6. TRANSPORTATION

6.1. Justification of Part 1 Policies

6.1.1. Investment in highway infrastructure has traditionally and mainly been geared towards the expansion of highway capacity in order to reduce road congestion, and to meet forecasts of increased growth in road traffic. This “predict and provide” approach to highway development is now generally agreed to be unsustainable. It is nationally recognised that road building alone cannot solve the problem of traffic growth and increasing road congestion, and that where such new construction is deemed to be necessary, it should be justified by other factors, rather than to aim to cater solely for predicted increases in traffic.

6.1.2. Similarly, it is now also generally acknowledged that while new construction of roads may create extra highway capacity, this will not, in itself, solve all of the problems caused by traffic congestion. Other more environmentally acceptable measures, such as a physical reduction in highway capacity, should be considered in addressing the issues involved. The Council recognises that by pursuing this approach, which is justified on economic and environmental grounds, some cars may be displaced, especially during peak periods, with initial inconvenience to their users. Such losses would, however, be mitigated by the further provision of priority measures to aid efficient movement of buses, cyclists and pedestrians, thereby supplementing progress which has already been made on pedestrianisation plans, cycle and community routes and providing safe routes to schools in the County Borough, whilst encouraging modal shift, and improving the local environment. In this respect, the Council is confident that the overall impact of its transportation policies will be to the social, economic and environmental benefit of all residents of the County Borough.

6.1.3. The Council recognises that capacity adjustments to the highway network will have an impact on transport costs, journey to work patterns, economic development (including proposed changes to retail deliveries and loading restrictions), and therefore the future location of land-uses. Decisions to adjust or re-allocate highway capacity will therefore need to be informed by the role that public transport infrastructure, especially rail, will play in improving the overall efficiency of the total transport network.

6.1.4. While it may be generally desirable to constrain highway capacity in some areas of the County Borough to discourage the use of the car, in other areas, there may be a compelling need to enhance the highway network through new-build or highway improvements. In appropriate instances, new road construction can stimulate economic opportunities and developments by attracting inward investment, as formerly occurred in the M4 motorway corridor. The resultant potentially positive impacts of regeneration also justify keeping the option of building certain new roads, especially in those areas where attractive, environmentally acceptable development land is genuinely available. It is for these reasons, that Policy 6 has been introduced into the Plan.

6.1.5. The type, quality, and level of infrastructure in the County Borough will influence modal choice of transport, and the nature of proposed development. In their turn, the latter factors will influence the operational performance of existing transport and highway infrastructure, future investment requirements, and any implementation programme. It is in this context that Policy 7 is introduced.

6.1.6. To pursue the aim of co-ordinating and integrating land use with transport provision, thereby reducing journey lengths and reliance on the use of cars while enhancing rail freight potential, the highway network must be managed with a view to reinforcing the economic, social and environmental benefits deriving from the developments it will serve. It is therefore necessary to formulate transportation policies that will influence the location and nature of development by, for example, encouraging mixed-use developments at locations close to public transport corridors. This approach also embodies a reduction in the number and length of journeys, particularly those by car. It will similarly enhance and encourage journeys by public transport, cycle or on foot, thereby making more efficient use of the whole transportation network and reducing environmental degradation. Such an approach is embodied in the UDP’s strategy which promotes multi-modal transport corridors at the core of the transportation network.

6.1.7. To assist in the above process, and in consultation with the public and other local authorities in the South Wales region, the Council is proposing revised parking standards which will determine and regulate the level of parking provision in new developments. The requirement to apply maximum parking standards, as advised in Planning Policy Wales 2002, forms the basis for that work. Again, the basic tenet being: to reduce the reliance on cars and encourage the use of public transport, especially in areas where the latter is already amply provided, or where the potential exists for its further promotion.

6.1.8. Therefore, to achieve the aims and objectives of the revised standards, the Council will introduce policies requiring developers to submit, as a part of their development proposals, an assessment of public transport accessibility and provision for cycling and pedestrian facilities. Similarly, the Council will also require developers of all future proposals for employment-generating activities/uses to submit ‘commuting or travel plans’ which must be accompanied by a full explanation of how their plans will assist in delivering efficiency in the local transport network.

6.1.9. The Council is also aware that there may be instances where a developer’s proposals, when implemented, would have an adverse impact on the transport network and the local environment. Where this will occur, the developer(s) in question will be required to introduce the appropriate measures to rectify it. All of the above assessments/plans will be closely scrutinised by the Council and be subject to its approval.

6.1.10. Management of the transportation network, and future investment decisions are each influenced by, among other things, the efficient movement of people and goods. Whereas movement of goods nationally by road has been increasing, the rail industry’s share of freight traffic has remained constant over recent years. However, the structure of the economic and industrial output of the County Borough suggests that significant potential exists for a share of that freight traffic to be harnessed by rail in the interests of the economic and environmental benefit of the area. Therefore, to encourage local movement of freight by rail, the Council will favour development proposals which aim to locate at appropriate sites which will facilitate rail-freight movements. Such developments may also attract assistance under Section 249 of the Transport Act 2000.

Part 2

6.2. Introduction

6.2.1. Transportation is a vital instrument in securing the economic, environmental and social well-being of the County Borough. The nature of the transportation network can significantly influence the location, type and scale of development, and the means by which it should be accessed; and, conversely, the operational performance of that network and future requirements are themselves influenced by land-use developments. It is the recognition of these relationships that forms the basis of national guidance, and which therefore advocates the integration of land-use and transportation planning.

6.2.2. Historically, land-use patterns in Bridgend County Borough have been a significant factor in the local provision of housing, employment, shopping, educational and leisure facilities. Hence, the number and lengths of journeys have increased, and there has been an increased reliance on travel by cars. This trend was encouraged by minimum car parking standards and highway network management priorities, each of which has acted to the detriment of public transport and other modes of travel.

6.2.3. The decline in the use of public transport, however, cannot be attributed only to a rise in the use of cars and past concentration of development at the periphery of urban settlements, as it has also been significantly influenced by inadequate integration of different transport modes and poor linkages with developments. This has also contributed to social inequality. For example, out-of-town retailing and employment areas were originally served by only limited public transport provision, and/or the frequency of services could not sustain or support convenient work-related journey patterns by modes other than the car itself. In these circumstances, households which were unable to own or have access to the use of a car, became socially excluded from the economic benefits provided by those developments i.e. jobs or reduced prices.

6.2.4. The social and environmental costs that such exclusion imposes on the County Borough tend to reduce the beneficial effects of an improved transportation network. It is therefore the aim of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) to formulate policies to reduce these costs, and thereby reduce social exclusion as a constituent aim in achieving sustainable development.

6.2.5. The transport problems within the County Borough are varied and diverse as there is no uniformity in provision of transport services and equal availability of modal choice. This is clearly demonstrated by the existing highway network north and south of the M4, and the contrasting socioeconomic characteristics of the County Borough.

6.2.6. Some unique rural transport problems are also evident, such as inadequate public transport facilities and less generous access to amenities, which should not be subsumed in the overall concern to resolve urban transport problems (such as congestion), through fiscal initiatives, traffic restraint and other demand management measures.

6.2.7. To address the varying and diverse transport needs of the County Borough therefore requires a flexible package of integrated transport measures that will ease movement, and provide equitable access for all residents. This will include measures for traffic management and restraint, cycling, pedestrian and bus priority. Notwithstanding the reduced emphasis on new road building, however, it will be necessary for this integrated transport package to include a degree of new road construction, together with some improvements to existing highways, to meet the overall challenge.

6.2.8. However, the Council’s transport strategy also takes on board the advice provided in Planning Policy Wales 2002, which sets out the framework for the promotion of integrated transport in the delivery of sustainable development objectives. The guidance recognises the need to constrain the continuing rise in car use and the growth in overall traffic levels, but also the inability to continue to provide for forecast demand due to the prohibitive social and financial costs of road building. Hence the guidance requires that integrated transport policies should be developed to contribute towards reducing the rate of growth in traffic, reducing the increasing reliance on cars, while encouraging the use of alternative modes of transport.

6.2.9. The need to reduce the increasing reliance on cars, will encourage developers to choose sites for development which will be well-served by public transport, with reduced required parking provision, and thereby support the sustainable aims of the UDP. Detailed guidance supporting the above aims for integrated land-use and transport planning is contained in Planning Policy Wales 2002 which promotes the relevant precepts set down in the
Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997.

6.2.10. To recognise further the reduced emphasis on road construction as the major element of transport investment, the government has made Local Transport Plans (LTPs) the central focus for delivering its objectives of integrated transport at the local level. Local Transport Plan measures should include capital and revenue proposals as well as non land-use initiatives such as Green Transport Plans, and Quality Partnerships with freight and public transport operators. The LTP for the County Borough therefore contains an annually monitored and reviewed five-year rolling programme that promotes integrated transport and sustainable development.

6.2.11. This new approach to integrated transport planning has already helped to shape the way in which the Council intends to implement its transport strategy, priorities, and investment programme. The UDP will therefore contain schemes of strategic significance, i.e. including those actuated by proposed development, as well as those for which land has already been safeguarded; whereas the LTP will address local transportation issues. The latter will therefore include transportation schemes, proposals, and traffic management measures (especially those affecting the strategic transport corridors as identified later under Policy T13). Schemes will be identified annually in the review of the Council’s LTP and will inform the ongoing monitoring of the UDP’s policies. In this way the UDP and LTP will maintain consistent approaches to transportation strategy and policies, which is critical to the achievement of their mutual aims.

6.2.12. This approach will also confer two new major capabilities:-

• It will enable the Council to develop a package of schemes that are not piecemeal but, rather, integrated - i.e. including small scale projects that conform to criteria defined under the government’s New Approach To Appraisal (NATA); and
• The LTP process will facilitate the development of realistic programmes of transport investment and priorities, which reconcile the availability of funding with eligible projects.

6.3. Transportation and the Environment

6.3.1. Planning Policy Wales 2002 advocates an integrated approach to transportation with land-use planning so that transport and planning will work together to support more sustainable travel choices and reduce the need to travel. The document further suggests that the overall approach to transportation planning should aim at protecting and improving the environment and serving the needs of development by reducing the need to travel, and improving access to jobs, leisure and services. Hence, in order to minimise the demand for travel, future development should be located where it will be well-related to other land-uses and services with which it needs to interact.

6.3.2. THE PROMOTION OF SUSTAINABLE MODES OF TRANSPORT

POLICY T1

DEVELOPMENT SHOULD LOCATE IN AREAS SERVED BY, OR CAPABLE OF BEING SERVED BY, MODES OF TRANSPORT OTHER THAN THE PRIVATE CAR. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD SELECT LOCATIONS WHICH RESULT IN THE MINIMAL HARMFUL IMPACT FROM TRAFFIC, BY WAY OF NOISE, POLLUTION, ETC., ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

6.3.3. Policy T1 acknowledges the significant effect that the location and nature of development can have on the transportation network and the environment. To assist in protecting the environment from the undue effects of transport related activities, it is necessary to set up a framework which encourages individuals to select the most suitable and environmentally acceptable mode of travel for their journey. A key element of this, is the provision of real choice in the means of transport to and from proposed developments for those employed at, or using, them. Therefore, development will be located where existing networks of public transport and highway infrastructure can provide, with or without enhancement (depending on the demands of the development), an effective choice of mode of travel appropriate to the nature and scale of that development.

6.3.4. Proposed development which requires a high degree of accessibility by the general public shall be located within or close to existing centres of activity, and which are well-served by public transport. This requirement will be enforced by the Council taking due account of the nature of the development and the changing practices which are already being introduced, for example, e-commerce. Only in the case of development whose proposed goods and service provision would be impaired or rendered non-viable if conveyed through public transport, will this requirement be relaxed by the Council. It will continue to require that development based, for example, from a showroom in an existing centre, and proposing new services, such as free home delivery and e-commerce, should be located in those existing centres well-served by public transport. The Council also acknowledges that some out-of-town developments have complementary roles to play, and therefore require a high degree of accessibility, but they will be considered with a predisposition that they too should be located within existing centres. Where this is not possible, the alternative sites for such developments must similarly be accessible by means of a variety of travel modes.

6.3.5. Commuter travel by car is one of the major sources of traffic congestion, and every measure must be employed to limit its growth and encourage the use of public transport for travel to work. Therefore, office development or any other similar generators of commuter trips will be located where the existing networks of public transport provide a real and effective alternative to the private car, i.e. invariably within existing town centres. This is of particular relevance to call-centres, which by their nature generate a substantial amount of commuter travel. Equally, new residential developments will be located where existing, enhanced, or proposed networks of public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure will offer an effective choice in the mode of travel appropriate to the scale of their development.

6.3.6. In rural areas, the retention or creation of sustainable communities including facilities such as shops, schools, and post offices must be considered. These facilities must also include employment opportunities, especially when considering the uncertain nature of the agricultural industry. Therefore, lack of public transport should not preclude retail, service, or employment developments of an appropriate scale, which would serve local needs.

6.3.7. Cycling and walking are forms of transport that do not cause pollution and they can also be beneficial to an individual’s health. Positive encouragement of cycling and walking as modes of travel are therefore important elements of the Council’s transportation strategy. Realistically as a form of transportation rather than a leisure pursuit, there are limits to the distance that walking or cycling will be considered as a viable option. A distance of between 2 miles and 5 miles for walking and cycling respectively is considered reasonable over which these modes are currently viable. However, to maximise the potential for cycling, the Council will encourage the provision of measures and facilities that promote the use of cycling in combination with public transport, particularly rail. Such measures will include the provision of secure cycle parking facilities at transport interchanges, railway stations, town centres, and in educational institutions. The location of proposed development will be considered on the basis of how it maximises the potential of these sustainable and environmentally acceptable modes of transport to meet the needs of its access requirements.

6.3.8. In addition to providing justification for its location, developers will be required to demonstrate that access strategies put forward in support of their proposal(s) have been developed with a view to providing the maximum transportation facilities, commensurate with the development’s nature, form and scale, for walking, cycling, and public transport. In this way, a choice of travel modes will be secured for users of the development.

6.3.9. To comply with Policy T1, development proposals will be required to be designed in such a way as to facilitate walking, cycling and public transport. In addition, the developer may be required to improve or enhance the existing infrastructure.

6.3.10. SUSTAINABLE IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING HIGHWAYS

POLICY T2

PROPOSALS FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT LIKELY TO GIVE A MATERIAL INCREASE IN OR MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF TRAFFIC ON THE NETWORK SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY A TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT. WHERE THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT A PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY OR THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, AND WOULD FAIL TO PROVIDE CONVENIENT ACCESS BY A CHOICE OF TRAVEL MODE, THE SCOPE FOR OVERCOMING THE PROBLEM(S) BY PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED AND SECURED:

1. ROAD SAFETY FEATURES;

2. CYCLING FACILITIES;

3. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT;

4. PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES;

5. SPEED CONTROL FEATURES; AND

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS.

6.3.11. Creation of a high quality environment combined with facilities for alternative modes of transport and safety features, should be compatible with satisfactory accessibility. Where the Council considers that improvements to the existing infrastructure are needed in order for development to proceed, the developer(s) will be required to implement those improvements to high standards by addressing issues of safety; encouraging alternative modes of transport; improving the environment in relation to its appearance and effect; and by limiting maintenance liabilities. Therefore, regarding the scale and nature of proposed development(s), the transport - related considerations listed under Policy T2, will be applied.

6.3.12. Many people are inhibited from making journeys by cycle or on foot by the difficulty of crossing roads, passing traffic, noise, pollution, and security concerns. Developers will therefore be expected to ensure that secure cycling and pedestrian facilities and provision of routes, both within and outside proposed developments, are provided in order to eliminate these concerns and maximise the use of these modes of travel to and from the development. Development itself must not act as a barrier to such modes of travel, therefore, where appropriate, cycleways and footpaths will be required to allow a safe and pleasant passage through development. Even the most minor development proposals should be compatible with road safety, and should facilitate suitable access opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

6.3.13. Development proposals shall encourage the highest possible modal split in favour of bus-dominated public transport, and developers will be expected to have promoted this element in access strategies in liaison with local operators, with particular attention being given to the requirements of both work and non-work journeys. Frequency of service must allow the bus to rival the attractiveness of the private car and therefore, developers will be expected to provide details of any additional services required in order that the potential of public transport to serve their proposals will be fully realised. Where necessary, developers may be required to provide funds to 'pump prime' such services for the initial period of their operation, and to enter into legally binding agreements to ensure the provision of those services. The design of individual developments must include measures and facilities to ensure the effective and safe movement and penetration of public transport services.

6.3.14. Taxis also form a part of the public transport network, and developers will therefore be expected to demonstrate that appropriate provision has been made for their requirements.

6.3.15. Where rail services are accessible from proposed developments, provision must be made by developers to encourage the highest possible modal split in favour of rail-based public transport. They will be expected to have developed this element of their access strategies in liaison with the train operating companies, with appropriate attention being given to the requirements of both work and non-work journeys. Developers should also provide secure facilities and routes with a view to maximising the use of rail services.

6.3.16. Whilst it is desirable that whole journeys are made by public transport, appropriate use of park and ride schemes linked to either bus-based or rail-based networks can also make significant contributions to more sustainable transport by encouraging parts of journeys to be made by public transport. The contribution which park and ride can make to satisfy travel demand arising from proposals will therefore also be a material consideration. In suitable circumstances, developers will therefore be required to provide park and ride facilities, and to provide appropriate 'pump priming' of associated public transport services for an initial period of their operation.

6.3.17. Any use, improvement, or expansion of the transportation network has an effect on the environment through which it passes. Therefore, the Council carefully assesses the way in which development affects that network within the County Borough. Where development will exacerbate transportation-related environmental problems, or create new ones (whether locally or within a strategic corridor), developers will be required to provide, or fund, appropriate off-site infrastructure improvements and/or methods of working which will mitigate those problems. Where necessary, this may require the satisfactory conclusion of legally binding agreement(s) with the Council prior to development commencing.

6.3.18. Transportation-related environmental problems include issues such as congestion, noise, air pollution, vibration, visual intrusion, severance, risk or perceived risk of accident. The nature and degree of the potential problems will often depend on the area or localities affected: for example, whether they are settlements, countryside or established commercial areas, etc.

6.3.19. It is the normal planning requirement that developers must submit suitable plans of their proposals, (including any technical details, survey information, and relevant studies) in order that the impact of their proposals on the efficiency of the transportation network can be properly assessed by the Council. The appropriate amount of information required by the Council, however, will vary according to the nature and scale etc. of the development proposed. For instance, the requisite plans and technical detail needed to assess the impact of a single dwelling on an infill plot within a designated settlement may only require a simple transportation impact statement, unless it is located in a sensitive area (e.g. a Conservation Area). Whereas, a larger-scale or more complex, development should be accompanied by a comprehensive Transportation Impact Assessment, including a Public Transport Accessibility Audit in order that its full impact on the transportation network can be properly assessed. Any doubt over the level of information required – should be determined by means of ‘scoping studies’ carried out by developers in a manner agreed with the Council.

6.3.20. Given the variety of the potential problems which may occur, the nature of the requisite mitigation measures which may be required of the developer could be equally diverse, and, depending, for example, on which strategic corridor(s) may be affected, these might not be confined to the immediate vicinity of the proposal in question. The Council will only accept solutions that can be guaranteed by legally binding agreement(s), as appropriate, in those circumstances, and/or based on the outcome of Transport Assessments. Where the latter indicate that development(s) should appropriately be preceded by highway or transportation improvements, the Council will impose provision for this by planning condition(s). Otherwise, where the potential transportation-related environmental problems are likely to remain unresolved and/or unmitigated, those developments will not be permitted.

6.4. The Transportation Network

6.4.1. An effective and functional transportation network is essential to the economy of the whole County Borough, therefore development which adversely affects the efficiency of that network, will not be permitted. Developers will be required, in the first instance, to demonstrate that their proposals will not have such adverse effects on the efficiency of the network both locally, and in relation to its strategic corridors. In this respect, the Council will particularly examine the following factors relevant to submissions: access, road safety, pedestrian and cycle movement, traffic generation, parking, road layout, public transport and transport-related environmental issues.

6.4.2. Where it has been established that a proposed development would exacerbate or create new problems on the transportation network, either locally to the development, or more widely, e.g. affecting a strategic transport corridor, developers will be required, to provide and/or fund the appropriate off-site improvements, and take any other measures, for example, through proposed working arrangements, to mitigate those problems to the satisfaction of the Council, if necessary through appropriate legal agreements; otherwise those proposals will not be permitted.

6.4.3. The nature of transportation problems, which can be exacerbated or created by development proposals, can be varied. They may, for example, relate to highway or junction capacity, risk of accident, lack of pedestrian and cycling facilities, limited public transport, or the generation of high levels of movement by heavy goods vehicles. The level of consideration given to the various issues will depend on the environment in which the generated traffic is required to travel. If, for example, the generated traffic is required to travel through residential areas or if they pass by schools or retail centres with high levels of pedestrian movement, priority will be given to more of those issues listed above, than would be the case if less sensitive routes and areas were affected.

6.4.4. In view of the diversity of issues which may arise, the nature of the measures required to mitigate the problems which may arise will be equally diverse. Therefore, the nature of the off-site improvements required to be provided by the developer might take many forms, and depending on which strategic corridor is affected, may not be local to the proposed development. Physical improvements alone may not be sufficient to resolve some transportation problems, in such instances, other solutions must be sought e.g. traffic management schemes, reallocation of road space, or support for public transport services. Other solutions, such as ensuring that a development adopts appropriate work patterns to limit its effect on the network, or the appropriate use of rail-based services to supply and distribute goods should be considered, and the Council will attach the appropriate conditions to any forthcoming planning consents. Further solutions to those transportation or related environmental problems which can only be guaranteed by legally binding agreements (which may apply to all future users of the site) will similarly be considered by the Council.

6.4.5. USE OF RAIL TRANSPORT FOR MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT

POLICY T3

DEVELOPMENT WHICH ENCOURAGES THE USE OF RAIL-BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT, INCLUDING FREIGHT MOVEMENTS, WILL BE FAVOURED.

6.4.6. The Council wishes to play its part in enhancing and developing rail-based public transport, as this has the potential to reduce the use of cars. The retention and enhancement of passenger facilities at existing rail stations, and the introduction of new facilities are essential if the full potential of the rail network is to be realised.

6.4.7. The rail network is a valuable resource, which should also be developed to maximise its use for the movement of freight. This will relieve pressure on the road network bringing related environmental benefits. The Council therefore actively supports the expansion of rail freight operations.

6.4.8. Opportunities to enhance or develop the local rail network for public transport and freight movements will therefore be actively encouraged by the Council which will favour proposed developments that will either exploit the potential of, and/or are well-related to, the rail network.

6.4.9. THE RE-OPENING OR RE-USE OF REDUNDANT OR DISUSED RAILWAY LINES

POLICY T4

DEVELOPMENT WHICH INHIBITS THE POTENTIAL RE-OPENING OF DISUSED OR REDUNDANT RAILWAY LINES OR THEIR RE-USE FOR ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT PURPOSES, WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.

6.4.10. Four of the transport corridors identified in Policy T13 are associated with elements of redundant or disused railway lines which run from Pyle to Porthcawl; along the Garw and Ogmore valleys; and from Brynmenyn to Llanharan. Some sections of these lines have already been re-developed as community routes, while other sections (those that have not yet been programmed for alternative transport use) will be assessed for their future potential. Policy T4 ensures that until suitable assessments have been carried out, all remaining disused or redundant railway lines will be safeguarded from non-transport developments. However, in places where adjacent land has already been allocated for future development, it will be desirable to assess, as part of any relevant development proposals, the feasibility of incorporating the redundant railway line in the proposed transport requirements of that development.

6.4.11. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN RAIL CORRIDORS

POLICY T5

DEVELOPMENT WITHIN RAIL CORRIDORS WHICH WILL PREVENT THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE RAIL NETWORK TO CATER FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND FREIGHT MOVEMENT, WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.

6.4.12. The Council considers the existing rail facilities and its network serving the County Borough to be a minimum level of service, and any reduction in that service will not be acceptable. The Council has therefore identified the routes of the national rail network in the County Borough as rail corridors which comprise: railway tracks, railway stations and access to them, park-and-ride facilities, and the surrounding area. These corridors will encourage the location of local employment, and form the basis of future transport investment.

6.4.13. DEVELOPMENT AFFECTING THE M4 MOTORWAY AND ITS JUNCTIONS

POLICY T6

DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE EFFICIENCY OF THE M4 MOTORWAY AND/OR ITS JUNCTIONS WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED IF SUITABLE MITIGATION MEASURES CAN BE SECURED.

6.4.14. The section of the M4 motorway within the County Borough is part of the Trans-European Network (TEN) transport route running between the Severn Bridge and West Wales; which itself forms a part of the strategic link between Ireland, London, and continental Europe. Particular significance is attached to the TENs (along with Structural Funds and environmental policy) in the agreed European Spatial Development Perspective or ESDP (1999), “as….. they have the most direct effect upon development activities in the European regions.” Concern has been raised regarding the damage to the economy as a whole if congestion was allowed to have an adverse effect on the efficiency of the TEN corridor. Such congestion is more significant at the junctions along the M4 motorway.

6.4.15. The Council will therefore assess critically all development proposals within the M4 (TEN) corridor to ensure that they will not have an adverse effect on the efficiency of the M4 motorway, in particular at junctions 35, 36 and 37 in the County Borough. It is with respect to such concerns that junctions 35 and 36 have already been identified for development-related improvements in the UDP (Policies T14(5) and T14(13) refer).

6.4.16. New development, and/or the expansion/extension of existing developments which entails proposed access onto, or in close proximity to, the motorway junctions in the County Borough will therefore not be permitted, unless suitable mitigation measures can be secured to satisfactorily address any adverse effects of proposed developments; and/or it can be clearly demonstrated to the Council that the traffic impact of those proposals can be satisfactorily accommodated by the transportation network.

6.5. Parking

6.5.1. DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE NON-RESIDENTIAL CAR PARKING SPACES

POLICY T7

DEVELOPMENT THAT SEEKS TO REDEVELOP OR REUSE PRIVATE NON-RESIDENTIAL CAR PARKING SPACES, PARTICULARLY IN AREAS WELL SERVED BY PUBLIC TRANSPORT, WILL BE FAVOURED.

6.5.2. The availability of car parking is a major influence on modal choice and can, in fact, be a more significant factor than the comparative level of public transport provision. Therefore, if the Council’s strategy to encourage a shift towards more environmentally sustainable forms of transport is to be successful, it is important that the whole parking stock, including private nonresidential parking, should be very carefully managed. Wherever the opportunity arises, the management of private non-residential parking areas will consequently be brought within the scope of the Council’s car parking strategy. Therefore, the Council will favour proposals which include the redevelopment or re-use of existing areas of private non-residential car parking, with a view to bringing the provision within current standards of car parking.

6.5.3. NON-OPERATIONAL CAR PARKING WITHIN ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL AREAS

POLICY T8

NON-OPERATIONAL CAR PARKING PROVISION WILL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL CENTRES.

6.5.4. The Council is similarly seeking to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel into the established commercial centres of the County Borough. Future parking provision will therefore be based on the needs of the whole area rather than on dedicated provision for individual developments. The provision of off-street parking areas which will be shared between complementary land uses will also be promoted.

6.5.5. The Council will require developers to assess the access requirements of their proposals, and demonstrate the need for both public transport facilities and non-operational car parking to service their developments in their access strategies. Non-operational parking is that which serves the parking needs of those whose use of a vehicle is not essential for the operation of a land-use development. On the basis of those assessments, developers will be asked to provide suitable alternative transportation measures to cater for the impact of the maximum off-street car parking standards. These measures will mitigate the impact of those developments by promoting public transport, walking, cycling, protecting residential areas from on-street parking issues, and, where appropriate, for enhancing parking facilities in established commercial centres.

6.5.6. NON-OPERATIONAL CAR PARKING OUTSIDE ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL CENTRES

POLICY T9

NON-OPERATIONAL CAR PARKING PROVISION WILL BE STRICTLY LIMITED WITH RESPECT TO NEW DEVELOPMENT LOCATED OUTSIDE THE ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL CENTRES.

6.5.7. The Council will be publishing detailed requirements on car parking standards for new developments as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the UDP in due course. These guidelines will be used by the Council to establish the non-operational car parking space requirements of all new developments. The provision of car parking within a development has been shown to be very influential in shaping people’s travel choices. The National Assembly for Wales advises local authorities in its guidance documents to consider reducing the levels of car parking required in areas where alternative means of transport are available.

6.5.8. The Council will in turn require developers of sites outside the established commercial centres to demonstrate in their access strategies that their proposals will maximise the modal split in favour of alternatives to the private car. These will include details not only of any new infrastructure proposed as part of those developments, but also of any ‘pump priming’ necessary in order to realise a site’s potential to be served by public transport services. Having thereby identified the extent to which travel demand arising from their developments may be satisfied by alternative sustainable travel modes, developers will then be asked to provide residual assessments of any needs which may remain to be catered for by the private car. The Council will assess developers’ access strategies and determine the appropriate and albeit limited levels of non-operational car parking which will be permitted for those developments.

6.5.9. Policy T9 will be also be applied by the Council to reinforce the attractiveness and competitiveness of the established commercial centres of the County Borough by ensuring that non-operational car parking provision for developments outside those centres does not prejudice provision for the established commercial centres.

6.6. Freight

6.6.1. PROPOSED LORRY PARKING

POLICY T10

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADDITIONAL SITES FOR THE PROVISION OF STRATEGIC LORRY PARKS AT APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH WILL BE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT:-

1. THEY CAN BE SHOWN TO BE IN ACCORD WITH SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT AIMS;

2. THEY DO NOT GIVE RISE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS; AND

3. THEY DO NOT DIMINISH EXISTING AMENITIES.

6.6.2. The Sarn Park motorway services site at M4 Junction 36 not only provides existing lorry parking in the County Borough, but also provides refreshments and overnight accommodation for travellers. To prevent lay-bys, car parks, and other inappropriate locations being used for the indiscriminate parking of lorries and trailers, the Council will only favour proposals for the development of additional lorry parks at appropriate sites within the County Borough. In that respect, the proposed use of sites shall be in accordance with all of the sustainable transport aims and policies contained in the Plan, and must neither give rise to environmental concern, nor diminish existing amenities.

6.6.7. MITIGATION OF FREIGHT MOVEMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

POLICY T11

DEVELOPMENT OR ITS EXTENSION AT LOCATIONS WHICH WILL GENERATE AND/OR ATTRACT ROAD FREIGHT MOVEMENTS WHICH:-

1. CAN BE EFFECTIVELY ACCESSED; AND

2. HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; OR

3. WHICH USE THE RAIL NETWORK FOR THE MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT;

WILL BE FAVOURED. IN THIS RESPECT A PROPOSED RAIL FREIGHT TERMINAL WILL BE DEVELOPED AT BROCASTLE, BRIDGEND.

6.6.8 Efficient and reliable movement of freight is vitally important to the economy of the County Borough. As such, development that generates lorry traffic will be required to locate in areas that can be effectively accessed, and the impact of road freight traffic on the environment is minimised. This is particularly significant to road freight movements in the valley corridors detailed in Policy T13. Freight related development that uses the rail network to minimise impact on the environment will also be favoured. In the case of the road-based option, many acceptable opportunities exist within the County Borough and these are referred to later in Policy T13 where transport corridors are considered.

6.6.9 In recognition of the need for local industry and commerce to move certain freight by road in the County Borough, the Council will seek to enter into voluntary agreements with the business community and the hauliers concerned, with a view to restricting the use of unsuitable roads by HGVs wherever and whenever satisfactory alternative routes or options exist. Such agreements will be supplemented, where necessary, by appropriate road traffic regulation orders. With regard to the railways, the Council fully supports the use or expansion of the rail network in the County Borough for the movement of freight. Indeed, by pursuing the rail freight option for certain locations for development which entail the movement of freight, some development proposals will become favourable in principle which would otherwise be considered unacceptable, and therefore not permitted.

6.7. Public Rights of Way

6.7.1. DEVELOPMENT AFFECTING PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY

POLICY T12

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT CATER FOR ‘PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY’ IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS, AND/OR WHICH DO NOT PROTECT THE EXISTING NETWORK FOR PUBLIC USE, WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.

6.7.2. ‘Public Rights of Way’ as referred to in Policy T12 relate to non-carriageway highways and include footpaths, bridleways, byways open to all traffic, and cycle tracks: all being statutory highways.

6.7.3. Footpaths and bridleways were originally a vital means of getting to work, visiting relatives and friends, and accessing many other activities. Today, many of these journeys are undertaken using a motor car or alternative forms of transport, and these facilities are more usually seen as a recreational asset. Within the context of sustainable transportation it is important that walking, as a means of travel, is encouraged; therefore facilities should be protected and developed to meet the needs of the pedestrian. The Council will therefore protect “public rights of way” to maximise the modal split in favour of walking.

6.7.4. Similarly, bridleways will also be protected for in the context of transportation, they represent rights of way for the public to walk or ride on horseback, and therefore also contribute to facilities which encourage walking.

6.7.5. Development must therefore cater for existing rights of way by either protecting the right of way, or providing an equally effective alternative route. In either case, the right of way affected by the development must be dealt with in such a way as to provide a safe and pleasant environment for all pedestrians, and which will encourage its future use.

6.7.6. Cycling, like walking, does not create pollution and is a sustainable mode of transport which should be encouraged. Development must therefore also cater for cycle tracks either by protecting the existing tracks, or by providing an equally effective alternative route, which is safe and pleasant to use.

6.8. Transport Corridors

6.8.1. DEVELOPMENT IN TRANSPORT CORRIDORS

POLICY T13

THE FOLLOWING TRANSPORT CORRIDORS ARE IDENTIFIED AS THE MAIN ROUTES IN THE COUNTY BOROUGH FOR THE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS. DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD:-

(A) ADVERSELY AFFECT SAFE AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT IN THESE CORRIDORS, AND/OR

(B) WOULD CREATE OR EXACERBATE HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT ALONG THEM, AND

(C) WOULD NOT BE CAPABLE OF MITIGATION;

WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. THE CORRIDORS ARE:

T13(1)  M4;
T13(2)  LLYNFI;
T13(3)  GARW;
T13(4)  OGMORE;
T13(5)  PYLE-ABERKENFIG;
T13(6)  A473-A48;
T13(7)  WATERTON ROUNDABOUT-LALESTON;
T13(8)  A4106-A4229;

6.8.2. As there is a need to consider all forms of movement, transportation links and infrastructure along transport routes in the context of the topographic characteristics of the County Borough through which they pass (especially its valleys and existing layout of the highway network), it is a prerequisite that movements within the Authority should be considered on a strategic corridor basis. This method of considering the Authority’s existing transportation network, and the effects on it of development, therefore, more accurately models the actual situation.

6.8.3. The corridor approach also allows the management and allocation of the existing road network to be carried out more effectively; for example, the location of development proposals can be assessed, and their demand on transportation and environmental standards, as affected by transportation issues along the length of the corridor, considered. This is of particular importance when development proposals are assessed in the valley corridors, where the quality of the transportation network varies greatly along its respective corridor, and alternative transport routes are generally unavailable.

6.8.4. The standards to be considered will not only be limited to traffic capacity, which is determined by the width and alignment of the carriageway and junctions. Factors such as the degree of priority to be accorded to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, frontage activity, conservation area designation, residential areas, on-street parking, location of schools and hospitals, noise, air quality, and risk of accident will also be considered. These factors will assist in assessing the maximum capacity and the nature of vehicles compatible with acceptable environmental standards associated with transportation issues.

6.8.5. The corridors will be managed to promote public transport, cycling and pedestrian movement, especially as this relates to journeys to work. It has also already been recognised that the efficient and reliable movement of freight is vitally important to the economy of the County Borough. As such, development which generates lorry movement will be required to locate in areas which can be effectively accessed and the impact of the road freight movement on the environment is minimised. This is particularly significant to the valley's corridors as previously referred to.

6.8.6. Details of the corridors identified in Policy T13 are as follows:-

1. M4 Corridor

6.8.7. This corridor includes the primary strategic highway and railway network of South Wales, i.e. the M4 motorway, and the main Paddington to Fishguard railway line including the principal station at Bridgend. Although it is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government, the M4 motorway
also serves the strategic needs of the County Borough and acts as an effective link from east and west. In view of its status as a Trans European Route Network (TERN) and its strategic significance to the whole of South Wales, it is imperative that the Council and its neighbouring Authorities, collaborate with the Welsh Assembly Government in the effective management of the M4 motorway.

6.8.8. The Council will therefore assess all development proposals within the M4 Corridor to ensure that they do not have an adverse effect on the efficiency of the motorway, and particularly its junctions 35, 36 and 37. It is with reference to this issue that Junction 36 is identified for development-related improvements in Policy T14(5).

6.8.9. It is this corridor that provides the greatest opportunities to support development which generates lorry movements, as it is effectively accessed and the impact of road freight movement on the environment can be minimised, provided that appropriate locations and highway improvements are identified.

6.8.10. Any developments, which have a direct effect on the M4 motorway junctions within the County Borough will have to be considered very carefully. Development which will have direct access, or accesses, in close proximity to those junctions is likely to have an adverse effect on their efficiency, which can therefore have a negative impact on the whole of the County Borough and possible implications for South Wales. Therefore such development will be resisted by the Council unless it can be demonstrated that the traffic impact of the proposals can be accommodated by the motorway and its junctions either in the short or the long term.

6.8.11. The South Wales Mainline is the responsibility of Network Rail, but is another strategic link within the County Borough which must be protected. Development, and future management measures which will encourage its use by commuters, and for the movement of freight will therefore be favoured by the Council (see Policy T11).

2. Llynfi Corridor

6.8.12. The Llynfi Corridor is based on the principal route A4063 which runs from the northern border of the County Borough through the upper Llynfi Valley settlements, including Maesteg, to join the Pyle-Aberkenfig Corridor at Aberkenfig. From here the corridor continues to follow the A4063 both southward to Bridgend town centre and eastward along the Sarn Link to arrive at Junction 36 of the M4 motorway. The corridor also includes the Maesteg to Bridgend railway line.

6.8.13. The nature of the A4063 varies as it travels down the Llynfi Corridor. From the north, passing through Caerau, Nantyffyllon, Maesteg Town Centre and Pont Rhyd-y-Cyff, its standard and specification is limited, and transportation-related environmental issues arise regarding development. Further south, the specification and alignment of the A4063 improves, especially from the Paper Mills to Coytrahen. However, through Coytrahen village, and until the railway bridge where the A4063 meets the A4065, the road’s alignment and standard, the proximity of residential properties, and frontage accesses, all limit the capacity of the highway, and again raise transportation-related environmental issues. From the railway bridge along the Sarn Link to Junction 36 the highway has a good specification with limited transportation-related environmental issues. From the aforesaid railway bridge to Bridgend town centre the highway is also of a generally good specification, however, some issues arise in relation to the hospital, general visibility, and other junctions.

6.8.14. There are opportunities for management and improvement of this corridor in terms of the transportation-related environmental issues. However, capacity issues will remain related to highway movement, which cannot be avoided, and will therefore act as a constraint. One major site on this corridor which is not affected by such a constraint, but which does require highway works, however, is Land West of Maesteg Road (this includes the former ironworks), Tondu (Policy REG3(3) refers), access to which will be dealt with under Policy T14(8).

6.8.15. Development which will be served by the highway will be considered, not only upon the basis of how it will affect the local area, but also for its transportation impact on the corridor northwards, but more especially southwards, as vehicles travel towards the M4 Corridor.

6.8.16. The Maesteg to Bridgend railway line is a major asset to the Corridor, which can be used to move both commuters and freight. Therefore the opportunity for development within the corridor to be served by the railway is considerable, and this will be encouraged by the Council to maximise its potential benefits.

3. Garw Corridor

6.8.17. The Garw Corridor is based primarily on the principal route A4064 which runs southwards from the settlement of Blaengarw passing, in turn, through Pontycymmer and Llangeinor. Further south, the route forks, and as the A4065, passes through Ynysawdre, joins the Llynfi Corridor at the Aberkenfig railway bridge and joins the Ogmore Corridor at its junction with the A4061.

6.8.18. Although the nature of the A4064 varies as it runs along the corridor, it is generally of a limited standard and specification which raises transportation-related environmental issues. There are opportunities for management and improvement of the corridor but there is limited potential for increasing its capacities which will therefore act as a constraint. Two employment areas on this corridor which have fewer capacity constraints are, the Abergarw and Brynmenyn Industrial Estates. However, these two sites do generate transportation-related environmental issues on the Ogmore Corridor.

6.8.19. Development which will be served by the highway will be considered, not only upon the basis of how it will affect the local area, but also for its transportation impact on the corridor northwards, but more especially southwards, as vehicles travel towards the M4 Corridor.

4. Ogmore Corridor

6.8.20. The Ogmore Corridor is based primarily on the principal route A4061 which commences from the northern border of the County Borough with Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough then runs southwards through the settlements of Nantymoel, Pricetown, Ogmore Vale, Lewistown, Pantyrawel, Blackmill, and Bryncethin. It then crosses the M4 motorway at junction 36 and along the Bridgend Northern Distributor Road and terminates at Bridgend town centre. The corridor also includes the principal route A4093 which runs eastward from Blackmill to the border with Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough.

6.8.21. The nature of the A4061 varies as it runs along the Ogmore Corridor passing through urban areas with frontage accesses, residential areas, and rural areas. The standard and specification of the route is equally varying, changing from narrow lane to dual carriageway.

6.8.22. There are opportunities for management and improvement of the corridor on both the A4061 and A4093 in terms of transportation-related environmental issues. However, at various locations along the route the highway capacity and the transportation-related environmental issues which arise will act as a constraint on development.

6.8.23. Development will be considered not only on the basis of how it affects the local area but also for its transportation impact on the corridor northwards, but more especially southwards, as vehicles travel towards the M4 Corridor.

5. Pyle-Aberkenfig Corridor

6.8.24. The Pyle-Aberkenfig Corridor is based on the route B4281 from where it meets the A48 at Pyle Cross running eastward through Pyle, Kenfig Hill, and Cefn Cribbwr until terminating at its junction with the A4063.

6.8.25. The standard and specification of this route is low which raises many existing transportation-related environmental issues including the risk of accidents especially where it passes through residential and retail areas.

6.8.26. There are opportunities for management and improvement of the corridor in terms of those issues, but no opportunity to increase the route’s capacity. Therefore, there are considerable constraints on the ability of this corridor to support development. Efforts will also have to be made to ensure that the proposed new mining works at Margam do not have a detrimental effect on this corridor.

6. A48-A473 Corridor

6.8.27. This corridor starts at the point where the A473 route enters the County Borough, from neighbouring Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough, and runs along the Pencoed Bypass to junction 35 on the M4 motorway. The route then continues as the A473 until it joins with the A48 at Waterton Roundabout. From Waterton Roundabout the route continues as the A48 until it meets the boundary of the County Borough to the west of Pyle and then enters Neath Port Talbot County Borough.

6.8.28. Use of this corridor raises issues of constraint at the junctions of its routes, and some issues of transportation-related environmental concern, more particularly at its western and eastern extremities. Notwithstanding this, the corridor provides an opportunity to support development which generates lorry movements as it is effectively accessed, and the impact of the road freight movement on the environment can be minimised, if appropriate locations for highway improvements are identified.

7. Waterton Roundabout-Laleston Corridor

6.8.29. This corridor is based on the principal route A473 from where it meets the A48 at Waterton Roundabout running northwestwards to the Bridgend Inner Bypass, then westward and terminating at its junction with the A48 west of Laleston.

6.8.30. The route varies in standard from dual carriageway to single carriageway and the areas it serves are substantially urban in nature apart from the most westerly section of the route. This corridor provides accesses to Bridgend town centre from the south, Bridgend Technical College, the South Wales Police HQ and substantial residential areas, with some sections of the route having residential frontages.

6.8.31. The corridor currently suffers from congestion, and there are other concerns which raise transportation-related environmental issues. There are opportunities for the management and improvement of the corridor in terms of those issues, and a major highway improvement scheme is contained in Policy T14(4) to construct the Coychurch Road - Cowbridge Road Link in Bridgend town.

6.8.32. The corridor provides an important access into Bridgend town centre, which must be protected. In addition, at various locations along the route, the highway capacity and transportation-related environmental issues will act as constraints. Any development will be considered for its transportation impact in the light of these constraints.

8. A4106-A4229 Corridor

6.8.33. This corridor is based on the principal route A4106 from where it meets the A48 at Redhill Roundabout travelling south westward to its junction with the principal route A4229 at Porthcawl. The corridor then follows the A4229 northwards until its junction with the B4283 at which the route forks and, as the A4229, it continues through junction 37 on the M4 motorway and terminates at its junction with the A48 at Pyle Roundabout. As the B4283, it continues northwards through North Cornelly until it meets the boundary of the County Borough where it enters Neath Port Talbot County Borough.

6.8.34. The route varies in its nature with sections of dual carriageway and country lane but for the majority of the length, the route is a single lane carriageway. This corridor also provides access to Porthcawl town centre and its tourist facilities.

6.8.35. With regard to its ability to serve Porthcawl, the corridor has sufficient capacity to provide for its residential population, and on average its requirements as a tourist resort. It does not have the facility to cater for traffic flows at peak days within the year, such as sunny bank holidays, and it would be environmentally unacceptable to provide for that level of network capacity.

6.8.36. To allow for additional development and the re-development of Porthcawl town centre and resort to progress, new park and ride facilities (Policy T18 refers) linked to a dedicated bus route are proposed in the UDP, and enhanced public transport facilities will be required in this corridor.

6.8.37. There are also opportunities for management and improvement of the corridor, on both the A4106 and A4229, in terms of transportation-related environmental issues but no acceptable opportunities to increase further the route’s capacity.

6.8.38. Development in this corridor, including that in Porthcawl town centre and resort, will be considered for its transportation impact not only on the basis of how it affects the local area but also for its effect on the routes to Junction 37 of the M4 motorway and to the A48.

6.8.39. The route B4283, which is included in this corridor, is limited by a low headroom bridge where it passes beneath the M4 motorway. This route serves the residential community of North Cornelly and has a substantial number of frontage properties, on street parking, shops, schools and pedestrian movement. The existing highway network is not appropriate to accommodate the additional traffic movement generated by development and it cannot be significantly improved.

6.8.40. The route B4283, for the reasons stated in para. 6.8.39. above, is not suitable to carry significant levels of heavy goods vehicles. However, due to a low headroom bridge, within Neath Port Talbot County Borough, such vehicles serving the Kenfig Industrial Estate within that Authority, have to use this highway. The Council will work in partnership with Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council to provide a more appropriate access to the Kenfig Industrial Estate, thereby removing the associated heavy goods vehicle movements from this corridor. There are opportunities for management and improvement of the B4283 in terms of transportation-related environmental issues but no opportunity to increase its capacity. Therefore, there are considerable constraints on the ability of this corridor to support development. Efforts must also be made to ensure that no additional pressure is placed by heavy goods vehicle movements on the B4283.

6.9. The Highway Network

6.9.1. The major highway network, which performs a key role within all of the transport corridors of the County Borough has already been described in detail in the preceding section 6.8. of this Plan. Also within that section, the Council highlighted those areas and locations where transportation, and transportation-related environmental issues either have already, or are considered likely to arise in future, within those corridors. The proposals contained in Policy T14 (below) address such concerns, however, bearing in mind the multi-modal approach which the Council has adopted in both its UDP and LTP to transport corridor improvements, future feasibility studies may need to be undertaken to identify further satisfactory measures to be implemented as part of the LTP process, and to cater for specific local land-use development proposals. Forthcoming proposals which emerge from the shorter-term reviews of the LTP will also, therefore, need to be revisited when the UDP is reviewed.

6.9.2. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HIGHWAY NETWORK

POLICY T14

MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HIGHWAY NETWORK WILL BE UNDERTAKEN AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:-

T14(1)    (A & B) BRACKLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ACCESS ROAD, BRIDGEND; (Link to Map 28 West)
T14(2)    B4281/HEOL SIMONSTON IMPROVEMENT, BRIDGEND; (Link to Map 28)
T14(3)    PENCOED INNER RELIEF ROAD; (Link to Map 22 East)
T14(4)    COYCHURCH ROAD - COWBRIDGE ROAD LINK, BRIDGEND;  (Link to Map 35 East)
T14(5)    M4 JUNCTION 36; (Link to Map 21)
T14(6)    ACCESS TO THE FORMER MAESTEG WASHERY SITE;  (Link to Map 33 East)
T14(7)    WERN TARW/ROCKWOOL ACCESS; (Link to Map 22 East)
T14(8)    ACCESS TO LAND WEST OF MAESTEG ROAD, TONDU; (Link to Map 21 West)
T14(9)    A48/A473 BROCASTLE LINK, BRIDGEND; (Link to Map 31)
T14(10)  ACCESS TO MARLAS FARM SITE, PYLE; (Link to Map 19)
T14(11)  ACCESS TO MERTHYR MAWR ROAD/BRIDGEND SCIENCE PARK, A48, BRIDGEND;  (Link to Map 27 Central)
T14(12)  A473 ACCESS TO THE ‘SONY TECHNOLOGY PARK’, PENCOED; (Link to Map 23 East)
T14(13)  M4 JUNCTION 35; (Link to Map 23 East)
T14(14)  COITY BYPASS, BRIDGEND; (Link to Map 22 West)

AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FORMAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE COUNCIL, AND/OR AS DETAILED AND APPROVED WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT BRIEFS.

6.9.3. A number of allocations for development have been made in the UDP which are likely to have a significant impact on the existing transportation network. Policy T14 of the Plan identifies fourteen highway improvement schemes that should overcome the problems for the network which the new development proposals are predicted to cause. With the exception of Policy T14(4), which is being promoted by the Council itself (as part of the Bridgend Town Centre Regeneration Strategy), all of the remaining schemes relate to significant land-use proposals.

6.9.4. The Council will therefore expect the characteristics and details of all the above transportation schemes to be addressed in appropriate Development Briefs which must be prepared, submitted to, and approved by the Authority, prior to the relevant planning applications for site development(s) being determined. Those Development Briefs will specify the overall transportation requirements, implementation, environmental and impact criteria to be addressed for each site; details of any studies to be carried out; or reports which must be prepared to establish the acceptable levels of traffic generation from the site(s), i.e. through requisite Transport Assessments. Developers will be responsible for carrying out any studies as detailed, and final development proposals, which, when submitted as planning applications, must conform with the requirements specified in the relevant Development Briefs. It should be noted that all of the associated developments to Policy T14 will also be subject to all of the Council’s Transportation Policies.

6.9.5. When approved, the resultant Development Briefs shall form the basis on which the Authority will attach appropriate planning conditions to any forthcoming planning consents for the relevant site(s)’s development. The approved Briefs will also specify any ‘material’ matters (including the likely impact of the proposal(s) on the transportation network, and indicate any necessary mitigation measures proposed) which the Council requires to be addressed and agreed by developers/owners of sites through formal planning obligations/agreements with itself. Otherwise, planning consents for those developments will not be forthcoming. In this respect, it is emphasised that the Council will require appropriate contributions from developers/owners of sites which have a ‘connection’ not only with those highway improvement schemes listed under Policy T14, but also with any other policies, objectives, and aims of the UDP and LTP which it considers to be ‘material’ to the satisfactory development of those site(s), always providing that the requirements of the ‘legal test’ for such a ‘connection(s)’ is (are) met.

6.9.6. Details of the fourteen schemes identified in Policy T14 are as follows:-

1. (A & B) Brackla Industrial Estate Access Road, Bridgend

6.9.7. The expansion and re-development of Brackla Industrial Estate (Policy E2(1)), and the allocation for residential development (Policy H1(81)), will increase volumes of traffic along Heol Simonston down to its junction with the A473 at Coychurch Roundabout. Heol Simonston will therefore be upgraded in accordance with Policy T14(2). In addition, developers of Policies E2(1) and H1(81) will be required to contribute to highway improvements to provide a high quality link from Heol Simonston to the Princess Way – BNDR roundabout link, to accommodate the additional traffic generated, and to remove the interaction of industrial and residential traffic using Wyndham Close.

6.9.8. Policy T14(1) is therefore split into two sections (A) and (B). The provision of section (A) of the highway scheme will be a requirement for the development of, and will form part of the northern boundary to, residential allocation H1(81) ‘Wyndham Close, Brackla, Bridgend’; whereas section (B) will progress the new highway link to Princess Way – BNDR roundabout, to be provided by the developers/redevelopers of the new and remaining areas of land within Policy E2(1) ‘Brackla Industrial Estate, Bridgend’.

2. B4281/Heol Simonston Improvement, Bridgend

6.9.9. The development and redevelopment of the new and remaining areas of Brackla Industrial Estate, will increase volumes of traffic along Heol Simonston/B4281, from its junction with the proposed Brackla Industrial Estate Access Road to its junction with the A473 at Coychurch Roundabout. The route is generally sub-standard in terms of its width, alignment, visibility, provision of pedestrian facilities and the lay out of junctions, and is not suitable to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed developments; therefore, it must be improved to enable those developments to proceed.

6.9.10. Future developers and redevelopers of the new and remaining areas of the Brackla Industrial Estate will therefore be required to enter into appropriate planning obligations/agreements with the Council, and/or it will impose the appropriate planning conditions on relevant planning consents, to ensure that the necessary highway works and improvements will be provided. The works will therefore be entirely funded by those developments, and, where appropriate, will include realignment of the carriageways, junction improvements and capacity enhancements, and provision of full pedestrian facilities to eliminate conflict with the additional traffic generated.

3. Pencoed Inner Relief Road

6.9.11. As the existing highway network is constrained by the main line railway passing through Pencoed, no further development to the west of the railway will be permitted until a scheme has been implemented which will allow the network to accommodate the additional traffic movements associated with development. The required highway scheme will consist of a new bridge over the railway, and an appropriate link to approved standards, commencing from Hendre Road then passing over the new railway bridge linking into Penybont Road. Developers of all sites to the west of the railway will therefore be required to enter into agreements with the Council to contribute appropriate sums to ensure that the required highway works and improvements will be provided. These works will therefore be entirely funded by those developments.

6.9.12. It should be noted that planning permission has previously been granted for 200 houses west of the railway line in accordance with the provisions contained in the adopted Ogwr Borough Local Plan. That consent was subject to the construction of an interim relief road link and signalled junctions. However, those highway works are only sufficient to accommodate movements related to that development and cannot therefore be used as a means of progressing any further development west of the railway until the new scheme referred to in para. 6.9.11. (above) has been implemented.

4. Coychurch Road – Cowbridge Road Link, Bridgend

6.9.13. The Council considers this scheme to be an important element in the regeneration of Bridgend town centre, as its implementation will complete an integrated inner road distributor 'box' around the town centre. The scheme will also allow the existing junction of Coychurch Road and Cowbridge Road (which is severely restricted in both layout and visibility and has a poor highway safety record), to be either closed-off completely, and/or provide only limited local accesses. If the existing junction was to be improved, this would offer only limited local benefits and would require additional demolition of existing properties, and is not therefore favoured by the Council.

6.9.14. The identified line of the proposed link road conforms to current highway design standards including predicted traffic flows, and therefore reflects current planning guidance and Council policies which aim to protect residential properties from unnecessary demolition regarding development.

5. M4 Junction 36

6.9.15. The M4 motorway junction 36, at Sarn, is the most important strategic junction in the County Borough and is under considerable pressure from traffic movements related to the retail development in the area, combined with the local and strategic traffic movements on the surrounding highway network. The junction's existing capacity constraints are not suited to accommodate additional traffic movements generated by any further development having a direct effect upon it. The development of the Parc Derwen development site Policy H1(25) refers), or any other development or expansion of existing development having a direct effect on this junction, will not therefore be permitted until it has been improved. The aim is to increase the junction's capacity to a level where it can accommodate additional traffic movements generated by development without detrimental effects being imposed on either local or strategic traffic movements.

6.9.16. Developers of the Parc Derwen site, or any other development or expansion of existing development having a direct effect on the junction will therefore be required to enter into agreements with the Council to ensure that appropriate highway works and improvements will be provided. The works will be entirely funded by those developments, whose piecemeal development or expansion will not be permitted.

6. Access to the Former Maesteg Washery Site

6.9.17. The former Maesteg Washery site has been identified for mixed-use development including a new secondary school, and as such, the site must be appropriately accessed. These arrangements shall provide access to the whole site, and will include effective provision for car, public transport, cycling and pedestrian movements. Special consideration will be given to the safe access provisions required for the proposed school. Where the proposed site infrastructure meets the existing highway network, junctions will be constructed to accommodate the whole development, i.e. its generated traffic movements as well as those of the existing local network. The overall traffic generation and nature of traffic from the new development, will be controlled to ensure that it does not adversely affect traffic movements on the existing network.

6.9.18. All details related to access issues for the site will be defined in, and controlled by, the Development Brief required under Policy REG 3(1), and as referred to in paras. 6.9.4. and 6.9.5 earlier.

7. Wern Tarw/Rockwool Access

6.9.19. The existing Rockwool factory and land immediately to the west and north west has been identified for employment uses at Wern Tarw. The highway access to and from this site is by means of the unclassified road from the factory to the B4280, the B4280/Penprysg Industrial Access Road, then the A473/Pencoed Bypass to Junction 35 of the M4. Developers of this site, or of significant intensifications/expansions to the Rockwool development, will therefore be required to carry out any improvements to that route which are necessary for it to cope safely and efficiently with any additional traffic generated by those developments and/or expansions. These improvements will include, but not be limited to, improving the unclassified road and the B4280 between the site entrance(s) and the western end of the Penprysg Industrial Access Road, the section of the A473 between the eastern roundabout of the Penprysg Industrial Access Road, and the northern roundabout of the Pencoed Bypass. They will also include any modifications required to those roundabouts or any other sections of highways along that route including provisions required for cycling or pedestrian safety.

6.9.20. Therefore, developers of the Wern Tarw site, or of significant expansions to the Rockwool development will be required to enter into any necessary planning obligations/agreements with the Council to ensure that appropriate highway works and improvements will be provided. These works will be entirely funded by those developments and/or intensifications/expansions to the existing Rockwool development.

8. Access to Land West of Maesteg Road, Tondu

6.9.21. The land to the west of Maesteg Road (A4063), Tondu has been identified in the UDP for proposed mixed development of employment, residential and heritage uses. The A4063 highway to the south of the nearby railway bridge is up to the necessary standard to accommodate the traffic movements related to the proposed development of the site. However, as it proceeds north from the traffic signals, beneath the railway bridge, then bearing sharply eastwards, the highway is sub-standard with poor visibility and several existing accesses. In order that the site can be developed comprehensively, the A4063, Maesteg Road, north of the existing traffic signals will need to be re-aligned to allow for an appropriate access to be constructed to serve the development. The comprehensive development of the site must be in accordance with a Development Brief (as referred to in paras. 6.9.4. and 6.9.5. earlier), to be agreed with the Council. This will ensure that an effective highway infrastructure can be implemented that will serve the whole site.

6.9.22. The developers of the site will therefore be required to enter into planning obligations/agreements with the Council to ensure that appropriate highway works and improvements will be provided. The works will be entirely funded by the development, whose piecemeal development or expansion will not be permitted.

9. A48/A473 Brocastle Link, Bridgend

6.9.23. Development of the Brocastle, and Waterton Industrial sites for employment purposes, i.e. between the existing car engine plant and the A48, will produce increased traffic movements at the roundabout junction of the A48 with the A473 at Waterton as traffic travels north eastward to the M4 motorway via junction 35. A redesign and signalling of the Waterton Roundabout would only provide a partial solution to this problem, whereas, the sites can be most effectively accessed by a new road link which will proceed in a generally north eastward direction from a new junction on the A48 to the southern-most roundabout within the Waterton Industrial Estate and then northwards with associated improvements to the Coychurch roundabout to join the A473 to the motorway. The nature and extent of highway works will be determined by a Transport Assessment. Part of the line of the proposed link road will lie within the Vale of Glamorgan Council area and their consent and co-operation will be sought to expedite its development.

6.9.24. Developers of the Brocastle, and Waterton Industrial sites (between the car engine plant and the A48) will therefore be required to enter into appropriate planning obligations/agreements with this Council, and the Vale of Glamorgan Council, to ensure that the necessary highway works and improvements will be provided to serve these developments. These works will be entirely funded by those developments, whose piecemeal, or the expansion of existing, development of either site will not be permitted.

10. Access to Marlas Farm Site, Pyle

6.9.25. Access to the proposed Marlas Farm housing site could be achieved either by way of a southern route onto Heol Fach then through North Cornelly village; or northwards by way of Marlas Bridge and Marlas Road to Pyle Cross. The former route presents problems in respect of parked vehicles, service vehicles and shops, schools, pedestrian safety, junctions, in particular that with Fairfield, leading to the A48, and a low bridge on the direct link to the M4 motorway. The existing highway network cannot therefore accommodate the additional traffic movement which would be generated by the proposed housing development, without significant improvements being made to it. The latter option is by way of a narrow lane, over Marlas Bridge, which is substandard in width and alignment, along Marlas Road, towards Pyle Cross which has also been identified as having road safety problems.

6.9.26. Development of the Marlas Farm residential site may therefore only proceed subject to highway improvements being carried out at Marlas Bridge and on Marlas Road to accommodate the additional traffic which would be generated by its development. Also the lane from the site which would access Marlas Bridge must be improved to the appropriate highway standards, and an enhanced pedestrian access route provided to the nearby Pyle Station.

6.9.27. Developers of the Marlas Farm site will therefore be required to enter into agreements with the Council to ensure that the appropriate highway works and improvements will be provided in addition to any other relevant planning requirements. These works will be entirely funded by the development, whose piecemeal development will not be permitted.

11. Access to Merthyr Mawr Road/Bridgend Science Park/Land at Island Farm, A48, Bridgend

6.9.28. Bridgend Science Park/Land at Island Farm is identified as a special employment site, (Policy E6(1) refers), which is based on a number of requirements, one of them being that it is highly accessible from the M4 corridor. To provide this effective access, and thereby conform to the requirements of the highway network, the proposed extension to the existing Science Park at Island Farm, will require a new junction to be constructed on the A48 at a location which will affect, and have to include junction facilities for, Merthyr Mawr Road (North and South of the A48). Therefore, careful consideration must be given to this junction to ensure that it, or the associated development traffic, does not have an adverse effect on the efficiency of the surrounding highway network.

6.9.29. Developers of the Science Park extension will therefore be required to enter into planning obligations/agreements with the Council to ensure that the appropriate highway works and improvements will be provided in addition to any other relevant planning requirements. These works will be entirely funded by the development, whose piecemeal development will not be permitted.

12. A473 Access to the ‘Pencoed Technology Park’, Pencoed

6.9.30. The ‘ Pencoed Technology Park’, Pencoed, is identified as a special employment site, (Policy E6(4) refers), which requires the land to be highly accessible from the M4 corridor. The site is a large area of land, some 31.5 Ha, and although being located substantially within the administrative boundary of the Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council, its access requirements will be primarily required from Junction 35 of the M4 Motorway at Pencoed. Therefore, the associated transportation issues for servicing this site satisfactorily, and ensuring effective access to the motorway falls to this Council.

6.9.31. The existing Sony development is served from a roundabout on the A473 which also provides links to Felindre Road both east and west. This roundabout is at present subject to congestion problems at certain times of the day, as is the access on to the motorway junction south of this roundabout. A further consideration is the location of an existing cemetery which would be in close proximity to any infrastructure improvements if it is proposed to access the Policy E6(4) site from a junction on Felindre Road. Therefore, the proposals to access this site must adequately cater for improvements to the highway infrastructure. This will ensure that both the Sony Roundabout and the motorway junction cater for, and work efficiently with, the additional development traffic and that the cemetery is adequately protected from the adverse effects of the traffic generated by the development and any required improvements.

6.9.32. Developers of the Pencoed Technology Park, Pencoed, will therefore be required to enter into planning obligations/agreements with the Council(s) to ensure that the appropriate highway works and improvements will be provided, in addition to any other relevant planning requirements. These works will be entirely funded by the development, whose piecemeal development will not be permitted.

13. M4 Junction 35

6.9.33. The M4 motorway junction 35 at Pencoed is an important strategic junction in the County Borough. The junction's existing capacity, although adequate for current demands, will not accommodate all the additional traffic movements generated by further development without improvement. Therefore land will be protected for the future improvement of the motorway roundabout. It is anticipated that the junction's capacity can be improved on a phased basis to accommodate new developments as they come on stream.

6.9.34. Developers whose new developments, or expansion of existing developments, which have an effect on junction 35 will be required to improve the junction's capacity to a level where it can accommodate additional traffic movements (generated by the development(s)) without detrimental effects being imposed on either local or strategic traffic movements.

6.9.35. Developers of sites or expansion of existing sites having an effect on Junction 35 of the M4 Motorway will therefore be required to enter into planning obligations/agreements with the Council to ensure that appropriate highway works and improvements will be provided. The works will be entirely funded by those developments, whose piecemeal development or expansion will not be permitted.

14. Coity Bypass, Bridgend

6.9.36. The development of the Parc Derwen site (Policy H1(25) refers) would significantly increase the volume of traffic passing through the village of Coity unless associated highway works are carried out. The B4281 road through the village of Coity is generally sub-standard in terms of its width, alignment, visibility, provision of pedestrian facilities and lay-out of junctions. The village is also a designated Conservation Area.

6.9.37. There is no opportunity for improvement of the highway through Coity village, and in any event, this would not be environmentally acceptable. Therefore a bypass to the village must be constructed if the development of the Parc Derwen site is to proceed. Such a bypass will also be expected to provide access to those areas of land designated for employment purposes (under Policy E2(1) of the Plan), south of the proposed bypass, which are presently ‘land-locked’ from earlier development. The developers of the Parc Derwen site will therefore be required to enter into a planning obligation/agreement with the Council to ensure that appropriate highway works and improvements will be provided, as a requirement of the Development Brief to be prepared, submitted, and approved by the Council for the development of that site. Those highway works and improvements will include a bypass to the village, facilities for access to those presently ‘landlocked’ areas of Policy E2(1), and appropriate measures to ensure that extraneous traffic will not travel through the village. Other highway works will include sufficient, effective, and appropriate access points to the development sites to ensure adequate and suitable movement both within the sites and on the existing highway network. The works will be entirely funded by the developers of the Parc Derwen development, whose piecemeal development will not be permitted.

6.10. Public Transport Infrastructure Provision

6.10.1. EXTENSION TO BRIDGEND BUS STATION

POLICY T15  (Link to Map 34 Central)

LAND WILL BE SAFEGUARDED TO ENABLE THE RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRIDGEND TOWN CENTRE BUS STATION.

6.10.2. The existing bus station in Bridgend town centre is being used to its full capacity, therefore there is a need to re-develop that capacity to meet existing and future demand from local and national operators.

6.10.3. PROPOSED BRIDGEND TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE

POLICY T16

LAND WILL BE SAFEGUARDED TO ENABLE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS ROADS IN BRIDGEND TOWN CENTRE.

6.10.4. Policy T16 provides for a multi-modal interchange to be developed in Bridgend town centre which will facilitate quick and easy transfer of passengers between all modes of travel. A physical link between the bus station and the railway station will be incorporated into the scheme which will also include a coach, bus and taxi interchange at the existing railway station.

6.10.5. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PASSENGER RAILWAY NETWORK

POLICY T17

LAND WILL BE SAFEGUARDED TO ENABLE THE FOLLOWING MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PASSENGER RAILWAY NETWORK TO BE IMPLEMENTED:-

T17(1) CONSTRUCTION OF BRACKLA RAILWAY STATION AND PARK AND RAIL FACILITY;  (Link to Map 28 West)
T17(2) IMPROVEMENT OF BRIDGEND RAILWAY STATION;  (Link to Map 34)
T17(3) ENHANCEMENT OF THE MAESTEG RAILWAY LINE; AND
T17(4) FURTHER PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES AT WILDMILL,  (Link to Map 21 Central) AND PENCOED STATIONS.  (Link to Map 23 West)

6.10.6. Railways share an increasing role for public transport in the UDP. Despite their inflexibility, where they exist, railways tend to foster a sense of continuity, and enhance the potential for development and regeneration. These attributes have not only been recognised by the Council, but also by the South Wales Integrated Fast Transit (SWIFT) local authority consortium, which has consequently identified four schemes, all of which will provide additional rail capacity to facilitate service enhancements. Details of those schemes are stated below:-

1. Proposed Brackla Railway Station and Park and Ride Facility

6.10.7. The proposed Brackla railway station will be situated on the main South Wales railway line from London to Fishguard. It forms a part of the SWIFT initiative to promote seamless rail travel between Maesteg and Llanharan in neighbouring Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough. The station will also provide an integrated facility that will comprise two platforms, a footbridge, cycle track access, and a park and ride facility. The site of the proposed station has been selected to enhance its commercial viability and to serve the public transport needs of both the industrial estate in which it is partly situated, and the needs of existing and proposed housing developments of eastern Bridgend. It is anticipated that the project will be funded from developer contributions and Transport Grant funding.

2. Improvement of Bridgend Railway Station

6.10.8. The provision of a bay platform at Bridgend station forms part of the proposed capacity expansion of the Vale of Glamorgan railway line which is currently used by freight traffic and for the occasional diversion of passenger trains. The proposed capacity enhancement scheme will facilitate a daily hourly service and a half-hourly service at peak periods. It will also provide opportunities to increase the use of that line by freight traffic for which purpose, the feasibility of using the Ford siding as a freight terminal will be investigated.

3. Enhancement of the Maesteg Railway Line

6.10.9. The Maesteg railway line is an integral part of the Llynfi transport corridor. The line enhancement scheme will provide a passing loop to facilitate a half hourly service, and thereby safeguard the possibility of its future expansion for freight movement. The enhancement of the line will also complement the Llynfi Valley Regeneration Strategy. This scheme will similarly be funded from Transport Grant monies.

4. Further Park and Ride Facilities at Wildmill and Pencoed Stations

6.10.10. Park and Ride car parks at Wildmill and Pencoed will provide the opportunity for an effective interchange between cars and public transport to facilitate a reduction in the length and number of car-borne journeys especially for the journey to work. In addition, the Wildmill park and ride will provide a bus turning circle at the existing station which will permit bus and rail-based park and ride operations.

6.10.11. PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE FACILITY SERVING PORTHCAWL

POLICY T18

A BUS-BASED PARK AND RIDE FACILITY WILL BE PROVIDED TO SERVE THE FUTURE NEEDS OF PORTHCAWL. ITS LOCATION WILL BE SELECTED WITH A VIEW TO OPTIMISING THE SUSTAINABLE TOURISM, TRANSPORTATION, SOCIAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES OF THE REGENERATION STRATEGY TO BE PREPARED FOR THE TOWN.

6.10.12. Land between the harbour and Trecco Bay caravan site, Porthcawl, is designated under Regeneration Policy REG3(2) of the Plan for future comprehensive redevelopment. A Development Brief is to be prepared as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to the UDP, which will detail the planning and design requirements for the Porthcawl Regeneration Area (refer to para. 15.12.10. later). The provision of a bus-based park and ride facility, preferably on a ‘brownfield site’, located within, and/or in close proximity to, the Regeneration Area will form a key ‘integrated’ transportation proposal within that Brief.

6.10.13. Such a facility will aid the diversion of car-borne journeys to and from Porthcawl onto buses, thereby reducing congestion in the town centre. It may reduce, to some extent, car-borne journeys to work, but its main attraction would be its potential to intercept car-borne tourist traffic aiming for the town centre during the summer season. Such a facility will also lessen the pressure to expand the capacity of the local highway network in the town centre, and reduce the demand for, or use of valuable redevelopment sites within the Regeneration Area for the provision of car parking facilities throughout the year. It will be necessary for the new bus-based park and ride facility to be very carefully chosen in order that the sustainable tourism, transportation, social, and environmental aims of the Development Brief are achieved. In this respect, the facility will need to be accompanied by appropriate bus priority, routing, and traffic management measures within the town in order to aid the efficient movement of buses that will serve it. The precise location of the facility should therefore be most appropriately determined within the detailed context of the Development Brief for the Porthcawl Regeneration Scheme.

6.11. Public Off-Street Car Parking Provision

6.11.1. PROPOSED PUBLIC OFF-STREET CAR PARKING PROVISION – BRIDGEND TOWN CENTRE

POLICY T19  (Link to Map 34)

LAND WILL BE SAFEGUARDED FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF TREMAINS ROAD CAR PARK, BRIDGEND, TO INCREASE PUBLIC OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES IN BRIDGEND TOWN CENTRE.

6.11.2. The parking provision identified under Policy T19 will complement the regeneration objectives for Bridgend town centre. It will also serve some of the parking needs of new town centre development which will no longer attract generous parking provision in line with the introduction of new maximum off-street car parking standards addressed under Policy T8. Currently, about 60% of the parking stock of Bridgend town centre is allocated for short-stay car parking. As part of the strategy to increase shopper activity in the town centre, the Council intends to increase this proportion to 80% of the parking stock through graduated pricing. It is also the Council’s intention to improve public transport provision to cater for the reduced long-stay parking opportunities through measures contained in the Local Transport Plan.

6.11.3. The existing Tremains Road Car Park, and the Embassy Cinema Site, Bridgend, (Policy R8(8) refers) are close to the main radial routes to the town centre.

6.11.4. To deal with deficiencies to the north side of the town centre, the existing Tremains Road Car Park will be enlarged to cater for further off-street public car parking provision. Its management and designation as a car park will be subject to periodic review of the Council’s charging policy and monitoring of town centre car parks, and it will be considered further in the Local Transport Plan.

6.11.5. The development of a new foodstore and surface level parking at the Embassy Cinema Site (Policy R8(8) of the Plan refers) will provide sufficient short-stay car parking to enable its use by town centre shoppers as well as customers to the store. This will assist in reducing the current deficiency of short-stay spaces on the north side of Bridgend town centre. The management of the car park will be integrated with the Council’s parking strategy and an agreement will be entered into between the Council and the store operator as to pricing structure, and other management concerns. As with the proposed enlargement of the Tremains Road Car Park, the management agreement will be subject to periodic review of the Council’s charging policy and monitoring of the town centre car parks, to ensure that it remains relevant to the needs of the store, and the Council’s parking strategy as periodically set out in the Local Transport Plan.

6.12. Supplementary Planning Guidance – Transportation

6.12.1. The National Assembly for Wales in its guidance document Unitary Development Plans - Wales (2001) (para. 2.12 et.al.) advises Authorities that while UDPs should contain policies and proposals which will provide the basis for deciding planning applications, and for determining conditions to be attached to planning permissions, those policies should avoid excessive detail. Authorities should therefore consider the use of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) as a means of setting out more detailed guidance on the way in which the policies of the Plan will be applied in particular circumstances or areas. Such SPG can take the form of design guidance or area development briefs and should be clearly cross-referenced to the relevant policies of the Plan which it supplements, whilst not forming a part of the Plan itself. Appropriate references are therefore made at several points throughout this, and other sections of the Plan to relevant SPG as already published, and/or which is to be prepared, submitted to (if appropriate), and adopted by the Council.

6.12.2. The Council already applies the following SPG with respect to the transportation policies contained in its adopted development plan (1995/1997):-

• The approved South Wales Standing Conference Guidelines on Parking Standards. (as amended from time to time); and
• The adopted former Mid Glamorgan County Council’s Design Guide for Residential and Industrial Estate Roads.

6.12.3. Since 1997, however, a succession of government consultation papers and policy statements have emerged on transport and associated related issues of sustainable development. As a consequence of the new transport agenda, the Council envisages preparing, publishing, and consulting upon revised transportation guidelines and standards, prior to adopting updated SPG over the currency of the UDP. For example, it will be revisiting its
Design Guide for Residential and Industrial Estate Roads to take on board inclusive design standards for ‘access for people with disabilities’, and those good practice pointers for ‘transport and movement’ contained in PPW (TAN) 12: Design (2002). It will similarly be revising, in association with other local authorities in South Wales, Guidelines on Parking moving to the endorsement of ‘maximum standards of provision’ as opposed to the current ‘minimum criteria’, thereby reflecting the guidance contained in PPW (2002). Similarly, it will be revisiting guidance on ‘Development Briefs for Major Development Sites’ and ‘Developer Contributions’, and thereby responding to any emerging national guidance concerning ‘Development Tariffs’.

6.12.4. All development proposals will be expected by the Council to have due regard to, and, wherever appropriate, conform with its up-to-date and/or adopted transportation guidelines and standards over the Plan Period of the UDP. The weight to be attached to its SPG guidance will become materially greater after due processes of consultation etc. are completed, and the relevant SPG has been adopted.

<< Previous Chapter | Next Chapter >>