Agenda item

The Chairman stated that a request to speak against the application had been received from Sir Edward Leigh MP (representing the Gainsborough Parliamentary Constituency which covered part of the application site).  He added that, in accordance with the planning development control process set out in the Council’s Constitution it was not possible for Sir Edward Leigh to speak as the specified number of speakers had already requested to speak.

 

The Chairman stated that he would not chair the meeting during consideration of this application as he had been lobbied extensively on the application as one of the local members for the area where it was proposed to locate the Non-Motorised User Bridge (NMU) and would therefore ask his Vice-Chairman, Councillor D McNally, to chair this item. However, he would speak and vote on the application. 

 

(Councillor D McNally in the Chair)

 

The Vice-Chairman stated that because there were two planning applications under the same report he would allow two objectors to speak for three minutes each, six minutes in total, and the applicant to also speak for six minutes in total. He reminded the Committee that only those members of the Committee who had attended the site visit on 1 October 2014, were able to speak and vote on this application.

 

Since the publication of the report responses to consultation had been received as follows:-

 

Members of the public – a further 15 letters/emails of representation have

been received (bringing the total to 69 representations for both applications).

These representations largely object to the proposal and repeat the same

issues and concerns as already set out in the Officers report (Paragraph 23).

 

City of Lincoln Council – no objection to the proposed revisions to the bypass

(application L/0643/11).

 

Canwick Parish Council - no comments to make on either application.

 

Environment Agency – confirmed no objection to the revised Non-Motorised

User (NMU) bridge.

 

Historic Environment Team (Lincolnshire County Council) – the potential for

archaeological remains was taken into account when the original design for

the bridge (and bypass) was considered and any mitigation strategy needs to

be revisited to ensure that they are adequate to incorporate the revisions to

the bypass and bridge design. It is therefore recommended that a planning

condition be imposed to ensure that archaeological monitoring is secured.

 

British Horse Society – maintain an objection on the following grounds:

(a) Failed to provide details on how segregation on the NMU bridge would

be achieved.

(b) Failed to provide adequate provision for equestrians and cyclists at the

crossing point on Hawthorn Road which would allow users to continue

their journey on the east side of the Lincoln Eastern Bypass.

(c) If NMUs are travelling from the east to west along Hawthorn Road the

NMU has no option than to cross Hawthorn Road close to the junction of

the LEB, this being the main reason for the Inspector not approving the

Orders in July.

 

Church Commissioners – maintain their objection and consider that

insufficient consideration has been given to the potential for adverse noise on

the proposed residential development within the Lincoln North Eastern

Quadrant (NEQ). Although the length of acoustic fencing has been extended

alongside the NEQ boundary there is no apparent justification for this

amendment and the extended length of acoustic fencing would have a very

limited effect and so the noise environment would be unacceptable for

residential use and contrary to WHO guidelines without further mitigation.

The Church Commissioners therefore do not support the proposed

amendments and are of the opinion that the noise from the LEB should be

dealt with at source.

.

Response(s) from County Commissioner for Economy and Place:-

 

Historic Environment Team - proposed condition 7 attached to application

L/0643/14 addresses this point.

 

British Horse Society – response to specific points as follows:

 

(a) No specific segregation for NMU's on the bridge has been provided,

however, the bridges width has been increased to 3.5m which is the

design standard recommended by the DfT for equestrian use. Waiting

areas at either end of the bridge for equestrians have also been included

in the design.

(b) An NMU route exists alongside the eastern side of the bypass. NMU's

travelling north to south along the eastern side of the bypass would

therefore have to cross Hawthorn Road but to address the concerns

raised by the Inspector the crossing point has been moved further east of

the bypass junction thus increasing the distance between traffic exiting

the bypass and those NMU's wishing to cross the road.

(c) The revised position of the NMU bridge will allow NMU's travelling east

to west across the bypass without having to cross Hawthorn Road. This

is the reason why the bridge has been re-positioned.

 

Church Commissioners – as confirmed in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the report,

the length of acoustic fencing has been extended from the Wragby Road/A15

roundabout to a point just south of Greetwell Fields Lane where the LEB

would drop to a level approximately 6.5m below the current ground level. The

fencing would therefore be installed at a location where low noise surfacing

was previously proposed to be used and it is expected that the fencing would

provide a similar level of noise attenuation. Further attenuation would also be

afforded due to the difference in land levels as the bypass routes advances

south in a cutting.

 

In terms of impacts on the potential housing in the NEQ, the land is identified

in the currently adopted West Lindsey Local Plan 2006 (Policy STRAT10) as

a potential future housing site and planning policy considerations with regard

the impact of the LEB on this land were taken into account both when the

original dual carriageway bypass scheme was considered and granted

planning permission in 2010 (ref: L/0170/10) and again when the single

carriageway bypass scheme was granted permission in 2013 (L/110/13).

Whilst the NEQ was also identified as a housing allocation in the emerging

Central Lincolnshire Core Strategy that policy document was withdrawn

before its formal examination and although a revised version of the Core

Strategy is due to be published for public consultation soon, given the current

status of this document, in planning terms the status of the NEQ allocation

land is no different to that when planning permission for the bypass was first

considered. No planning permission exists for the development of housing on

this land at this time and if any application were to come forward then the

master planning and layout of any housing development would have to take

into account the future amenity of residents taking into account its setting and

proximity to the bypass. The noise mitigation measures included as part of

the bypass are therefore considered appropriate to minimise and limit noise

impacts at source particularly in respect to existing residential properties and

given the current land status and permitted use of land which adjoins it.

 

Officers reported that since the publication of the update further responses had been received as follows:-

 

1. The Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce - supported the construction of the by-pass.

2.  West Lindsey District Council – emphasise that whilst they support the principle of the bypass and proposals for the NMU bridge there is still concern in the villages affected by the proposals due to the dislocation it would cause. This is particularly so for those from Lincoln who access schools in Cherry Willingham and for those travelling into Lincoln.

3. Church Commissioners – had now withdrawn their objections to the scheme following discussions with officers in connection with an increase in height of the fencing to prevent noise and subject to revised conditions to reflect these changes.

 

Sally Lidbury, an objector, commented as follows:-

 

1. The cost implications of the revised NMU plans needed to be urgently reviewed as they had increased substantially.

2. The Inspector had ruled against a road bridge option on Hawthorn Road partly on economic grounds. The difference between the NMU and road bridge could be as little as £300,000.

3. Further savings could be made if a road bridge was constructed and gave details of where savings could be made.

4. Having a road bridge instead of a NMU bridge there could be an overall saving of £100,000.

5. A road bridge was the safest and most convenient option for local people.

6. A petition was presented to the Council in May 2014, signed by over 3,500 local residents - calling for Hawthorn Road to remain open.

7. The local MP, Sir Edward Leigh, had called for Hawthorn Road to remain open.

8. CO2 emissions would increase as a result of the road closure.

9. Safety concerns - not clear how the NMU was to be segregated for all users. Improvements had been made but cyclists and equestrians still had to cross Hawthorn Road to access the existing cycle path.

10. It seemed that cost was no longer an issue and local residents had proved that a road bridge could be constructed. The opportunity to work with the Council to ensure that this was delivered would be welcomed.

 

With the consent of the Committee, Sally Lidbury read out a statement from Sir Edward Leigh MP, which included the following comments:-

 

1. Fully supported local residents in their opposition to the closure of Hawthorne Road to motorised traffic.

2. The Council had no right to close a road that was always used by local villages.

3. The economic savings of the NMU had reduced whereas the dis-benefits were enormous to local residents of Lincoln and villages.

4. The best solution was to remove local traffic from the by-pass and have an overbridge.

5.  What people had been told was impossible in January 2014 was now happening and it was time for the Council to know that it had made the wrong decision.

West Lindsey District Councillor C Darcel, who represented part of the application site covered by the NMU, commented as follows:-

 

1. An overbridge was required.

2. Future housing development would necessitate an overbridge.

3. The cost of a NMU was more than the cost of an overbridge.

4. The County Council should revert to the original decision to construct an overbridge.

5. An overbridge was safer and better than a NMU bridge.

6. The junction should be designed to accommodate future dualling of the LEB.

7. The previous 2009 design plans for an overbridge were supported.

 

Paul Coathup, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

 

1. The LEB was first promoted in 1992 and a planning application submitted but subsequently withdrawn because only a single carriageway was proposed.

2. A further planning application was submitted in 2004 which included proposals for a dual carriageway and overbridge with no access to the bypass from Hawthorn Road.

3. Following the election of a new government in 2010 cuts were made to capital expenditure and it was necessary to save £50m on the project. Therefore, it had been necessary to reduce the road to a single carriageway and without an overbridge.

4. A NMU bridge was therefore proposed.

5. The Inspector had noted the adverse comments in connection with the proposal to close the road and in her report the only aspect of the proposed by-pass to be rejected was the proposed location of the NMU crossing of Hawthorn Road because of concerns relating to potential conflicts between NMUs exiting from the bridge onto Hawthorn Road and vehicles exiting the bypass.

6. Following the comments made by the Inspector it was decided to relocate the NMU bridge to the south of Hawthorn Road which had increased costs due to the re-engineering necessary and hence the new planning application.

 

Responses by the applicant to questions from the Committee included:-

 

1. Unable to provide the details of the difference in cost between building an overbridge and a NMU bridge as they were two entirely different projects each having their own value.

2. The necessity to redesign the LEB from a dual carriageway to a single carriageway because £50m funding had been removed from the project in 2010.

3. There had been no connectivity proposed for residents from Hawthorne Road to the by-pass in the original project design.

 

Before the start of the debate by the Committee, Councillor I G Fleetwood stated that he wished to speak as the local adjoining Member having had numerous contact with local people and Parish Councils, who expected him to represent them, and commented as follows:-

 

1. Everyone agreed that there was a need for a bypass but not at the expense of local people.

2. Had spent a considerable amount of time visiting people to explain the situation to them.

3. The difference in the cost of building a NMU and an overbridge was less than half a percent of the project cost. Asked on several occasions for a full access bridge or even a one way bridge with traffic lights but the requests for inclusion had been denied.

4. The cost and carbon footprint to local people had not been considered.

5. Pre-application discussion with the District Council was currently taking place for over 800 houses in the area, many of which would rely on Hawthorne Road motorised connection to Lincoln.

6. Lincoln was already identified as a growth point and many houses would be built on land close to this scheme.

7. Lack of consultation on this application compared to the first application.

8. If a motorised bridge was proposed on the first application it was recognised that there was a high traffic flow along Hawthorne Road and at the site meeting the noise of passing traffic was noted.

9. The tight deadlines for consideration of applications were noted but amendments continued to be seen. It was important to get this project right first time

10. Supported Reepham and Cherry Willingham Parish Councils' view that a bridge which could be accessed by motor vehicles was required.

11. Was of the view that this project would be examined in future years as housing was developed in the area.

 

(NOTE:- Councillor J WBeaver left the meeting)

 

Comments made by the Committee included:-

 

1. There was a need for the Committee to take into account the wishes of local residents who wanted an overbridge.

2. A NMU bridge was supported and would provide safe access for pupils to cycle to Cherry Willingham school.

3. Should the application be refused then it was very likely that the by-pass would not proceed and therefore the economic benefits would be lost for the City of Lincoln.

4. It was wondered whether the residents of Cherry Willingham were aware that they would be able to access the by-pass from Cherry Willingham.

5. It might be possible to install an overbridge should extra housing be built in the area.

 

Responses from officers to the comments made by the Committee included:-

 

1. The Committee was required only to consider the planning issues of the application for the design of a proposed NMU bridge before them today. How the County Council had arrived at this situation was irrelevant.

2. Previous applications had been considered by the Committee and because of reasons beyond the control of the Council it had been necessary to redesign the project.

3. Should the Committee decide that a new bridge was necessary then it would be necessary for the Council to start redesigning the project all over again and hence a new planning application would be required.

4. Transport modelling took into account any new housing development proposed.

5. Reasons for refusal of the NMU bridge could only be based on the grounds of safety and visual appearance.

6. The application before the Committee today addressed the concerns of the Inspector and were an improvement on those submitted to the Committee in January 2014.

7. There had been further consultation about the proposals with the local community.

8. The proposed re-location of the NMU bridge had improved safety.

9. The funding for the scheme changed fundamentally in 2010 following a change in government and subsequent reductions in capital expenditure.

10. This scheme would help to address housing pressures around Lincoln.

11. Should the Committee decide to refuse the application and ask the applicant to design an overbridge then the applicant would come back to the Committee and state that an overbridge was not possible because the necessary funding would not be available from the Department for Transport.

12. Any new overbridge would not fit into the red edge and a new planning application would be required.

13. It was not the Committee’s role to design a new overbridge.

 

Officers advised that a motion by Councillor Mrs H N J Powell, seconded by Councillor T Keywood-Wainwright, ("That the Committee should be minded to refuse the application on the grounds that safety was not addressed and that Hawthorn Road would be cut off for motorists"), would not stand up to detailed scrutiny. Officers stated that the safety concerns had been addressed and most of the comments received to consultation supported the application.

 

However, it was the wish of both Councillors that there motion should stand and following a vote the motion was defeated 2 votes for and 9 votes against.

 

(NOTE: Following an observation by a member of the Committee that Councillor C L Strange had left the meeting and had then returned, officers stated that because Councillor C L Strange had only been out the meeting for a very short duration and that he had been present during the presentation and was aware of the facts of the application, he could still take part in the debate and voting on the application).

 

For voting purposes the Committee agreed to consider the recommendations in the report as one application.

 

On a motion by Councillor R A Renshaw, seconded by Councillor T M Trollope-Bellew, it was –

 

RESOLVED (6 votes for and 4 votes against). (NOTE: Only those members of the Committee who had attended the site visit on 1 October 2014, were able to vote, namely Councillors J W Beaver, D Brailsford, I G Fleetwood, D C Hoyes, D M Hunter-Clarke, Mrs H N J Powell, T Keywood-Wainwright, D McNally, Mrs J Renshaw, C L Strange and T M Trollope-Bellew)

 

(a) That in respect of planning application No. W42/131879/14, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in Appendix A of the report.

 

(b) That in respect of planning application No. L/0643/14, planning permission be granted for the variation of Conditions No's 2, 10 and 24 as detailed in the Council's Decision Notice reference L/0110/13, dated 10 June 2013, and subject to the updated/revised conditions as detailed in Appendix B of the report (as amended in order to make reference to the revised drawings and revised acoustic fencing details which were submitted following discussions with the Church Commissioners).