Agenda item

To construct Section 5 of the Spalding Western Relief Road comprising of a new single carriageway route from the B1356 Spalding Road and Enterprise Way to Vernatt's Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) incorporating a new roundabout junction with the B1356 Spalding Road, a bridge over the Peterborough to Sleaford railway line, and a priority junction into Vernatt's SUE - H14-0326-19
To construct Section 1 of the Spalding Western Relief Road comprising of a new single carriageway route from the B1172 Spalding Common to Holland Park Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) incorporating a new roundabout junction with the B1172 Spalding Common, a bridge over the Peterborough to Sleaford railway line, and a new roundabout junction for access into Holland Park SUE - H16-0327-19

Minutes:

The Committee received a report which sought planning permission for Section 1 (the southern section) and Section 5 (the northern section) of the Spalding Western Relief Road.

 

The Spalding Western Relief Road (SWRR) was an important highway infrastructure project for the Spalding area.  The SWRR sought to relieve congestion in Spalding caused by frequent closures of the highway network at level crossing and the facilitate access for and within the Vernatt's Sustainable Urban Extension (VSUE) and the Holland Park Sustainable Urban Extension (HPSUE).  It was planned to build the SWRR in three phases, Section 1 (the southern section) and Section 5 (the northern section) were to be built first with Sections 2, 3 and 4 (collectively referred to as the central section) to be built at a later date as the development of the VSUE and HPSUE progressed.

 

It was reported that since the publication of the agenda, further representations had been received, details of which were set out in the update which had been circulated to the Committee the previous Friday.

 

Officers guided the Committee through the report and set out the background and details of each application including the route, funding and timescales and details of the environmental assessment, transport assessment and results of consultation and publicity.

 

Simon Holmes, representing SPARR (Spalding Pinchbeck Against the Relief Road), spoke as an objector and made the following points:

·         This application contravened PPG14 (Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 2014 Delivering sustainable development in accordance with a wide variety of the guidance4 categories, these including; climate change, design, vitality, flood risk, health and wellbeing, housing and economic development needs and land availability assessments, local plans, natural environments, noise open space, planning obligations, travel plans, viability, the use of conditions and water quality) and was also commented that it defied logic and common sense.

·         In terms of location, the current design was inappropriate.  The road veered towards a waterway, and built on designated green space and impinged key eco-systems.

·         The location of Junction B maximised vehicle movement in a sustainable development, ROM figures suggested 2 million nugatory miles per year (based on 2250 properties, 1 car per household, mean distance to Junction B 1 mile, 5 return journeys per week, 48 weeks per year gives a total of 2,160,000 miles a year) with the environmental, health and financial implications to match.

·         It was noted the central section had returned to consultation; the favoured (by an unscientific show of hands at the public meeting) marked corridor was compromised by the location of Junction B and limited future viable options.  Pushing ahead piecemeal would result in a sub-optimal network.  It would not escape the committee's attention, the unconventional road layout required to join the network.

·         It failed to take into account the Environmental Impact Assessment destroying the water voles' environment, a protected species, and the construction area adjacent further compounded this.

·         Residents had been informed that key elements would adhere to industry best practice (best practice for one situation did not make it best practice for another) a term competent engineers stopped using years ago; with no public scrutiny what competent 'independent body' was going to assure compliance?  The committee were invited to reject this incomplete application as due diligence could not be completed.

·         During public consultation (Woodlands Hotel, 16 February 2019) mitigation to the severe impact of Junction B (250m embankment running south of Junction B along South Drove), was outlined, a position reinforced at a SHDC meeting.  These measures were not reflected in the planning application and should be placed as a condition.

·         In summary, a sub-optimal plan, with severe negative environmental impacts, limiting future options, and would result in inflated cost to the public purse, changing designs in the planning phase was exponentially cheaper than when under construction.  The Committee was therefore invited to defer or reject this application, until the route of the section was known, as it failed to meet the terms of PPG 14;

 

There were no questions to the objector.

 

James Avery, representing Pinchbeck Parish Council, spoke as an objector and made the following points:

·         He clarified that he was speaking on behalf of Pinchbeck Parish Council and as the district councillor for the residents of Pinchbeck and Surfleet.  He was not representing South Holland District Council.

·         Within the report presented there was a golden thread hinting at the benefits of the Spalding Western Relief Road.  Given section 5 was a cul-de-sac, such terminology was wholly misleading and disingenuous given there was currently no funding or commitment to the timeframe for sections 2 to 4, and therefore, provided no relief to the existing road network and its users.

·         Plans for Phase 1 and 2 of the Vernatts SUE included 1000 houses, bringing about significant, additional vehicle movements which could only travel north.

·         The initial 1000 houses would take time to build, but traffic levels would intensify over time, and road users would find the path of least resistance, and head through pinchbeck.

·         The transport assessment suggested that, in isolation, section 5 of the relief road would bring about transport improvements, and would improve transport links and capacity on the surrounding network.

·         At SHDC Planning Committee, the LCC Highways Consultant indicated the new roundabout at Enterprise Way would ease the traffic flow.  There was, however, no evidence presented as to how this would come about.

·         At the same meeting the Consultant was also asked "how Highways would mitigate the impact of significantly increasing traffic movements within Pinchbeck", but they declined to respond.

·         Section 5 was a key.  It would enable developers to unlock their land for housing.  Unfortunately, once developers had access to the land they had control, and as a district councillor, and member of SHDC Planning Committee, he had seen countless times the cynicism displayed by some developers. 

·         The Lincoln Bypass and Grantham Southern Relief Road projects were both fully forward funded, with retrospective funding from developer contributions.  Both £100m+ projects.

·         A completed Spalding Western Relief Road was of a similar scale to those projects, and it was not understood why LCC were unwilling to fully forward fund a fully joined up Relief Road for Spalding.  Evidence showed that the relief Road was critical to the delivery of Spalding's growth strategy, and for this reason, the design and funding for the entire route should be identified and secured at this stage.

 

There were no questions to the objector.

 

Ian Turvey, agent for the applicant spoke in favour of the application and made the following points:-

·         Section 1 and Section 5 of the Spalding Western Relief Road both formed key component parts of a strategic road scheme which was of high priority within the Highway Authority's Capital Programme and were both fully supported by the current Local Transport Plan (LTP).

·         There was a commitment to funding and it was intended to construct Section 5 by 2021 and Section 1 by the following year.

·         Direct consultation with statutory bodies including Network Rail, Historic England, Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Welland and Deepings Internal Drainage Board had raised no objection to the proposals.

·         The LTP was published in 2013, and dealt with concerns for the future economy of Spalding town centre if Network Rail implemented plans to increase freight traffic through the town.  But there were also wider implications.  In 2014, following further rigorous analysis, a Transport Strategy for Spalding (up to 2036) was adopted by this authority and also by South Holland District Council.

·         It was realised that an effective transport strategy would ensure that the travel and transport impact of growth around the town could be achieved, but that priorities needed to be identified so that funding could be obtained, from local and national sources when it became available.

·         Extensive consultation was undertaken in 2014 prior to the publication of the Strategy, drawing on the various plans and initiatives that had come forward through the planning process in the previous 10 years or so, and the outcomes had been scrutinised by governance boards within the authorities.

·         The desired outcome of the Strategy, amongst a wide raft of social, environmental and economic goals, were to reduce the amount of traffic entering the town and to make the roads safer and with the benefit of providing resilience along the A16 corridor to the east of the town.

·         These objectives and outcomes had be to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and also the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan – that was itself adopted on 8 March 2019 with recommendation by an Independent Inspector following an extensive Examination in Public.

·         The Spalding Western Relief Road was identified as the most important proposed strategic infrastructure project for the local area -  and what you see before you today was the product of several years of extensive consultation, assessment, policy development and planning – and all within the context of a commitment by the Highway Authority to deliver a priority scheme.

·         Sister documents supported the Strategy, which dealt with movement and deliverability, programming and assurance – the technical appraisal of the preferred schemes – the alignments, junction configuration etc. had evolved.

·         In 2017, the Strategy supported a funding bid, and the successful outcome was an award of £12m towards the proposed improvements at and adjacent to Spalding Road/Pinchbeck Road.

·         The bid set out the intended strategic road corridor along with the scheme objectives and was fully supported by the then Minister of State for Transport and the local Member of Parliament for South Holland and the Deepings.

·         That successful award allowed the priority for the Relief Road deliverability to be re-assessed and for the Highways Authority to accelerate its preferred programme of phased delivery of the road in sections.

·         Instead of one section being able to be developed now, the award of a government contribution had allowed a second section to be planned at the same time.

·         There was a danger therefore, if the planning permission for section 5 was not granted, as not only would that be at odds with local adopted policy, but it would also result in the loss of significant funding that would likely not be available in the future.

·         The summary papers before the Committee set out the detail of the two planning applications for Section 1 and Section 5 and in turn these referenced the library of documentation that had informed the development of the proposed preferred schemes – including a full Environmental Statement.

·         South Holland District Council had been formally consulted on these proposals in its role as Local Planning Authority – and had endorsed both schemes at their Planning Committee in May 2019.

·         For Section 1, by promoting a strategic road corridor, the Highway Authority could ensure that road infrastructure would be delivered in a manner that was consistent across all sections of the relief Road and which conformed to the local and national design specifications of a principal road.

·         For Section 5, the route incorporated a new 5-arm roundabout junction with Spalding Road and Enterprise Way – road geometry, capacity, and Network Rail requirements had been key considerations in a wide range of alternatives that had been considered, north along Spalding Road.

·         A detailed landscape strategy had formed a key part of the design process and members would note that computer visualisations and separate photo-montage techniques had been used to inform the preliminary design and the visual assessment, so that the visual impact of the bridge from downstairs facades of the closest properties – between 85m and 225m from the new road – would be minimised.

·         All of the proposed planning conditions were acceptable.

·         It was respectfully suggested that members supported the officer recommendation for approval for both of the planning application.

 

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the applicant and the following was noted:

·         It was queried whether the route for Section 2 was close to being announced. Members were reminded that the applications before them were for Sections 1 and 5.

·         In response to a question, officers clarified that in terms of the alternate route for Section 2, the local plan showed that the land had been allocated to housing and a school.

 

Comments were received by e-mail from Councillor Mrs E J Sneath, the local member for Spalding Elloe as follows:

·         She urged the Committee to reject the proposed planning application H14-0326-19 section 5 of the Spalding Western Relief Road.

·         The application for the Pinchbeck end of this so called 'relief road' was nothing more than a developer led, ill-considered folly that would blight the lives of the residents of all the villages on this main arterial road leading in to Spalding.

·         The effects of this increase of traffic into our market town, our cottage hospital, our primary and senior schools and our shops and businesses would be catastrophic.

·         The proposed road was nothing more than a giant cul-de-sac for 1000 houses, potentially 2000 extra traffic movements a day, the misery this volume of traffic would bring was immense.

·         Members would hear a lot of rhetoric about the need for a relief road but that is not what this is about, it was being pushed through because funding was being promised but sometimes money was just too expensive and this was certainly the case with this application.

·         On behalf of all the residents of Pinchbeck and Spalding Elloe whom she represented, Councillor Sneath requested that the Committee turn down this application.

 

Members were provided with the opportunity to discuss the applications as presented and some of the points raised included the following:

·         A member expressed concerns that the design of Section 1 now swung away from the development and more towards the Drain.  This design now differed from what was passed in 2009, and was pushing it nearer to houses on South Drove.  The previous route of the road from 2009 was therefore preferred.

·         The Committee was thanked for visiting Two Plank Bridge.

·         The report mentioned that there would be noise during construction, and it was requested that some noise attenuation measures were included as there was a need to take into account the impact on the residents who currently lived there.  Members were advised that a planning condition required the submission and approval of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan which would provide further details of measures to be adopted to be adopted to minimise noise during the construction phase.

·         It was highlighted that it was common when dealing with major projects, such as the Lincoln Eastern Bypass, that not all sections were agreed at the start of the project.  There was a need to make a start somewhere.

·         The funding and timeframe for delivery was referenced in the report.

·         It was important to keep in context what was being discussed as the County Council Planning Committee.  The housing allocation had already been agreed as part of the Local Plan, and members were here to determine the application for the road.  It was acknowledged that it was not a complete road, but there was a need to start somewhere.  The benefits of this application going over the railway line were noted, and it was commented that it was pleasing to see that the design had been future proofed by allowing enough clearance for electrification.  The main issue was to get the road over the railway line.

·         There were some concerns about the location of the roundabout.

·         The Committee could not speculate on what might come in future.

·         Councillor Mrs A M Newton was thanked for her assistance and local knowledge on the site visit.

·         There was sympathy for Mr Avery and his concerns regarding developers, but the Committee needed to make a decision on material planning considerations.

·         It was noted that housing had been allocated on the local plan, but it was queried whether planning permission had been granted for the housing.  Members were advised that there was permission for the Holland Park SUE, at Section 1.

·         One member commented that they were reasonably happy with the proposal for Section 1, as the developer had been building there for some time, and it would be beneficial if that road could be put in place and joined up with Spalding Common.  There were slight concerns with the location of the roundabout and would prefer it to be in the same location as put forward in 2009.

·         Regarding an alternate route for Section 2, officers confirmed that the Committee had to consider only the applications and sections that were in front of them and as such not the central section.  Options for the preferred route of the central section had yet to be finalised but officers highlighted that the land of the previous "allotment route" was now allocated for housing and a school site in the recently adopted Local Plan.

 

On a motion by Councillor T R Ashton and seconded by Councillor L A Cawrey, it was:

 

RESOLVED (9 in favour)

 

            That planning permission be granted in relation to Section 1 of the Spalding Western Relief Road.

 

RESOLVED (8 in favour, 1 against)

 

            That planning permission be granted in relation to Section 5 of the Spalding Western Relief Road.

Supporting documents:

 

 
 
dot

Original Text: