Agenda item

Since the publication of the report the Planning Manager reported a response from the local landowner, the applicant's response and the response of the Planning Manager all of which were detailed in the update to the Committee which was published on the Council's website and had been sent to the Committee before the meeting.

Andy Hey, representing objectors, commented as follows:-

·         The Council's attitude had been one of authoritarianism since the start of the scheme for the new roundabout and with this current application for subsidiary works of mitigation the Council had shown little interest about the effects of the scheme on businesses.

·         The idea of a simple solution of providing a speed limit and two speed cameras was dismissed with the Council determined on seeing their scheme receive approval.

·         The poor start to the process when the tenants on site were ignored completely had never improved and now I had been informed that Highways could not reply to my letters while the planning process was continuing – why not?

·         With regard to the current proposals the Council had been asked whether the new road to be provided would allow Motorwise to have access and would this road be adopted by the Council in order to guarantee Motorwise access at all times in the future?  I had been informed that this was not really a planning matter, but in any case the Council sought to pass ownership and future maintenance to a third party as soon as practicable. (See para 9 of the report).

·         If this was done it would remove the legal right for Motorwise to access their property from the public highway. A right they now enjoyed and which was fundamental to the operation of the business.

·         Why was the future ownership and maintenance of what was being provided in mitigation of the removal of a presently enjoyed facility not a planning matter? Planning was about land use, who and how, where and when, use of that which was to be constructed would be used in the future. Without this consideration planning became pointless.

·         Please decide, today, that the new works proposed would be retained in perpetuity as adopted highway. Should you do not do this and you carry out the threat to pass ownership to a third party, that third party could immediately deprive Motorwise and AMS of the right to use the road or demand a sizeable payment for the right. Either way, the present position of having right of access from the public highway would be denied.

·         AMS Carwash would almost certainly finish trading as a result of the overall proposals. Motorwise would change from a business which was nicely accessible to one where potential purchasers had to wind their way round a contorted new arrangement.  It might work, or it might not.

·         Have been informed that the proposed works for this scheme were likely to be carried out at the same time as the roundabout construction and was not sure this was the best solution  -  could the Council please decide to discuss timing with the site users so their needs could at least be considered before a final decision was taken.

·         This scheme and its partner roundabout scheme had never taken any heed to the people involved and their livelihoods and there had always been a feeling that they did not really matter.  Please could the Council improve on the perceived dismissal of their views, by including the retention of the new roadworks as adopted highway. This, at least, would provide some chance of survival for the tenants on site.

In response to a question by the Committee Andy Hey stated that the Council had improved its consultation with business tenants compared to the outset of the scheme and mitigation measures had been put in place by the Council which had improved matters.

Charlotte Hughes, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·         She explained the installation of two accesses to the businesses which would enhance the Consented Scheme.

·         The provision of an island at this junction would help with road safety because there had been numerous accidents at this junction, some of which had been serious.

·         She explained the reasons for the closure of the existing business accesses following a safety audit.

·         There had not been any objections received to the proposed accesses from either the Environment Agency or West Lindsey District Council and both met the planning policy criteria.

Officers stated that following further investigations into the tenancy boundaries and existing access rights of tenants, the applicant was proposing to construct two new access points in order to provide alternative and separate means of access tor each of the businesses operating from within the commercial site. The access arrangements proposed and approved were part of the Consented Scheme.

Comments by the Committee included balancing the needs of the businesses, including the effects of the proposed new accesses and the adoption of the access roads by the County Council.

Officers emphasised the importance of the overall Consented Scheme for highway safety and added that the two new accesses would be constructed to comply with highway standards, would remain in ownership of the Council until negotiations were undertaken to pass on their ownership and future maintenance to a third party.

On a motion by Councillor I G Fleetwood, seconded by Councillor D Brailsford, it was –

RESOLVED (10 votes for and 0 votes against)

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

.