Agenda item

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 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, that conditional planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure the following:

• HGV route restricting access to local villages;
• Creation of a Community Liaison Group/Meeting; and
• Long-term Management Plan for the proposed nature conservation area.

Simon Tucker, Director of David Tucker Associates, was invited to address the Committee in his capacity as applicant for this proposal.All the relevant potential impacts of a proposed gravel quarry had been explored in detail in the application, including a detailed report for all likely impacts including noise, dust, air quality, heritage features, landscape and hydrology. The overall conclusion of those reports was that the scheme was wholly acceptable and policy compliant subject to the usual planning conditions. The scheme had been subject to a detailed Transport Assessment which had been scoped and agreed with the Highway Authority. The planning decision was deferred in July following the debate, specifically on matters of highway safety and the adequacy of the widening proposals agreed with the County Highway Authority. Having listened carefully to the debate and read the minutes of the site visit, Mr Tucker noted the recommendation required the widening of the road to at least 5.5 metres. It was important to be clear that the accidents on King Street related to speed and failure of cars to judge give way lines. These were not issues which would be exacerbated by the proposed quarry. The introduction of HGV traffic would, if anything, reduce vehicle speeds on the road.It was essential that a proper balance was reached between the width of the road and the scale of development proposed. While necessary to ensure two HGVs could pass, over wideningwould likely result in yet higher vehicle speeds and potentially also encourage more traffic to use the route instead of the A15. The proposal to widen the road to 5.5 metres was likely appropriate. He agreed with that approach and considered it to deliver the most appropriate form of road which could accommodate the development without resulting in unintended and adverse consequences of an over-widened route. In statistical terms the road was safe and appropriate to serve the development. The site went through a formal Mineral Plan adoption process and was found to be acceptable. He had agreed to mitigation strategies:

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

(b)  A carefully designed access, which would direct all HGVs from the site to route south; 

(c)  The widening of King Street to at least 5.5m;

(d)  In addition, since the deferral of the application, a commitment to the creation of a liaison committee of local representatives and site operator.

Members sought confirmation that the material extracted would indeed be wet and how the applicant intended to ensure this. Mr Tucker explained that the water extraction was required to avoid digging underwater. Condition 32 would ensure material would stay damp while being extracted.

Vanessa Smith was invited to address the Committee in objection this proposal. HGVs were just over 3 metres wide at their wing mirrors. On a 5.5 metre wide road HGVs were unable to pass each other without going onto the verge as a combined 6 metres exceeded the 5.5 metre road width.Routing all traffic in and out of the quarry via King Street to A1175 junction meant that HGVs would be passing each other many times a day on a 5.5 metre wide and 2 mile long stretch of road, mounting the verges every day. All national guidelines, suggested that at least 6.3 meters was necessary for two-way HGV traffic to pass at low speed. Guidelines were followed in 2016 when Cemex opened a quarry on King Street; and the road was widened to 6.3 metres from the quarry to the A1175 junction. She made reference to a photograph of King Street showing tailbacks north and south as two HGVs struggled to pass. Road widening by the proposed 10cm to accommodate this traffic was ludicrous. The report stated that this occurred during ‘exceptional circumstances’. She disagreed, noting temporary closure of the A15, with traffic diverted onto King Street was not too unusual. Furthermore, HGVs trying to pass each other would occur many times each day if these plans went ahead. This was because HGV traffic on King Street would increase from an average of 30 movements per day to well in excess of 100 movements per day with no site restriction. Apart from road width, as an unclassified road, King Street was used by cyclists, horse riders and walkers. These plans would make it too dangerous for them to use as there was no pavement or cycle path. Agricultural machinery in excess of 3 metres wide used King Street on a daily basis during harvest. Anglia Water intended to lay the new Grantham to Bexwell pipeline along this same stretch of King Street. The average speed on King Street was 57mph with at least 35 per cent of all drivers breaking the speed limit. She understood that it was unreasonable to expect a development to remedy existing road safety issues, however, if such issues needed to be remedied for plans to be safely implemented then this must surely be done, or else they would just exacerbate an existing problem. And whilst an increase in road width could result in an increase in speeding, an inadequately wide road would certainly result in verge erosion, potholes and accidents.If King Street could not be widened, an average 40 mph speed limit must be enforced. She complained that the road was already unlit, undulating, ungritted, straight, fast and damaged; suffering from blind junctions used by hundreds of commuters and was often avoided in winter as it was too hazardous. A more than threefold increase in HGV traffic would displace other road users. And the excessive speed could result in fatalities. 

Councillor A Baxter, Deepings West and Rural, was invited to address the Committee asa local Elected Member on this proposal. He agreed with Vanessa Smith's comments regarding the width of the road, adding that it was already a rat run with combination of bikes, cars and HGVs causing a problem. He appreciated the applicant's suggestion that HGVs could slow down the traffic, but their passing could cause accidents or congestion. The road lacked white lanes or traffic marking and suffered from surface damage. The condition of the road should be improved. If the road couldn’t be 6.5 metres the whole length, he suggested passing places be included or some extension be made to the width in areas. The HGVs were driven by professional drivers who should know the etiquette of the road. If there was any opportunity to expand the Section 106 agreement for further facilities to the area it should be explored.

Councillor G Taylor, Greatford Parish Council, was invited to address the Committee as a local Elected Member for this proposal. She noted that previously, Members suggested that this development could be here for a long time, so she felt it was important that the decision was right. It was clear to all local parish councils and over 160 local objectors that the applicant had gotten this really wrong.King Street had a collision rate higher than national average, over 23 collisions in just the last 5 years.The Applicants Transport Statement included no assessment of impacts at the main junction of King Street and the A1175, despite this being the proposed route. This was a junction with a history of collisions. Also, it showed no collisions at Stowe Road junction, yet the Council's data showed five had occurred, including recent fatal collisions. While appreciating that accidents sometimes happen, it wasn't clear why the applicant had not assessed the risks at these junctions. It was surprising that the officers' report stated that the Transport Statement's analysis of road safety was appropriate with these flaws. Councillor Taylor showed photographs of HGVs using both lanes and increased usage from closure. The Council claimed that road design advice referred to the design manual for Roads and Bridges, which identified 7.3 metres as being appropriate for a road of this nature. While a previous applicant proposed their access road could be widen to 7.3 metres. She questioned why the Council now identified 5.5 metres as being wide enough for an unlit, ungritted road commonly used by cyclists and routes to school. Independent road safety experts said that HGVs travelling at speed along a road of just 5.5 metres in width could result in a number of different types of collisions. To compromise road safety guidance risked lives. While the Council said routing could be managed by a Section 106 agreement, the experience of villagers hadn't suggested the efficacy of agreements. There were no clear arrangements what the implications of non-compliance were.

Members sought further clarification if officers sought guidance from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges or Manual for Streets for existing roads. It was explained that both documents were technical manuals for highways but targeted rural and urban roads respectively. Manual for Streets was typically used by the Principal Highways Officer which identified 5.5 metres as being sufficient for both vehicles to pass. It was appreciated however this may be more appropriate for an urban environment. After measuring the width of some HGVs it was recognised that 1 foot of room would be available between wing mirrors which may not be sufficient. 6 metres may be more appropriate without being particularly more expenses. It was also reiterated that an increase in road widths could often result in an increase in speeds. Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership were reluctant to widen the road any more than 5 metres. Members felt that the site visit enabled them to appreciate further how close HGVs would get to each other when passing. Particular concern was felt when considering the increased prevalence of extended wing mirrors on HGVs. In addition, Members noted that their experience on the site visit highlighted the importance of not increasing traffic speeds on King Road.

Some Members weren't convinced at the suggestion that drivers would slow down naturally as the road narrowed. A Member suggested that increased road markings may give the impression of a narrower road while offering the safety of a wider road.

Some Members suggested that, if approved, a condition should be amended to extend the road width to 6 metres rather than 5.5 metres.

While appreciating the issues with King Road raised by the objectors, some Members felt that this one application couldn't reasonably be expected to resolve all of its existing problems.

Referencing the local deliveries mentioned within the officers' report, Members asked what actually constituted a local delivery. It was explained that local deliveries were summarised as deliveries to residents within the Greatford Village, however a legal definition would be sought if approved.

The increased planting protection identified by the applicant was appreciated by Members. It was advised that this was only identified within the report and hadn't been specifically recommended as part of condition seven. Members observed that this was an allocated site and would yield economic benefits if approved.

On a motion proposed by Councillor Mrs M Overton and seconded by CouncillorN H Pepper, it was:

RESOLVED (8 with 1 abstention (Councillor I G Fleetwood))

That the application be approved as per the officers' conditions, with the following amendments:

1.    That Condition 7 be amended to read:

No development shall take place until full details of an advanced landscape screening, tree and hedge planting scheme have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The landscape screening, tree and hedge planting scheme shall include information on perimeter screen bund construction; species, numbers, spacing and locations of all grasses, trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be planted as part of the development including along the entire length of the sites eastern boundary between the site and King Street. Thereafter the landscaping and planting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. All planting shall be maintained weed free for the duration of the development during which all losses shall be replaced in the following planting season.

Reason: To ensure that the advance screening measures proposed for the site are carried out and maintained to reduce the visual impacts for the duration of the development.

2.    That Condition 13 be amended to read:

No winning and working of mineral shall take place until the Site Access has been constructed and the highway improvement works, comprising of the widening of King Street to a width of not less than 6.0 metres have first been carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority (in consultation with the Highway Authority). For avoidance of doubt the widening and improvement works shall be constructed between the Site Access and the King Street/Stowe Road junction south of the Site within the limits of the public highway.

Reason: To ensure the highway improvement works identified as necessary to support the development are carried out so as to allow quarry traffic to safely pass on the public highway. *See Informative (i) for further information.

That the appendix referenced be amended from Appendix C to Appendix B.