

o Arrange for Bikeability training and other activities to promote safe, fun and responsible cycling;

o Provide high quality facilities for pupils and staff who cycle (e.g. parking, lockers for equipment

etc.).

o Remove all barriers to cycling (e.g. bans on parking cycles on the premises);

o Not impose restrictions on those who do cycle (e.g. a requirement to wear cycle helmets).

o Work with the local highways authority to improve road safety in the area.

Local authorities should:

o Work positively with schools/colleges on cycling and offer resources to help them develop their

travel plans;

o Jointly identify hostile conditions on local roads and treat them to help make cycling to and from

school/college as hazard-free, attractive and convenient as possible (e.g. by introducing 20 mph

speed limits, providing safe cycling links etc.).

School inspections and self-evaluations should assess the measures that school/colleges take to

encourage active travel and reduce the impact it has on traffic volumes and road danger.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. School/college travel facts

According to a parliamentary answer given in 2015, the percentage of children cycling to school over

the last ten years is very small - many more children walk:

Source: Parliamentary question answered by Robert Goodwill MP, 10/11/15.1

In England (2014), only around 1% of children aged 5-10 and 2% of children aged 11-15 cycled to

school.2

In Wales (2014/15), regardless of distance from home to school, only 2% of primary school children

and less than 1% of all secondary school pupils cycled to school.3

In Scotland (2014), 2.4% of 4-11 year-olds and 0.7% of 12-18 year olds usually cycled to

school/college. 4

Page 16

3

Cycling UK CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING Cycling to school or college

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns Briefing 7c (November 2015) 0844 736 8450

In England (2014): at 47%, cars/vans were the most common form of transport used for the

school/college run, even though the average distance travelled is only around three miles; and just

2% of education/escort to education trips were cycled:5

Travel for education contributes significantly to peak time traffic: it is responsible for about 29% of

trips between 8 and 9 am, with an additional 21% escorting others to education.6

Good examples:

In the Netherlands: around 49% of primary school children cycle to and from school; 37% walk; and

only 14% are brought and collected by car. In secondary school, the cycling share is even higher.7

(26% of all trips are made by cycle in the Netherlands).

Many short car journeys in the UK to school could easily be converted into cycling trips, and some

schools have achieved cycling levels well above the national average:

Kesgrave High School in Suffolk has long been renowned for its cycling levels - around 60% of

pupils. The school actively promotes cycling, provides well for it and considers it to be the ‘normal’

way of travelling to and from the premises.8

Following Bikeability training in its feeder schools since 2008, Sir John Lawes Secondary School in

Harpenden saw the numbers of pupils who cycle increase from 20 (2%) in 2008 to 72 (7%) in

2011.9

Well over 10% of pupils at Dunbar School - the biggest primary school in Scotland - cycle regularly

between home and the premises. The school has committed to its travel plan produced in 2005,

promotes a cycling culture and is enthusiastic about Bikeability training.10

2. The benefits of cycling to school/college

.

a. Health

Childhood obesity/inactivity: Apart from the short and long-term physical repercussions of an

unhealthy weight, affected children also suffer from social, psychological and health problems.

o In 2007, the Government-commissioned Foresight report predicted that, without action, 25% of

children would be obese (not just overweight) by 2050 in the UK.11

o The 2013 Health Survey for England found that around 29.5% of children aged 2-15 were

classed as either overweight or obese.12

o In Scotland (2013), 16% of children aged 2-15 were considered to be at risk of obesity, with a

further 12.8% at risk of being overweight.13

o In Wales, about 35% of children under 16 were overweight or obese in 2011.14 In 2013/14,

14.6% of children aged 4-5 were overweight, while 11.8% were obese.15

Cycling UK view: Involving the whole school community (pupils, teachers, governors and parents),

Schools/colleges should actively recognise the health, social, environmental and educational

benefits of encouraging students and staff to cycle.

Page 17

4

Cycling UK CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING Cycling to school or college

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns Briefing 7c (November 2015) 0844 736 8450

Physical activity and fitness

o Cycling to school is a convenient way to help children aged 5-18 achieve the recommended levels

of activity recommended by the NHS, i.e.: “at least 60 minutes of physical activity every day – this

should range from moderate activity, such as cycling and playground activities, to vigorous

activity, such as running and tennis.” 16

o Cycling is also very popular with children: in 2014/15, over 30% of children aged 5-10 cycled or

rode a bike outside school hours, making it their third most popular sports activity, superseded

only by swimming (33.5%) and football (50.6%).17

o In England, around 21% of boys and 16% of girls aged 5-15 meet the current physical activity

levels for their age group.18

o The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) strongly recommends active travel (walking

and cycling) as a good way of promoting physical activity amongst children.19

o A study of 6,000 pupils in eastern England found that 10-16 year-old boys who cycle regularly to

school are 30% more likely and girls seven times more likely to meet recommended fitness

levels.20

o A study of Danish school children found that those who cycled to school were significantly more fit

than those who walked or travelled by motorised transport and were nearly five times as likely to

be in the top quartile of fitness, suggesting that cycling to school may contribute to higher

cardiovascular fitness in young people.21

o Another Danish study indicated that cycling to school lowered young people’s risk of CVD.22

o Research has also shown that cycling to school “counteracted a clustering of cardiometabolic risk

factors and should thus be recognised as potential prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus and

cardiovascular disease (CVD)”. 23

b. Social benefits

Children enjoy cycling as a sociable activity and friendship ties have been found to influence their

patterns of exercise significantly – a USA study found that children’s activity levels can be

increased, decreased, or stabilised depending on the habits of their immediate social network.24

School communities that promote a cycling culture can capitalise on this.

Whilst only a tiny percentage of children actually cycle to school, considerably more would like to do

so: according to a 2010 survey of primary school children in England, 48% of boys and 50% of girls

said they would like to have travelled to school by cycle that morning (12% and 10% respectively

said they preferred the car).25

c. Environmental benefits

As mentioned (p3), trips for education purposes are responsible for around 29% of traffic at peak

time. This contributes to air and noise pollution, climate change, hostile road conditions and

volumes of traffic that undermine the quality of life for residents. Schools that encourage walking

and cycling as an alternative to driving help address these environmental nuisances.

d. Educational benefits

Cycling can inspire activities in PE lessons, but can also provide material for other subjects, e.g.

maths and IT (collecting and interpreting data on local cycling levels); geography (local topography);

design and technology (the mechanics of bicycles); PSHE (cycling responsibly, attitudes to cycling,

benefits of exercise etc.).

A Danish study of 20,000 children aged 5-19, found that those who walk or cycle to school rather

than being driven are able to concentrate better, and the effect lasts all morning. 26 On-going

research is also gathering more and more evidence to suggest that levels of physical activity are

positively related to academic performance.27

Page 18

5

Cycling UK CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING Cycling to school or college

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns Briefing 7c (November 2015) 0844 736 8450

Cycling UK view: Schools and colleges should develop, act on and monitor Travel Plans that have

cycling at their core, and publish pro-cycling policies.

3. Travel Plans and policies

a. School Travel Plans

School Travel Plans (STPs) set out how a school intends to make the trips it generates more

sustainable. Most schools have developed an STP at some point, and cycling is often a key element.

In 2003, the Government made it clear that both schools and local authorities should promote

sustainable transportation through STPs. While schools don’t have to produce a travel plan by law, the

Education and Inspections Act 2006 s.76 gives local education authorities (LEAs) in England a general

duty to promote the use of sustainable travel and transport. 28 STPs are an ideal way of fulfilling this

duty.

Good STPs involve the whole school community, e.g. governors, head and other teachers, parents and

especially pupils. They also benefit from input and help from the relevant council (with road safety

measures, for instance - see below). Some local authorities employ school travel plan advisers or other

staff whose role may include helping schools develop and progress their STPs.

STPs need to measure their success against a baseline survey of travel patterns, and present clear

targets, specific interventions and include agreed monitoring criteria.

b. Pro-cycling policies and cycling ‘champions’ Cycling UK urges all schools/colleges to publish a written commitment to cycling amongst its policies,

and ensure that the whole school community is aware of it. Ideally, this needs to be accompanied by an

explanation of how they’ll promote and encourage cycling, and should not impose any restrictions (see

Section 5 below, ‘Management and Risk’).

Any organisation keen to support cycling is well advised to set up a steering group or committee

dedicated to making it cycle-friendly. At schools/colleges, such committees are usually inspired by keen

cyclists or ‘champions’ and involve staff, governors, pupil and parent representatives.

Sources for more information on School Travel Plans

Travelling to School: an action plan. 2003 (DfT / Department for Education). Covers the

responsibilities of schools, local and national government. http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/t/travelling%20to%20school%20action%20plan.pdf

Home to School Travel & Transport Guidance (Dept. for Education). Includes a chapter on

sustainable school travel and the legal duties of local authorities in England under the Education

& Inspections Act 2006. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/331654/Home_to_school_trave

l_and_transport_statutory_guidance.pdf

Developing a School Travel Plan: information for parents and schools. (Sustrans). www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/srs_developing_an_stp_st16.pdf

Page 19

6

Cycling UK CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING Cycling to school or college

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns Briefing 7c (November 2015) 0844 736 8450

4. Cycle training, other activities and facilities

a. Cycle training Bikeability - or ‘cycling proficiency for the 21st century’ - is a cycle training scheme for both adults and

children designed to give them the skills and confidence to ride in modern road conditions. There are

three levels, with children typically starting Level 1 lessons once they have learnt to ride a bike. Level 2

is for 10-11 year-olds; and Level 3 for 11-18 year-olds at secondary school.

A report prepared for the DfT found encouraging signs that Bikeability, which was first introduced in

2007, is positively associated with higher levels of cycling to school.29 Government funding is available

to provide Bikeability training, and all local authorities should be encouraged to claim it.

For more on cycle training, see Cycling UK’s briefing at:

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-training

b. After-school clubs These are an enjoyable and sociable way of introducing cycling to young people and establishing its role

in their lives for recreation, sport, exercise, and as a ‘green’ form of transport. They can, for example,

offer local rides, outings, training and maintenance sessions. Cycling UK might be able to help:

www.cyclinguk.org/project/community-cycle-clubs

c. Bike It Bike It is a Sustrans-managed programme to promote cycling in schools. Its officers work with several

schools in a given area, raising awareness among staff, pupils and parents alike, leading discussions in

school assemblies and lessons like geography or PHSE. They organise events and activities such as

‘bike to school’ days, bike breakfasts and promote cycle training too. www.sustrans.org.uk/our-

services/where-we-work/schools

d. Cycle parking Pupils, staff and visitors who cycle to the premises need somewhere sheltered, secure and convenient

to store their cycles. Designs are available that are specifically aimed at children and able to

accommodate small bikes. Cycle parking facilities need to cater for any suppressed demand (i.e. not

merely existing cycle levels), and should be installed somewhere that won’t attract vandals or thieves,

and be near enough to the school to make it convenient to use. The local authority should be able to

advise on planning permission, and some will help with the cost.

e. Lockers

Children benefit from somewhere safe to store their cycling accessories during the day, as do staff.

Cycling UK view: Schools/colleges should:

Arrange for Bikeability training and other activities to promote safe, fun and responsible cycling.

Provide high quality facilities for pupils and staff who cycle (e.g. parking, lockers for equipment

etc).

Page 20

7

Cycling UK CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING Cycling to school or college

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns Briefing 7c (November 2015) 0844 736 8450

5. Management and risk

a. Cycling ‘bans’

Despite all the benefits of promoting and encouraging cycling, some schools still maintain anti-cycling

policies. While they have no legal power to stop anyone cycling to or from the premises, they are entitled

to prohibit parking on their sites. Unfortunately, this means that some schools won’t allow children to

leave their bikes on school grounds during the day, which effectively bans cycling or makes it very

difficult for pupils and their parents to cycle there.

Some schools feel that they cannot provide cycle parking because space is short, but this can usually

be overcome with the local authority’s help. Others may simply have an aversion to cycling, often

because of ill-founded fears about health and safety.

Cycling, however, is not an unduly risky activity, the health advantages are known to outweigh the risks

and, as discussed above, children benefit in many ways from the physical activity involved and the

sense of independence that cycling offers. Indeed, as cycling causes very little harm to other road users,

promoting it as an alternative to driving is a responsible approach. After all, it reduces the risk to

children from motorised vehicles in the locality and around the school – risk which is, ironically, often

quoted as the main reason why a school feels it cannot ‘allow’ cycling.

If there are genuine concerns about busy roads or bad driving around the premises, the best approach

is not to ban children from a healthy, clean and safe alternative to the car, but to tackle the problems

directly at source. This can be done, for example, by contacting the highways authority to see if they can

improve the local road layout; and/or stressing the importance of considerate driving to everyone

associated with the school/college. Faced with the twin crises of climate change and obesity, the last

thing we should be doing is forcing more children into car-dependent lifestyles.

Some people are reluctant to let children make their own way to school because of ‘stranger danger’.

Incidents, however, are extremely rare, the fears of anything happening are disproportionate, and

children can be easily advised about what to do if they feel at all threatened.

For more, see Cycling UK’s briefings: Cycling and road safety and Cycling and health.

www.cyclinguk.org/campaignsbriefings

Cycling UK view: Schools should:

Remove all barriers that prevent children from cycling (e.g. bans on parking cycles on the

premises).

Not impose unnecessary restrictions on those who do cycle (e.g. a requirement to wear cycle

helmets).

Work with the local highways authority to improve road safety in the area.

Page 21

8

Cycling UK CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING Cycling to school or college

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns Briefing 7c (November 2015) 0844 736 8450

b. Restrictions

It is important for schools/colleges to promote responsible cycling, e.g. safe riding habits on roadworthy

bikes. A strong and positive cycling culture, Bikeability training and other lessons are the best ways of

achieving this. In contrast, making cycle helmets compulsory or asking children to qualify for a ‘cycling

permit’, is likely to have a negative effect. Such rules have the potential to reduce both the numbers

and the diversity of children who would like to cycle by putting a barrier in their way.

Cycle helmets: Imposing helmet rules is not justified on health and safety grounds given the

uncertainties about their effectiveness. The measure can also be discriminatory because the cost of a

helmet may be beyond some families’ means. It should therefore be up to parents to decide whether

they want their children to wear helmets whilst cycling, and their decisions should be informed by clear

information about the protection such headwear affords. Cycle helmets are discussed more fully in

Cycling UK’s briefing Cycle helmets. www.cyclinguk.org/campaignsbriefings

6. Role of local authorities

Local authorities have an important role to play in helping schools/colleges increase the levels of

cycling amongst their students and staff. They should dedicate resources and officer time, and ensure

that all departments are engaged. Working with the schools in the area, they can identify anything that

deters people from encouraging children to cycle (e.g. speed of traffic, lack of crossing points,

inadequate cycle training) and take action to tackle the problems (e.g. implement 20 mph limits; install

zebra/toucan crossings, facilitate and fund Bikeability training etc.).

7. Role of school inspectors

Arguably, encouraging sustainable, active travel and reducing road risk by working in partnership with

the community and local authority are all activities that inspectors should consider when they evaluate,

for example, the school’s management and its students’ well-being, safety and social development.

Now that self-evaluation is also an important element of inspection arrangements throughout the UK30,

a school with a strong, ongoing Travel Plan should be able to provide evidence that it takes these

matters seriously.

Where a school does not address sustainable, active travel effectively, Cycling UK believes that

inspectors should highlight this as a weakness, and advise the establishment to improve.

Cycling UK view: Local authorities should:

Work positively with schools/colleges on cycling and offer resources to help them develop their

Travel Plans.

Jointly identify hostile conditions on local roads and treat them to help make cycling to and from

school/college as hazard-free, attractive and convenient as possible (e.g. by introducing 20mph

speed limits, providing safe cycling links etc).

Cycling UK view: School inspections and self-evaluations should assess the measures that

school/colleges take to encourage active travel and reduce the impact it has on traffic volumes and

road danger.

Page 22

9

Cycling UK CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING Cycling to school or college

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns Briefing 7c (November 2015) 0844 736 8450

FURTHER READING/WEBSITES/SUPPORT Cycling UK’s Right to Ride to School campaign and toolkit - for people who need to tackle anti-cycling

schools: www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/right-to-ride-to-school

Sustrans’ Getting Young People Active project: www.sustrans.org.uk

Cycling Scotland’s Cycle Friendly School Award and Cycle Friendly Secondary School Award - designed to

support, provide resources and reward work that promotes cycling in schools:

www.cyclingscotland.org/our-projects/award-schemes/cycle-friendly-schools/

1 Parliamentary question from Lilian Greenwood MP, answered by Robert Goodwill MP. 10 Nov 2015.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2015-11-05.15152.h&s=%28cycling+OR+cyclist%29#g15152.r0 2 DfT. National Travel Survey 2014. Sept 2015. Table NTS0613.

www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-travel-survey-statistics 3 Welsh Government. Active travel: walking and cycling. Oct 2015.

http://gov.wales/statistics-and-research/walking-cycling-action-plan/?lang=en 4 Transport Scotland. Transport and travel in Scotland 2014. Aug 2015.

www.transportscotland.gov.uk/statistics/j389989-23.htm 5 DfT. National Travel Survey 2014. July 2015. Tables NTS0409 & NTS0405. (Link above) 6 DfT. National Travel Survey 2014. July 2015. Table NTS0502. (Link above) 7 Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Fietsberaad. Cycling in the Netherlands. 2009.

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/CyclingintheNetherlands2009.pdf 8 See Cycling England’s case study:

www.ciltuk.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/The%20Hub/infrastructure/Case_Study_Cycling_to_Kesgrave_School_Ipswich.pdf 9 Steer Davies Gleave for the DfT. Cycling to school: a review of school census and Bikeability delivery data. March 2012.

http://bikeability.org.uk/publications/ 10 http://cyclingscotland.msol.org.uk/local/casestudy/casestudy.php?casestudyID=129 11 Foresight: Tackling Obesities: Future Choices. 2007. See

www.bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/projects/current-projects/tackling-obesities/reports-and-publications 12 Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). Health Survey for England, Chapter 11. Dec 2014. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/ 13 Scottish Government. www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Health/TrendObesity 14 National Assembly for Wales. Childhood Obesity. July 2013. www.assemblywales.org/qg12-0004.pdf 15 Public Health Wales. Child Measurement Programme for Wales 2013/14. 2015. www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/888/page/67762 16 http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/physical-activity-guidelines-for-young-people.aspx 17 Dept for Culture, Media & Sport. Taking Part 2014/15: Annual Child Report. Fig. 2.2. July 2015.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/447730/Taking_Part_2014_15_Child_Report__Repaired

_.pdf 18 NHS. Statistics on obesity, physical activity and diet, England 2015. March 2015. Self-reported figures.

http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB16988/obes-phys-acti-diet-eng-2015.pdf 19 NICE. Promoting physical activity for children and young people. 2009. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/PH17 20 Voss, C and Sandercock, G. Aerobic Fitness and Mode of Travel to School in English Schoolchildren. Feb. 2010. Published in the

Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine.

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2010/02000/Aerobic_Fitness_and_Mode_of_Travel_to_School_in.9.aspx 21 Cooper AR et al. Active travel to school and cardiovascular fitness in Danish children and adolescents. Department of Exercise,

Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom. 2006. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17019293 22 Andersen et al, 2011. Cycling to School and Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Physical Activity and

Health, 2011, 8, 1025 -1033

www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/22039135/Cycling_to_school_and_cardiovascular_risk_factors:_a_longitudinal_

study_ 23 Østergaard, Lars et al. Bicycling to school improves the cardiometabolic risk factor profile: a randomised controlled trial.

Published in BMJ 31/10/2012. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23117560 24 Gesell SB et al. The Distribution of Physical Activity in an After-school Friendship Network. 2012. Published in the Official Journal

of the American Academy of Pediatrics. (doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2567)

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/05/23/peds.2011-2567.abstract 25 Shaw, B et al. Children’s independent mobility: a comparative study in England and Germany (1971-2010). Policy Studies

Institute. 2012. www.psi.org.uk/images/CIM_Final_report_v9_3_FINAL.PDF 26 Science Nordic. 30/12/2012. http://sciencenordic.com/children-who-walk-school-concentrate-better 27 Singh et al. Physical Activity and Performance at School - A Systematic Review of the Literature Including a Methodological Quality

Assessment. 2012. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med;166(1)

Page 23

10

Cycling UK CAMPAIGNS BRIEFING Cycling to school or college

www.cyclinguk.org/campaigns Briefing 7c (November 2015) 0844 736 8450

www.pbac.sa.edu.au/Content/Resources/Lit%20review%20PA%20and%20performance%20at%20school%20Singh%20et%20al%2

02012.pdf 28 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/40/part/6; for guidance on the statutory duties of local authorities with regard to

sustainable transport, see DfE‘s Home to school travel and transport guidance. July 2014.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/331654/Home_to_school_travel_and_transport_

statutory_guidance.pdf 29 Steer Davies Gleave/DfT. Cycling to School – A review of school census and Bikeability delivery data. 2012

http://bikeability.org.uk/publications/ 30 Information and guidance on school inspections is available from: Ofsted (England),

whttps://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted; Education Scotland, www.educationscotland.gov.uk; Her Majesty’s

Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales, www.estyn.gov.uk; and The Education and Training Inspectorate (N Ireland),

www.etini.gov.uk.

Page 24