1. My name is David Hunter-Yeats and I am a Director of WSP
Development Limited.
2. I have been involved personally since 1996 as Director
responsible for the project.
3. I have visited the site and surrounding area on many
occasions.
4. I shall demonstrate that from a transport viewpoint, the
Scheme proposals are not only workable, but appropriate for this
city centre location. I consider that there are no highway
impediments to the Scheme proceeding if the Order is confirmed.
5. The location of the Scheme is shown on Figure DHYI. The site
boundary and existing road network and transport facilities are
shown on Figure DHY2.
Existing Situation
6. Bath City Centre is well served by public transport having a
main line railway station, a large bus station and a significant
number of bus stops on-street.
7. Passengers wishing to reach the City Centre are faced by the
heavy traffic using thegyratory immediately in front of the railway
station.
8. With the majority of bus passengers seeking to reach the City
centre this leads to significant flow of passengers across Railway
Street which does not have any signal controlled pedestrian
facility.
9. Dorchester Street with its significant traffic flow of both
general traffic and buses is not friendly to cyclists. The gyratory
surrounding the bus station aggravates the situation.
10. The existing bus station has very limited facilities for
passengers. The on-street bus stops are also not of the appropriate
high standard for today's passengers and vehicles. The bus stops
are located too close together.
11. The footways alongside the on-street bus stops are also
limited in width, especially along the southern side of Dorchester
Street.
12. Currently bus passengers enjoy only limited amounts of
weather protection at onstreet stops and the bus station.
13. The existing servicing areas are located on the roof and are
not capable of accommodating a significant number of articulated
vehicles. The existing servicing arrangements to the Iceland retail
unit and also Comet are both less than ideal.
14. The shopping area is served mainly by two large car parks
namely Ham Gardens and the Avon Street multi-storey and surface car
park. Neither car park is of a high quality.
Scheme Evolution
15. The Southgate Centre was owned by the Prudential prior to
1995. In 1988 they submitted a planning application (7741-43) for a
large single building enclosed shopping centre which the Council
did not consider complied with its objectives.
16. In February 1996 my company, then known as Frank Graham
Consulting Engineers, were appointed as Transport Consultants by
CGNU.
17. The design team formulated options with Officers of the
Council. The results are included in Core Document CD10.7, entitled
"Review of Evaluation of Outline Proposals".
18. A key component was to improve the quality of the public
transport interchange. The bus station layout was changed in
successive substituted drawings to improve interchange with the
railway station, and the operation of layover, drop-off and
embarkation stands.
19. Brunel's railway vaults and especially the "Finger" vault
eventually defined the eastern-most boundary of the proposed bus
station.
The Scheme
20. The Planning Consent comprises major comparison and some
convenience retailing floor space, leisure facilities and
residential units including a high quality bus station, 724 car
parking spaces and two service yards.
21. Additional signal controlled pedestrian crossing facilities
will be incorporated in St James's Parade, Dorchester Street and
Manvers Street. These have been deemed by the Council as adequate
to cater for the future flows.
22. The Scheme will provide 80 racks for cycles in locations
convenient for the shops.
23. There is a £10,000 financial contribution within the S106
Agreement for additional cycle racks.
24. The proposed car park will have about 32 disabled persons'
spaces on the upper car park level. The Shopmobility Centre will be
relocated to the north side of the department store close to the
main lift core.
25. Those that arrive by bus will be able to travel from the bus
station into the scheme using signalised crossings on Dorchester
Street. Those travelling by city bus will have to cross Dorchester
Street only once.
26. The new bus station is to be located alongside the railway
station thus providing excellent interchange facilities. The
pedestrian waiting areas will be significantly enhanced within a
glass walled building.
27. The bus station layout and number of bays was agreed several
years ago with First Bus with the bay width slightly greater than
those existing and also to cater for the then maximum length bus of
12 metres.
28. The number of on-street stops has remained as before and
they have been lengthened to accommodate 12 metre buses.
29. I therefore consider that the Scheme will result in a
significant improvement in facilities for buses and their
passengers both in the proposed bus station and also at the
on-street stops.
30. There are two service yards in the Scheme as shown on my
Figure DHY 3.
31. The Scheme will include 724 parking spaces in a three-level
basement. There will be a reserved area on level -3 of around 130
spaces for the use of railway passengers parking their cars in
order to travel onwards by train.
32. The Scheme will result in a loss of 95 public parking spaces
in the Southgate area. This has been agreed with the Council
following detailed parking assessment. The City are also planning
future expansion of Park and Ride including a new site to the East
at Lambridge.
33. The impact of the proposed development on the existing and
proposed highway network has been analysed with reports in 1997,
1998 and 2001. Each of these reports were discussed and agreed in
detail with the Highway Authority.
S106 Obligations Of The 2003 Consent (Ref
01/01019/Ful)
34. The Scheme will bring some significant improvements to the
transport facilities.
35. These include signalisation of the Churchill Gyratory and
the Bathwick Street junction, and the introduction of bus priority
in Ambury.
36. The S106 Agreement requires the provision of two remote VMS
signs giving advance notice of space availability in the Avon
Street and Scheme car parks.
37. The S106 Agreement requires that the same number of stops
both on-street and within the bus station are maintained in
reasonably close proximity to their current location throughout the
construction period. I am satisfied that an appropriate arrangement
will be identified to satisfy this requirement.
38. The S106 Agreement requires existing traffic flows be
maintained "throughout the construction period". I do not envisage
difficulty in complying with this requirement.
39. It also necessary to maintain existing pedestrian routes and
I do not envisage difficulty in complying with this
requirement.
40. The developer is required to prepare a management plan for
the new bus station. In addition a route has to be provided along
the rear of the bus station area and act as a "drive through"
facility. The proposed bus station as shown in my Figures DHY 3 and
4 has this through route.
Transport Policy
41. The issue of compliance with Local and Central Government
Policies on transport was discussed in the Transport Assessment
published in November 1997, the Revised Transport Assessment of
1998 and the 2001 Environmental Statement which incorporated an
updated Transport Assessment.
42. These reports dealt with policies which encourage non-car
movement and seek to minimise the length and growth in motorised
journeys and reduce the need to travel, especially by car. The
reports also dealt with the proposed parking provision and its
compliance with the policies to minimise parking provision and
hence private car usage.
43. The relevant transport policies that relate to this
development can be found in PPG 13, PPSG, Bath Local Plan (adopted
1997), the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan Deposit Draft
January 2002 and the Bath and North East Somerset Local Transport
Plan.
Objections
44. Very few of the objections refer to transport issues but it
is these that I comment on.
45. Network Rail has objected to a significant number of plot
numbers of property forming part of the railway station. This
transport related objection is mainly to do with the property
rather than transport issues and is therefore being commented on by
other witnesses.
46. First Great Western Limited are objecting to the same plot
numbers as Network Rail regarding their interest in the railway
station but have put forward no grounds of objections.
47. Avon Valley Cyclery (AVC) have objected listing seven
grounds for objections of which three relate to transport. Access
by the shop's customers will not be hindered as the car park to the
rear of the station remains. The two-way arch is capable of
accommodating "hi-top" transit vans which I would expect to be
adequate for a cycle shop.
48. With regard to security risk, I see no change or worsening
in the security surrounding the shop due to any reduction of
passing traffic.
49. First Group are the main operator of buses in Bath and are
the operator of the existing bus station. One of their objections
relates to "the design of the replacement bus station including
Health & Safety and other operational matters".
50. The proposed bus station has been designed after
considerable consultation with First Bus and was accepted by them
at the time of the application being granted consent by the
Council.
51. I have, however, met with representatives of First Bus to
discuss the operation of the four metre wide "roadway" through the
bus station, and the potential use of longer buses of up to 13.5
metre length in the future by First Bus and National Express.
52. This roadway comment can be overcome as the S106 agreement
does not exclude its use by manoeuvring vehicles.
53. However, the first two bays which are to be used by the
National Express coaches are too close to the entrance to provide
adequate inter-visibility. The consented layout designed for 12 m
coaches incorporated a "notch" in the bus station building. This
avoided the above conflict with arriving buses.
54. First Bus now requires a layout capable of accommodating
13.5m coaches. Modifications are being made to Bays 1 and 2 and the
"notch" to improve the manoeuvrability. This revised layout as
shown in Figure DHY 4 layout has been submitted to First Bus who
have deemed it acceptable.
55. Somerfield have objected and included four grounds of
objection including one that states "no certainty of sufficient car
park provision".
56. My company undertook a considerable amount of investigation
and analysis of parking requirements and were able to satisfy the
Council that we had an appropriate provision. The Council were
satisfied that the reduced parking during construction could be
handled by the remaining car parks in conjunction with increased
bus usage and Park and Ride.
57. Rosebys listed five grounds of objections. I have described
the improvements of the new bus station over the existing and I
consider that the scheme as drawn and consented does overcome the
problems of the previous bus station.
58. They also stated that "the objector can demonstrate
alternative layouts to enable their interests to be excluded from
the Order". I remain sceptical that the objector has managed to
identify such a layout.
