Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

 

Construction Management Plan & Traffic Management Plan - Condition 6 -  Holwell route by CALA dated 31/10/17 Construction Route Plan - Arrival and Departure via Holwell by Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Ltd dated 31

October 2017 Road safety audit of the laybys by Mayer Brown dated October 2017 Safety Audit Response Sheet by Waterman dated 19.10.17 Road Safety

Appraisal by Mayer Brown dated 27th October 2017 Plan number 0049 rev A01 entitled Bus and large crane vehicle tracking by Waterman dated October 2017 (as Discharge of Condition of Planning Permission 15/01618/1 granted 25/05/2016).

RESOLVED:That, in respect of application 17/02778/1DOC, the details submitted pursuant to condition no. 6 of planning permission 15/01618/1 be REFUSED for the reason set out below, and that the requirements of condition 6 are not discharged.

 

REASON FOR REFUSAL:Notwithstanding the additional mitigation measures proposed in this application the Local Planning Authority does not consider that there could be a satisfactory or safe construction traffic route through Holwell. The proposed Construction Management Plan therefore conflicts with the requirements of Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire District Submission Local Plan (2011-2031).

Construction Management Plan & Traffic Management Plan - Condition 6 -  Holwell route by CALA dated 31/10/17 Construction Route Plan - Arrival and Departure via Holwell by Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Ltd dated 31 October 2017 Road safety audit of the laybys by Mayer Brown dated October 2017 Safety Audit Response Sheet by Waterman dated 19.10.17 Road Safety Appraisal by Mayer Brown dated 27th October 2017 Plan number 0049 rev A01 entitled Bus and large crane vehicle tracking by Waterman dated October 2017 (as Discharge of Condition of Planning Permission 15/01618/1 granted 25/05/2016).

 

The Development and Conservation Manager introduced Manjinder Sehmi (Hertfordshire Highways) and Lyndsay McCauley (Opus International), who would be available to answer any questions regarding highways matters.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised Members that there was an update to the report as follows:

 

Paragraph 1.34

At the time that the report was written there had not been a start date for the combined appeals against two earlier decisions of this committee to refuse construction management plans using the Holwell in and out route for construction traffic to this site.

 

The Planning Inspectorate had now informed the Council of a start date of 6 March 2018.

 

The appeals would be considered together but separate decisions would be made on each appeal by the appointed inspector.

 

The appeal procedure had been confirmed as written representations for both appeals.

 

All interested parties had been informed and had been advised how they could make their written comments to the Planning Inspector.

 

The Council had until 10 April 2018 to provide any additional statement of case, but committee reports and decision notices had already been sent to the Inspector.

 

The Council also had until 19 March 2018 to respond, in full, to the appellant’s application for a full award of costs against the authority.

 

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

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised the Committee that this was effectively the same application that was presented to the committee on 28 September 2017 with additional measures.

 

The recommendation is for approval, subject to completion of the associated S278 agreement between the applicant and the Highway Authority, to secure the delivery of the additional passing places.

 

Paragraph 4.2.2 detailed the additional mitigation as being:

 

·                Signs installed at each end of the route warning that this is a construction route:

·                Long vehicle detector signs placed at each side of the sharpest bend on Waterloo Lane:

·                One week notice required for vehicles grater than 10m in length to inform Highway Authority who may require temporary road closures or use of escort vehicles;

·                Use of remote holding bays on the A1 rather than the A600 as previously proposed.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that Members now needed to decide if these proposed additional mitigation measure were sufficient to overcome the refusal of the previous application presented on 28 September 2017.

 

If Members were minded to support the recommendation he could then inform the planning inspectorate relating to the outstanding appeals that it was these additional mitigation measures that had persuaded the committee to resolve to approve this current construction management plan subject to the safeguards set out in recommendation 6.1.

 

Mr John Burden and Mr Brian Clamp, Holwell Against CALA Traffic, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02778/1DOC.

 

Mr Burden Informed Members that he represented HACT, Holwell Against CALA Traffic, and was speaking on behalf of the objectors from Pirton and Holwell.

 

He continued by stating that the Committee was once again in an invidious position

 

They were not against the housing development in principle, but were very concerned that the officers seemed blind to the real impact on safety, posed by the substantial increase in heavy traffic, averaging one every 6 minutes, for 3 years, plus the scores of additional vehicles serving the site.

 

The route through Holwell village was severely sub-standard with its narrow lane and blind bends. It was only fit to carry single-file traffic over most of its length so the potential for further 2-way conflict of all vehicles was very high.

 

Lorries already mounted the footway illegally in Pirton Road, but no mitigation measures were proposed by CALA here.

 

To cope, the route required significant improvements in width and alignment however this had been ruled out by Highways and CALA because it would be mean widening the road beyond current boundaries. Very limited widening was proposed, but not where it was most needed.

 

Thus, the route would remain much as it was today, totally unsuitable for this unprecedented increase in heavy traffic.

 

CALA and Highways have dismissed the use of traffic lights, a common solution in this situation, because it was too narrow within existing highways boundaries. Thus approaching vehicles could not pass waiting vehicles safely at the stop lines.

 

The proposed long vehicle detector signs merely warned of approaching large vehicles ahead. This would not prevent conflict, as the drivers could not see each other and there was no room to pull over in the narrow section of Waterloo Lane.

 

The signs would not eliminate conflict and would substantially increase the probability of HGVs, buses, and other vehicles reversing dangerously around blind bends.

 

With no prospect of adequate road widening or of adequate signing the only option remaining to CALA was the ‘manual management’ of construction traffic. To overcome this problem CALA had submitted a flawed ‘tracking’ analysis. Their modelling assumed that they could control all traffic flows and that all their vehicles would be in the right place, at the right time and be the right size to avoid conflict with each other and the local bus service (which doesn’t run on time).

 

Their tracking diagrams were ‘stage managed’ showing vehicles specifically placed in the passing places to allow another vehicle to pass. Other road users including cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians had been completely ignored. How absurd is this? We all know that traffic flow is random in reality. It could not be controlled other than by competent road design and signing. The phrase ‘on a wing and a prayer’ came to mind.

 

Independent ‘tracking’ commissioned by HACT, showed that the route was incapable of safely accommodating the 2-way passage of heavy vehicles, but Highways had misguidedly endorsed CALA’s ‘doctored’ tracking analysis.

 

Highways proposed that they should be given authority under the 278 Agreement, to agree measures that would satisfy the removal of Condition 6. How can we trust Highways to do this properly? They had already agreed that the most appropriate mitigation measures were ruled out because of the refusal to use third-party land. It was the same reason why the off-road route was not investigated properly, as the Committee requested previously. This was a safer, more efficient and feasible alternative.

 

It was plainly evident that there was no material change from the application that was refused by this Committee in September. The fear of an appeal should not be a reason for approving this application.

 

There was only one conclusion to be drawn from the circumstances before us. Condition 6 could not be discharged with the prospect of a serious risk to public liability and the public purse for any injury or loss incurred.

 

Should Condition 6 be removed in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, penalties must be enforced if demonstrable harm to safety and efficiency occur, but CALA and Highways were convinced that the outcome would satisfy Condition 6. So, failing that, a safeguarding procedure must be in place to stop all construction under a Stop Notice. CALA would then be compelled to overcome the failings until the Stop Notice was lifted. Such an amendment should be agreed and secured before Condition 6 was removed.

 

Unless such a deterrent could be introduced, the application should be refused outright for the following reason, which far from being weak as the officers imply, was readily justifiable: The proposals did not demonstrate with reliable evidence, that the efficiency and safety of this severely sub-standard construction route, would be maintained within acceptable standards. Reason: Policy T1.

 

Members asked for clarification regarding the placement of the informal passing places and whether this was on a steep incline.

 

Mr Clamp advised that the CALA tracking showed a lorry stationary in the passing place with another lorry passing. In reality there would be no control over the timing of lorries passing that bay as there was no visibility and no guidance as to which lorry should pull over. There was no substitute other than having a stop line with traffic lights at each side of the sharp bend to control the operation of two way traffic. There was simply nowhere for random traffic of the size proposed to pass freely along this section or indeed some of the straight sections.

 

Members noted that the corner of Burton Road into Holwell Road was very narrow and asked for clarification regarding suitability of the rest of the route for construction traffic.

 

Mr Clamp advised that even heavy traffic traveling in a straight line would produce problems because of the width of the road. As soon as large vehicles began to turn they would take up much more road width. These vehicles could not turn suddenly into and out of passing bays.

 

Members asked for clarification regarding the calculation used to determine the safety, or otherwise of the proposed route and mitigation measures.

 

Mr Clamp advised that the measurements used by CALA had been amended for instance the average vehicle length was originally 12 meters and this had been reduced to 10 meters and the normal width of lorries tested was 2.55 meters, however the width used by CALA was 2.5 meters. CALA did allow a further 0.3 meters to presumably allow for wing mirrors, but additional space was needed to allow clearance between the vehicles and between the vehicles and the verge/footpath as pedestrians would be at risk from the overhang.

 

When all of these additional widths were taken into consideration the vast majority of the route was unable to take two way traffic, and around the bend the width was very much greater.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Burden and Mr Clamp for their presentation.

 

Councillor Claire Strong, Member Advocate,thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in objection to application 17/02778/1DOC.

 

Councillor Strong informed Members that they had heard a very eloquent presentation from HACT, who has used a very senior engineer to advise them.

 

She referred to Paragraph 4.3.9 of the report which asked the Committee to consider the construction route in and out of Holwell, with mitigations as detailed in the new plan.

 

Even if all of the safety issues were not taken into account, this only really focussed on Waterloo Lane and the bend at the bottom.

 

There was nothing in the revised mitigations that mentions the narrowness of Pirton Road, nor did it address the turning into the village from the A600 which was, as pointed out by CALA’s engineer, very unsafe. It should be noted that there had been a lot of accidents in this area as well as some fatalities.

 

When they built the North Herts Crematorium, Highways engineers made the development make significant improvement to the A600, none of that had been proposed for the construction traffic route through Holwell.

 

This road had a speed limit of 60MPH and that safety issue had not been addressed.

 

Today she had witnessed a bus waiting for another vehicle to pass, this was not a large construction vehicle but a highways vehicle, and the only way it could pass the bus was to mount the pavement.

 

The Committee had refused this construction management plan twice before and she asked that they did so again as this would add weight to the appeals that were due to be heard regarding the previous applications. This would mean that the Inspector would make the decision as to whether this was a safe route, rather than Members or Officers.

 

The Committee had previously discussed an off-road option, that option still existed but did not seem to be being progressed and she queried why CALA Homes were not considering the safest option.

 

She understood that when the outline planning permission was granted no-one was thinking about how the construction traffic would reach the site, but this was perhaps something to think about with future applications.

 

There had been issues with other construction sites around the District such as the construction in Gap Lane where all of the verges had been destroyed despite the roads being a reasonable width.

 

These were narrow lanes that were not built for construction traffic, they were not even built for farm vehicles and to let all of these large vehicles through would have a decimating effect on the community.

 

Councillor Strong concluded by asking Members to have the conviction that they had before and refuse the application again. Let it go to appeal and let the Inspector decide whether or not this is a safe route for construction traffic. The strength of the appeal hearing, with representation from the Council, together with this third refusal will show that it had not been mitigated.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Strong for her presentation.

 

Mr Philip Wright, CALA Homes and Mr Andrew Trowbridge, Waterman Group, thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 17/02778/1DOC.

 

Mr Wright advised Members that they were here to help determine CALA’s Construction Management Plan, pursuant to Condition 6 of the outline planning permission, which was approved by the Committee on 27 May 2016.

 

The area of concern related to the route for construction traffic, but before reviewing this detail it was important to be familiar with the wording Condition 6 and what CALA was reasonably and legally obligated to deliver.

 

On a literal interpretation, it could only apply to that which was in CALA’s control, in addition the condition required details of vehicle routing to and from the site.

 

The later part of this condition, which was subject to localised concern, clearly fell outside of CALA’s control and therefore information submitted to discharge this part of the condition was for information purposes only.

 

The outline planning permission did not require any specific mitigation measures relating to the routing of construction traffic.

 

Had such mitigation been required, the tests under Paragraph 206 of the Planning Policy Framework should have been exercised at that time.

 

It was therefore not fair or reasonable to impose additional mitigation measures on CALA that were not clearly defined in the Condition.

 

This was the opinion from leading Queens Counsel and Paragraph 5.3 of the report advised that an independent planning barrister agreed with Counsel’s opinion.

 

Notwithstanding this, CALA had continued to work with NHDC and Highway Officers to move forward with the Construction Management Plan that went above and beyond the literal interpretation of Condition 6.

 

The mitigation measures on Highways controlled land, which fell outside of CALA’s control, were outside the remit of the planning application, showed the intent of CALA to provide a Construction Management Plan that was acceptable to Members of this Committee.

 

At the meeting on 28 September 2017 the refusal was made, against officer recommendation, on the Chairman’s casting vote. Between then and now CALA had been engaged with HCC, Opus International and Ringway to develop further additional mitigation measures to address Members’ previous concerns.

 

Our road safety appraisal and expert witnesses at public enquiries concluded that the use of the road by construction traffic for the period of works was not likely to result in any material increase in risk to road users.

 

Furthermore in relation to the proposed plan with passing bays, auditors consider that no further increase in risk to road users would arise as a result of the proposals as submitted. Indeed the audit completed regarding these proposals considered that they provided the benefit of road safety to existing road users.

 

Mr Wright concluded by stating that HCC stated that the information submitted within this application was similar to previous submissions which were recommended for approval and on this basis HCC would raise no objection to a discharge of Condition 6.

 

He advised that the application went above the strict requirements of Condition 6 in order to secure consent. Fundamentally the recommendation in the report did not discharge the condition as it was conditional on a Section 278 being entered into and agreed with HCC Highways.

 

The recommendation was a further attempt to frustrate the discharge of Condition 6 in a clean manner and to deliver housing, affordable homes and planning contributions in excess of £1 million.

 

Members asked for clarification as to the name of the consultants that had advised that the proposed route was safe.

 

Mr Wright advised that the consultants were Meyer Brown, who conducted safety assessments and provided a report that concluded that the route was acceptable for construction traffic through Holwell and was refreshed with the additional mitigation measures.

 

Members referred to the report provided by Mr Clamp that stated that it would be impossible to use the route without expanding road and asked for comments regarding this.

 

Mr Trowbridge stated that they considered that the area was sufficient to allow vehicles to pass.

 

Mr Wright advised that, subject to the Section 278 agreement, that sort of detail and the passing places would be agreed with Highways.

 

Members also asked for clarification regarding the flashing warning signs and Mr Clamp's assertion that there would be nowhere safe for vehicles to stop if faced with the warning sign that a vehicle was approaching and that vehicles would have to mount the pavement to pass safely.

 

M Trowbridge advised that they were advanced signs meaning that vehicles approaching would activate them and any vehicle approaching at that time would be warned so that they could take avoiding action. The activation would take place at the point where there was a passing place and thee was a slight widening where a vehicle could pull over to one side to allow another vehicle to pass.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Wright and Mr Trowbridge for their presentation.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager clarified that that the Planning Inspectorate for the current appeals had confirmed they would be by written representations and that the deadline for the Council to submit written comments to the appeal was 10 April 2018.

 

The Chairman suspended the meeting briefly in order for a member of the public, causing a disturbance, to be asked to leave.

 

A Member commented that the report referred to Waterloo Lane and Waterloo Road, which gave a misleading impression of the road. He also stated that he had previously queried whether any trees would be removed in order to provide the passing places and was assured that no trees would be removed and expressed concern that the report stated that the applicant would work with HCC to remove trees and hedges.

 

He also expressed concern that the road safety audits had been carried out via desktop studies rather than on site. In respect of the length of lories to be used, he acknowledge that 10 meter lorries had been deemed safe to pass, but the repot mentioned vehicles that may require Traffic Regulation Orders o an escort and asked whether this meant that the road would be closed on occasion.

 

Mr Sehmi, Hertfordshire Highways, advised that, with reference to the passing places, the plans submitted by CALA Homes were a concept that would be subject to a Section 278 agreement under which CALA Homes would provide further detail.

 

In respect of the safety audits, stage two and stage three safety audits would be undertaken as part of the Section 278 agreement.

 

In respect of the route as a whole, a road safety appraisal had been undertaken on 27 October 2017 which concluded that it was safe for the use of vehicles up to 10 meters in length, vehicles over 10 meters in length would be escorted throughout the route.

 

Members acknowledged that obstructions that were on highway land would be removed, but queried what would happen to any obstructions that were on private land and whether the junction with the A600 was considered safe for construction vehicles.

 

Mr Sehmi advised that the Highway Authority could only undertake work on highway land and that they could only rely on the safety audits undertaken on the route itself.

 

A Member expressed concern that the safety audits were undertaken regarding current traffic conditions rather than that which was proposed and that there were pinch points throughout the route where two lorries were unable to pass without mounting the pavement and queried how road safety experts could have considered this as safe. He also expressed concern that the proposed electronic signs, although an improvement, would not stop the need for vehicles to reverse.

 

Mr Sehmi advised that the road safety audits were undertaken independently of the applicant or the Highway Authority and took into account any previous accidents as well as the traffic on the route.

 

In respect of the passing places, an assessment had been undertaken considering use by a long rigid truck to and from the site and this would be subject to further assessment under the Section 278 agreement.

 

Members queried whether the suggested alternate route had been considered and, if it had, why it had been rejected.

 

The Chairman advised that the Committee could only consider and make a decision regarding applications as they were presented.

 

Mr Sehmi advised that there had been an enquiry from the Parish Council regarding an existing track from Hitchin Road. The Highway Authority considered that it was not a viable option as it involved third party land and would affect an existing bridleway and rights of way and the building of the track to take large construction vehicles would be at considerable expense.

 

In respect of Recommendation 6.1.1, Members asked how strong a Section 278 agreement was in respect of ensuring that the proposed mitigations were put in place,

 

The Development and Conservation Manage advised that Recommendation 6.1.1 was the same as that proposed on 28 September 2017. The details provided of the passing places were conceptual and it was not until the exact dimensions and position had been agreed by the Highway Implementation Team through a Section 278 agreement, that the design was final and could be implemented.

 

 The purpose of this recommendation was to give the Committee reassurance that the Condition would not be discharged until all of the details had been secured through the Section 278 agreement.

 

Mr Sehmi advised that a Section 278 agreement was a legal document that was based on National guidelines and would include details of the design and stage two and three safety audits.

 

Members queried what would happen if the final design of the mitigation measures were not possible.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager advised that, if the Committee agreed the Recommendation and subsequently the Section 278 agreement could not be completed, then the Condition would not be discharged.

 

The Committee was not being asked to discharge the Condition, but to resolve to discharge the condition subject to those processes being undertaken.

 

Some Members continued to express concern regarding the safety of the proposed route, even with the proposed mitigations.

 

A Member commented that discharge of conditions did not usually come to the Committee for a decision and acknowledged that it was not possible for a highway authority to instruct a developer to build a road across private land. The Highways Authority could only work with whatever was presented to them and they had come to a conclusion regarding this proposal. The Committee was being asked to leave the decision to the experts.

 

In respect of the width of the lorries, Members asked how much of a difference the 0.05 meter used in safety audits would make and whether the two-strike system would result in lorries who did not operate under the Construction Management Plan to be banned.

 

Mr Sehmi advised that in respect of the two-strike system, if a lorry did not arrive or depart via a designated construction route, an offender would initially receive a warning and if they repeated the action they would be removed. A traffic route would be issued to all contractors and visitors to the site and the process would be managed by a gateman who would be guiding vehicles in and out of the site and ensuring that they used the correct route and schedule of departing. Records of these movements would be kept.

 

In respect of the tracking system, this used a vehicle width of 2.55 meters.

 

It was proposed and seconded that Condition 6 be discharged, subject to the conditions as set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Upon the vote, the proposal was lost on the Chairman’s casting vote.

 

The Chairman announced that there would be a 5 minute break.

 

When the meeting reconvened, it was proposed and seconded that Condition 6 be refused permission for the reason that notwithstanding the additional mitigation measures proposed in this application the Local Planning Authority does not consider that there could be a satisfactory or safe construction traffic route through Holwell. The proposed Construction Management Plan therefore conflicts with the requirements of Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire District Submission Local Plan (2011-2031).

 

Upon the vote and on the Chairman’s casting vote it was:

 

RESOLVED:That, in respect of application 17/02778/1DOC, the details submitted pursuant to condition no. 6 of planning permission 15/01618/1 be REFUSED for the reason set out below, and that the requirements of condition 6 are not discharged.

 

REASON FOR REFUSAL:Notwithstanding the additional mitigation measures proposed in this application the Local Planning Authority does not consider that there could be a satisfactory or safe construction traffic route through Holwell. The proposed Construction Management Plan therefore conflicts with the requirements of Policy T1 of the North Hertfordshire District Submission Local Plan (2011-2031).