Agenda item

To extract and process sand and gravel and to progressively restore the site to a mixture of agricultural land, nature conservation area and an agricultural water reservoir at Land at King Street, Greatford - Dr Charles Daniel Lane - S20/1351

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report where Planning permission was sought by Dr Charles Daniel Lane (the Applicant) to extract and process sand and gravel and to progressively restore the site to a mixture of agricultural land, nature conservation area and an agricultural water reservoir at Land at King Street, Greatford, Lincolnshire in the parish of Greatford. The proposed development would constitute the creation of a new sand and gravel quarry with a restoration strategy to create three separate but linked after-uses, being low level agriculture, an irrigation lagoon and wetland habitat. The proposal was subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment submitted pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and a Planning and Environmental Statement (PES) had been submitted which assessed the potential impacts of the proposed development together with the mitigation measures proposed to avoid, reduce and, if possible remedy any significant adverse impacts.

 

The Head of Planning guided members through the report and set out the main issues to be considered in the determination of the application.

 

The report recommended that following consideration of the relevant development plan policies and the comments received through consultation and publicity  conditional planning permission be granted subject to the applicant completing a  section 106 Planning Obligation.

 

The Agent, Simon Tucker, Quartet/Ashton Estate, on behalf of the applicant, attended via Teams and spoke in support of the application and made the following statement:- "I am director of DTA, a traffic and transport planning consultant acting on behalf of the applicant.  The report recommendations are supported. One of the significant merits of the Manor Farm site was that it was largely unexceptional. There were few, if any interesting features on this isolated parcel of land, being circa 55 hectares, flat, well drained, remote from the nearest residence (at least 420m), the nearest village of Baston (at least 440m) and remote from any distinguishing heritage features.  All the relevant potential impacts of a proposed gravel quarry had been explored in detail in the application and supporting EIA.  These included a detailed report for all likely impacts including noise, dust, air quality, heritage features and hydrology.  The overall conclusion of the report was that the scheme was wholly acceptable and policy compliant subject to the usual planning conditions. The transport aspects of the site merited some more detailed comments.  The scheme had been subject to a detailed Transport Assessment which had been scoped and agreed with the Highway Authority.   Discussions had taken place about potential mitigation. The site bordered the straight road of King Street. In statistical terms, the circa one kilometre of straight road south of the quarry access was safe and appropriate to serve the development.  The site went through a formal Mineral Plan adoption process and was found to be acceptable.   However, as part of the application, a scheme of mitigation had been agreed, in principle, with the Council.   This comprised:

(a)    A routing agreement, secured by a S106 agreement, which would prevent movements through nearby villages.

(b)    A carefully designed T-junction access to the quarry, which would direct all HGVs from the site to route south hence avoiding the junction of King Street and the A15. 

(c)    The widening of one kilometre of King Street to the minimum width recommended by LCC Highways (5.5m).

In addition to meeting the critical land supply needed for minerals set out in the    Plan, it would also allow, in the restoration plan, the creation of an irrigation reservoir. This would have a dramatic benefit in terms of crop diversification for the farmer of up to 400 acres of the nearby farm ".

 

Vanessa Smith attended the meeting via Teams and spoke in objection to the application and made the following statement:- "The morning after I found about this meeting I woke up in a cold sweat. I had dreamt that I had just found a motorcyclist dead in the ditch opposite my house.  He had skidded on mud on the road.   I have lived on the King Street / Stowe roads crossroads for the past six years. My house is around half a mile south of the proposed quarry exit and a well-known accident hotspot. Prior to lockdown there was a road traffic accident directly outside my house on average every three to four months, normally with emergency services present.  For whatever reason accidents are not always officially recorded and as such the transport statement attached to this application was woefully incomplete. I can stand in my upstairs bedroom and watch traffic straddle King Street travelling at speeds in excess of 90mphs.  I watch traffic skim past each other and hear the hoot of horns on a daily basis.  I would like to know why increasing the road width by just 20cm to accommodate up to 100 extra HGVs per day is sufficient.  King Street at the West Deeping quarry had to be widened to over 6m for this purpose and this has also been the case for the quarry at Baston.  Why is 5.5m for this quarry sufficient?  Indeed, given that plans now propose all site traffic enter and exit the site from the south lorries will frequently pass each other and as such a minimum of 6.8m is recommended by the government’s own highway guidelines. I quote: “This minimum width shall be… …6.8 metres for roads where buses or heavy goods vehicles are likely to pass each other on a regular basis. Besides the transport statement containing incomplete accident data the traffic survey was also conducted during the week of Easter Bank Holiday Monday such that traffic levels would be unlikely to be typical. There have been well over 100 objections raised by local residents.  The main concern is road safety.  King Street was already a death trap and allowing the current plans to pass was surely negligent. Increasing road width would help but I do not think that it alone would reduce serious accidents.  The transport statement found up to 13 cars a day travelling in excess of 90mph.  Enforcing a reduced speed limit was therefore also essential. When the next person died on King Street questions would be asked as to whether quarry traffic contributed.  If these plans pass, in their current form, the people that permitted this would surely face serious questioning. For the record I do not mind living close to a quarry, indeed the excavation site at West Deeping was closer to my house.  However, I do mind finding dead people and emergency services in my front garden".

 

The Chair of Greatford Parish Council, Philip Britton attended the meeting via Teams and spoke in objection to the application and made the following statement:-

'The primary objection to the development of the proposed quarry was the effect of the increase in HGV traffic upon the road safety of King Street, and the surrounding villages including Greatford. The transport statement showed 16,329 vehicles per week used the road with speeds up to 68.5 mph and an average speed of 57mph, King Street was a fast road and had a collision rate higher than the national average, there had been 23 collisions in the last 5 years including severe and fatal collisions. The applicants transport statement was incomplete as it had no assessment of likely impact at the main junction of King St and the A1175 even though this was the proposed route to and from the proposed quarry. This junction had a history of at least six reported collisions in the last 5 years. Also the applicants transport statement showed no collisions occurred at the Stowe Road junction, yet LCCs own data showed five collisions here, including recent fatal collisions. King Street was for a significant proportion of its length less than 5.5m wide, most HGV’s were over 3m wide when their mirrors were included, this meant that 2 HGV’s could not pass on some parts of King Street unless they slowed down and mounted the verge to avoid collision. LCCs own website stated that for road design advice refers to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges when speed limits were over 40mph. The manual stated that a road should be 7.3m wide. LCC required King Street to be widened to 7.3m from the junction with the A1175 up to the existing quarry site entrance, and the applicants proposed site entrance was also 7.3m wide, why was LCC suggesting a road width of 5.5m was wide enough for the proposed quarry, when their own published guidance, planning precedence and common sense demonstrate that it was not? The suggested routing strategy for the proposed quarry was flawed and would not be sufficient to prevent quarry traffic using the side roads off King Street. The existing routing agreements for other quarries in the area succeed only in routing the quarry operators own vehicles via the proscribed route, they did not stop other hauliers working out of these quarries from using Greatford as a short cut, we never see Hanson or Cemex (the quarry operators) lorries in the village, but we do see many other operators vehicles, in an 18 day period from mid-February to early March 2020 we observed 14 different hauliers operating tipper trucks  through the village. The T-junction with Main Street and Carlby road in Greatford was narrow and HGV’s regularly mounted the pavement when encountering other traffic at this junction creating significant danger for pedestrians. The environmental impact from vibration, noise and diesel fumes should not be underestimated. Greatford urgently needed a weight limit to protect the village and it residents from the hazards created by HGV’s using the village as a rat run. The proposed quarry and the traffic it will generate increases this need and we urge you to carefully consider the overall impact on the area and reject this application'. 

The Head of Planning reported that the width of road improvements were consistent with Council policy and the widths proposed in the report could be because of some constraints on the roadside/verges.

 

Whilst there was general support for the planning application there were a number of concerns about the proposed width of the road which was thought to be too narrow and possibly not in line with Council guidelines. There was a general preference for the road width to be at least 6m minimum if possible. Reference was made to the possible impact on verges should two quarry lorries need to pass each other. There was also some disappointment expressed that the County Council did not have weight limit restrictions policy.

 

It was reported that King Street was a long stretch of road on which excessive speeds had been recorded. However, it was confirmed by Officers that it was not possible to use the planning application to resolve existing and historical traffic issues like speeding. It was also not possible to control routing agreements by planning conditions. It was reported that the Council was reliant on the public to report incidents and if there was sufficient evidence an injunction order could be considered.

 

The Committee thought that more consideration could be given to whether it was possible to widen the road and that this should be discussed with Officers from Traffic and Highways Department who were not in attendance at the meeting. A site visit was proposed for Committee members to be able to consider this matter further. 

 

The Head of Planning suggested that the application could be deferred for further analysis of road widths to be undertaken. The impact of arranging a site visit whilst Covid-19 restrictions were in place could mean a delay and the possibility that the application may not be able to be considered at the next meeting on 26 July but may have to be deferred until the September meeting.

 

On a motion by Councillor N H Pepper, seconded by Councillor I G Fleetwood, it was:-

 

RESOLVED (Unanimous)

 

       That the planning application be deferred pending a Committee site visit (to be arranged after the 19 July) in the presence of a Highways Officer, to view the carriage verges to determine if the road could be widened.

Supporting documents:

 

 
 
dot

Original Text: