Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Construction Management Plan & Traffic Management Plan - Condition 6 - Holwell route by CALA dated 2/11/17 Road Safety Appraisal by Mayer Brown dated 27th October 2017 (as Discharge of Condition of planning permission 15/01618/1 granted 25/05/2016)

RESOLVED: That, in respect of application 17/02807/1DOC, subject to the amendment below, the details submitted pursuant to condition no. 6 of planning permission 15/01618/1 be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, and that the requirements of condition 6 are not discharged.

 

The final Paragraph of the reason to read:

 

“Not withstanding these inadequacies, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that there could be a satisfactory or safe construction route through Holwell. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire Submission Local Plan (2011-2031).”

Construction Management Plan & Traffic Management Plan - Condition 6 - Holwell route by CALA dated 2/11/17 Road Safety Appraisal by Mayer Brown dated 27th October 2017 (as Discharge of Condition of planning permission 15/01618/1 granted 25/05/2016).

 

The Development and Conservation Manager presented a report, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that there were a number of updates to the report as follows:

 

Holwell Parish Council

Members had been sent an email to all Members containing the letter of objection to this application from Holwell Parish Council.

 

This stated that Holwell Parish Council continued to object to the proposed construction traffic route through Holwell as they considered the route to be unsafe for large HGVs and in particular not wide enough to accommodate HGVs operating on a two-way carriageway.

 

Environmental Health – Noise

The Council’s Environmental Health officer had confirmed that they raised no objection to the application on noise grounds.

 

Legal Advice - Receipt

The Development and Conservation Manager had circulated to all Members a copy of a letter sent to David Scholes (Chief Executive) together with an opinion from the applicant’s legal adviser, Peter Vaughan QC.

 

The Council had received these documents on the evening of Monday 11 December 2017 and, following a meeting with CALA Homes on Tuesday 12 December 2017, sought clarification from them as to the status of these documents.

 

The Applicant’s confirmed at lunchtime today, 14 December 2017, that the documents were additional supporting documents for this application as well as application 17/02778/1DOC, which was not being presented at this meeting, but was referred to in Paragraph 1.29 of the report.

 

Both documents had been placed on the Council’s website on the afternoon of 14 December 2017 as further supporting documents relating to both applications.

 

Paragraph 1.29 of the report stated that the statutory determining period for application 17/02778/1DOC had been extended to 31 January 2018, with a report for the Planning Committee meeting due to be held on 18 January 2017.

 

Following the meeting with CALA Homes, a further extension had been agreed to the statutory expiry date to 28 February 2018. This extension would enable time to consult on any revised proposals which may come forward as a result of the on-going negotiations taking place between the applicant, officers and Hertfordshire County Council Highways Authority. On this basis he advised that he did not anticipate this application to be reported to the January meeting of this Committee.

 

Content of Legal Advice and Context for Decision Making

The Development and Conservation Manager highlighted the key points from the legal advice and the context for decision making.

 

He clarified that this summary was not his opinion and the advice was being reviewed and what that meant for enforcement and any future decisions by the Committee. The review of this advice was ongoing, however there was no reason to change the recommendation of refusal as set out in the report.

 

The advice questioned the enforceability of the condition and stated that the council could not force the developer to undertake work outside of the application site, such as new passing places or a whole new road to enable construction of the development.

 

There was no requirement under the terms of planning permission to require works off site, other than for access to the site off the highway.

 

The condition required the applicant to provide a construction route and it was implicit in this context that any such construction route must be on the existing public highway.

 

The advice also stated that, in their opinion, the applicant would have a strong case for an award of costs against the Council in any appeal.

 

As advised in the report, the applicant had already lodged an appeal against the decision of the Committee to refuse the last application for a Construction Management Plan at the special meeting of this Committee held on 28 September 2017.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager confirmed that, in his opinion, this advice had no bearing on the recommendations set out in the report. The condition required the Council’s written agreement to a Construction Management Plan and in accordance with the advice received from Hertfordshire County Council’s Highways Authority, this proposed Construction Management Plan, which contained less mitigation than the previous Plan, was not acceptable for the reasons set out in the recommendation.

 

CALA Homes continued to work proactively with officers and the County Council to try to achieve a Construction Management Plan that is acceptable to the Highway Authority.

 

Mr John Burdon, Holwell Against CALA Traffic (HACT), thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02807/1DOC.

 

Mr Burdon informed Members that he was speaking on behalf of the hundreds of residents in Holwell and Pirton and other road users, who had objected in the strongest terms to the proposed construction route through the centre of Holwell village.

 

This application was considered to be an insult to the planning system, officers and local people. Moreover, it was an irresponsible waste of precious officer and committee time.

 

CALA had been asked to investigate more acceptable alternatives for the construction route, including the off-road option from Hitchin Road, south of Pirton, which would avoid both villages.

 

They totally ignored this request and have placed before the Committee this wholly unacceptable proposal that was a deliberate slap in the face of the Committee. This action clearly demonstrated the total disdain that CALA has for local authorities and local people. They could not be trusted to honour any commitment they made.

 

Condition 6 was there to ensure that permitted development was constructed without harming highway safety and efficiency.

 

The safety and efficiency of the entire Holwell construction route could be reliable tested using tracking or swept path analysis, a computer modelling tool that could simulate proposed traffic conditions.

 

The potential for accidents could only be assessed with a risk assessment of proposed conditions, not with a review of existing conditions, as CALA had done.

 

In addition, tracking would compare existing and proposed traffic levels and the existing and proposed content of traffic, including heavy goods vehicles and the scores of contractors’ vans travelling to and from the site.

 

It could also factor in additional domestic vehicles using the route as new houses were completed during the three- year construction period.

 

Given the huge increase in the number of maximum width heavy goods vehicles travelling through Holwell in directions, some 50-60 per day, and the dimensions of geometry of the road also required assessment. This was needed to ensure that vehicles could flow freely and safely in both directions, without undue delay or the need for dangerous reversing.

 

None of this had been done to the required standard such as testing the whole route to see if an HGV could pass a bus safely, or if it had been done, it had not been made public.

 

It could only be assumed that such analysis would be damaging to CALA’s case.

 

Mr Burdon concluded by stating that, as a representative of local residents he would strongly urge the Committee to reject this application and require CALA to substantiate their belief that a safe and efficient route was possible, by providing the appropriate tracking evidence that had been requested for a very long time.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Burdon for his presentation.

 

Councillor Claire Strong, Member Advocate, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02807/1DOC.

 

Councillor Strong Informed Members that the last time that the Construction Management Plan came to the Committee Members were asked to discharge the condition and leave it to the Highways Authority to enter into a Section 278 agreement with CALA Homes but very wisely took the decision not to do so and rather maintain the Committee’s involvement by asking that consideration be given to alternatives.

 

The Committee’s main reason for refusal of the previous Plan was on safety grounds in that there was not a safe construction route through the village of Holwell, which was agreed by a majority decision. CALA had submitted an appeal against the Committees decision.

 

The Construction Management Plan being considered here had very little mitigation to even try to make this unsafe route safe for all those who wished to use it.

 

Paragraph 4.3.3 stated that the applicant had submitted a road safety appraisal which concluded that the proposed route was not likely to result in a ‘material increase in risk to road users’. This appraisal only considered that traffic in the village as it was now, it had not considered what traffic would be like with the construction traffic

 

The appraisal did highlight how bad the entrance into the village was and, when the application for the crematorium was considered, Highways advised that the entrance to this facility had to be changed due to the dangerous nature of the road.

 

It was astonishing that Highways had done nothing to the Bedford Road to make it safe, despite there being four accidents on that road.

 

Councillor Strong drew attention to Paragraphs 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 and the reasons for refusal in the report. The reasons for refusal were mainly regarding the lack of mitigation, the Committee had refused the previous application on safety grounds.

 

She asked the Committee to consider adding another reason for refusal with the same wording used as for the previous application, which would strengthen the validity of the earlier refusal and would demonstrate consistency in decision making on this application.

 

Officers could not include this in their recommendations as Highways had not said this was an unsafe route, but the Committee had decided this was an unsafe route.

 

Councillor Strong concluded by asking the Committee to refuse the application unanimously and to include the additional reason for refusal.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Strong for her presentation.

 

A Member asked whether Councillor Strong had any comment to make regarding the timing of the analysis by the Highways Authority, which was conducted during the school half term period.

 

Councillor Strong stated that she hoped that Highways would undertake a full safety analysis of the whole of the route and they would consider the entrance and exit to the village as well as every bend and carriageway width, whilst considering the width of the vehicles that would be potentially using the road.

 

The width of the route was already an issue, with cars following a refuse truck being unable to pass it and passing a bus was also difficult.

 

The majority f the route was so narrow that, once a construction vehicle was on it, only 1.5 metres was available for other traffic and parts of the route were so narrow that there was no white line in the middle of the road. That was why this route was so unsafe.

 

Undertaking the analysis during the school holidays was a pointless exercise.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager clarified that the recommendation contained in the report presented on 28 September 2017 was not to discharge the condition, but rather to resolve to discharge the condition, subject to completion of a Section 278 agreement and only to discharge the condition once the Section 278 agreement was completed.

 

Members commented that they were disappointed that a complete and thorough analysis of the route had not been undertaken and they remained concerned about the safety aspects of the route.

 

A Member clarified that the aim was not to block the development, as suggested in the submission from CALA, but rather to find a safe construction route. This Member also queried whether there would be a case for corporate manslaughter if there were an accident.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that the reason for refusal of the previous application was included in the report at Paragraph 4.3.2.  He had asked the Highways Authority to comment on whether the proposed construction route would be safe without passing places and the response was included at Paragraph 4.3.11 and the recommendation was as suggested by the Highway Authority.

 

An appeal had already been lodged against the decision made on 28 September 2017, although the timing and method of this appeal had not yet been advised.

 

If the recommendation in the report is agreed, then the early decision would be undermined, particularly as this application had less mitigation than that previously refused. However, as an officer who had taken advice, he could not professionally recommend that the previous reason for refusal be used, as there was not sufficient evidence to make that declaration.

 

If this application is refused, either for the reasons set out in the report or for any other reason, it was likely that the Inspector would co-join the appeals and consider them at the same time.

 

Members were concerned at the equivocation of the advice given by the Highways Authority as detailed in Paragraph 4.3.11 and queried whether this equivocation was in itself a reason for refusal.

 

Members also considered that the recommendations in the report should be strengthened by including the previous reason for refusal

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that the Committee could chose to amend the wording of the last paragraph in the reason for refusal as follows:

 

“Not withstanding these inadequacies, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that there could be a satisfactory or safe construction route through Holwell. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire Submission Local Plan (2011-2031).”

 

RESOLVED:  That, in respect of application 17/02807/1DOC, subject to the amendment below, the details submitted pursuant to condition no. 6 of planning permission 15/01618/1 be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, and that the requirements of condition 6 are not discharged.

 

The final Paragraph of the reason to read:

 

“Not withstanding these inadequacies, the Local Planning Authority does not consider that there could be a satisfactory or safe construction route through Holwell. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire Submission Local Plan (2011-2031).”