Planning Committee Agenda Item No. 4(b)

29th September 2009

Waste Planning Application (County Matter)

Removal of Condition 9 (Highway Improvements) from Planning Permission PO/37/08

Land adjacent to The Vinery, Arundel Road, Poling, West

Application No: WSCC/049/09/PO

Report by Divisional Manager (County Development)

Local Member: Deborah Urquhart District: Arun

Executive Summary

This report concerns a proposal by the owner of the Vinery to remove Condition 9 (Highway Improvements) from Planning Permission PO/37/08. If permitted, the applicant would not be required carry out the widening of the diverge taper that leads off the A27 to the site entrance. This was previously required by the Highways Agency and supported by WSCC’s Planning Committee in reaching a decision on PO/37/08.

The current application does not propose any other material changes to the current prmission which allows the construction of “buildings to house in-vessel composting unit for green and kitchen waste, including maturation area, bio-filters, administration/canteen building and perimeter fence”. To date, the permission, granted in May 2008, remains unimplemented.

The Vinery site is located immediately south of the A27 trunk road at Poling approximately 2 miles east of Arundel, . It covers an area of 2.5 hectares, with approximately 1 hectare occupied by buildings. The site has a long and varied planning history. The whole Vinery site has been the subject of a number of planning permissions within the last few years. These established more general business and commercial uses within a number of former mushroom units/tunnels, to the east of the application site. A number of planning permissions for offices, storage and warehousing (B1 and B8 uses) have been granted by Council. Composting, involving external and internal composting practices, was first approved by WSCC at The Vinery in 2005 under Planning Permission PO/1/05.

Since planning permission was granted, the applicant has successfully appealed against a highway improvements condition imposed by Arun District Council on a planning permission for storage and warehousing uses within the eastern section of The Vinery site. The Planning Inspector found that the required works, known as ‘diverge taper modifications’, were not necessary and considered that deleting the condition would have ‘no material effect on road safety’ and, in addition, that it would not mean that the proposal no longer complies with the statutory

development plan in force. The proposal that is being considered within this report, arises largely as a consequence of that appeal decision.

This report provides a generalised description of the site and sets out the planning history, describes the proposal, and the policy context within which it should be considered.

An objection has been raised by Poling Parish Meeting and a number of representations have been received from third parties including the residents’ group PACT (Poling Against Composter Threat). The overriding concern raised relates to highway safety and that if Condition 9 is removed and the works not carried out then highway safety will be detrimentally affected.

Consideration of Key Issue The only material planning consideration in this case is whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety, a judgement that, in the case of junctions with a trunk road, will rest with the Highways Agency.

The policies relating to highway safety contained in the statutory Development Plan, which comprises the South East Plan (2009) and Arun District Local Plan (2003), have little or no relevance where junctions with trunk roads are concerned.

Notwithstanding the issues raised by Poling Parish Council and representations from the public, WSCC Highways Authority recognises that the responsibility for safety on trunk roads (in this case the A27) rests with the Highways Agency. In light of the Agency’s current advice, to the effect that modification to the existing diverge taper is no longer required, the Highway Authority accept that that deletion of the requirement to modify the diverge taper would have no significant adverse affect upon highway safety. Therefore, they raise no objection to the proposal.

Conclusion

The Planning Committee imposed the highways improvement condition based on the view, at that time, of the Highways Agency. The Highways Agency, which is responsible for trunk roads (including the A27), now consider that modification to the existing diverge taper is no longer required for highway safety purposes. The WSCC Highways Authority has accepted this view and have raised no objection. Accordingly, in light of the fact that the Highways Agency has changed its view on the need for the highway improvement, there is no longer a need for the associated condition to be attached to Planning Permission PO/37/08.

Recommendation

That planning permission is granted to remove Condition 9 from Planning Permission PO/37/08, resulting in a new permission with all other previous conditions attached.

1. Introduction

1.1 This report concerns the proposed removal of Condition 9 (Highway Improvements) from Planning Permission PO/37/08. The permission, granted in May 2008, allows the construction of “Proposed buildings to house in-vessel

composting unit for green and kitchen waste, including maturation area, bio- filters, administration/canteen building and perimeter fence” at The Vinery, Arundel Road, Poling, West Sussex.

2. Site Description

2.1 The Vinery site is located immediately south of the A27 at Poling approximately 2 miles east of Arundel (see Appendix 1 - Location Plan). It covers an area of 2.5 hectares, with approximately 1 hectare occupied by buildings (see Appendix 2 - Site Plan).

2.2 Poling Corner lies approximately 300m to the west of The Vinery and to its south-west is Poling village itself. 16 residential properties lie parallel to the eastern boundary of The Vinery site. The nearest property to the site is situated between the site entrance and the A27 and lies approximately 200m to the north-east of the footprint of the main composting site.

2.3 Access to The Vinery is gained via the site entrance that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access. Vehicles wishing to enter and exit the site do so via the northern end of the no through road that also provides access to the residents of the 16 residential properties (Lillian Terrace, Ella Terrace, Gordon Terrace and New Terrace), which links the A27 to the site entrance

3. Planning History

3.1 The most recent, substantive permission granted by the County Council at the application site was for PO/37/08 - see description of development at Paragraph 1.1.

3.2 The site has a long and varied planning history. It was originally used for greenhouses for vine growing. In 1979, approval was given to replace the greenhouses with mushroom growing and packing sheds plus some composting, which remained in use until 2003 when the current owner acquired the site. The whole Vinery site has been the subject of a number of planning permissions within the last few years. These established more general business and commercial uses within a number of former mushroom units/tunnels, to the east of the site in question. A number of planning permissions for offices, storage and warehousing (B1 and B8 uses) have been granted by Arun District Council.

4. The Proposal

4.1 It is proposed to remove Condition 9 (Highway Improvements) from Planning Permission PO/37/08. Condition 9 reads as follows:

9. Before the commencement of the development hereby permitted, including demolition works, all required road and access improvement works associated with the junction of the A27 Arundel Road, Lillian Terrace, and the site entrance shall be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Planning Authority and in accordance with details and plans to be approved in advance and in writing by the County Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and residential amenity.

4.2 Condition 9 was required by the Highways Agency when they were consulted on PO/37/08 prior to Planning Permission being given in May 2008. The highway improvement works were required at that time in the interests of road safety purposes (see Appendix 3 – Improvements to Road Splay).

5. Policy

5.1 The policies relevant to the current application are only those concerned with highway safety. National guidelines relating to highway safety are supported by technical manuals setting out design standards applicable to the configuration of highways reflecting the nature of their use and status within the hierarchy of roads. The A27 is a trunk road and, as such, is the responsibility of the Highways Agency (HA). Developments taking access from trunk roads must be referred to the HA. The HA’s advice in such cases is of paramount importance.

5.2 The policies relating to highway safety contained in the statutory development plan, which comprises the South East Plan (2009) and Arun District Local Plan (2003), have little or no relevance where junctions with trunk roads are concerned.

6. Consultations

6.1 Arun District Council – Planning: No objection.

6.2 Poling Parish Meeting: Strong objection of the grounds that if this proposal is allowed a most dangerous traffic situation would occur in spite of the Highways Agency statement to the contrary. The Appeal decision quoted in support of this proposal by the applicant is for the removal of a similar condition that was upheld by an Inspector although it related to the fact that Light Goods Vehicles would be in use at The Vinery in a B1 and B8 ‘Business and Storage & Distribution’ situation.

6.3 When PO/37/08 was granted planning permission WSCC’s Planning Committee had reservations that the access off and onto the A27 was inadequate for Heavy Goods Vehicles. If an HGV is waiting to join the A27 at The Vinery there is insufficient room for another HGV to enter The Vinery from the A27 resulting in the latter vehicle being parked on the A27 itself, which is a very busy trunk road. This situation deprives the driver of the HGV wanting to join the A27 of adequate sight eastwards along the A27 thereby causing a dangerous situation, which is experienced by local residents on a daily basis and can only lead to tragedy. Therefore, how can the Highways Agency support this proposal knowing full well that HGVs would be involved?

6.4 Parish Council: No response received at the time that this report was written.

6.5 Highways Agency: No objection raised to this proposal given a) the relatively low traffic flows at the Arundel Road junction and b) that traffic generated by the already developed section of The Vinery has proved to be lower than previously predicted and is lower than the level at which the Highways Agency could reasonably require the highway improvements to the junction’s design. However, it was stated by the Highways Agency that the existing short diverge taper at the junction with A27 allows less than ideal space for vehicles,

particularly heavy vehicles to slow to access the site (see Appendix 4 - Highways Agency response 31 July 2009).

6.6 WSCC Highway Authority: The original condition was imposed following receipt of a recommendation from the Highways Agency who have overall responsibility for the A27 Trunk Road. It is noted from the supporting information that the applicants are now suggesting that the Highways Agency have agreed that the improvements works are no longer justified and that an Appeal Inspector has supported that view. The Highways Agency should still be consulted for their formal comment on this particular application.

7. Representations

7.1 The application was publicised in accordance with article (8)(5)(a) of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

7.2 11 representations have been received from third parties one of which is from PACT (Poling Against Composter Threat) a local residents group. The overriding concern raised relates to highway safety and that if Condition 9 is removed and the works not carried out then highway safety will be detrimentally affected. The safety risk to any users of the A27, residents living adjacent to the eastern boundary of The Vinery, visitors to the nearby residents, and any visitors/workers entering or exiting The Vinery itself at this junction would be significantly heightened.

7.3 The issues raised are summarised as follows: • The junction is already a dangerous one without the highway improvements being carried out prior to this development being commenced especially with its associated delivery and collection vehicles as well as all existing users of the A27 and the junction. • The traffic count data is being used incorrectly by the applicant and was completed in 2007, which does not reflect traffic levels on the A27 in 2009. • Historical traffic figures associated with the mushroom composting that took place here prior to 2003 have been exaggerated by the applicant as many workers arrived by bus and not individually. • An independent highway capacity/safety assessment should be carried out to determine what highway standards are required for this development. • The A27 has become less safe in this area already and this proposal, if permitted, would exacerbate the problem for all road users. • The Highways Agency has not managed the A27 well in this area nor has WSCC who is responsible for the residents of West Sussex and public safety should outweigh the saving of money by the applicant. • PO/37/08 did not restrict the size of vehicles that can enter and the exit The Vinery in connection with the composting operations. The deceleration is inadequate now so the potential for accidents happening as goods vehicles ‘swing’ around the junction when leaving the A27 will increase. • Inconsistent advice from the Highways Agency. • The close proximity of the lay-by that precedes the junction to The Vinery is confusing for road users particularly as The Vinery junction appears almost from nowhere due to its small dimensions and lack of signage.

• When 2 large goods vehicle meet at the junction now blockages are often caused to other vehicles trying to join the A27 as visibility is reduced and those attempting to exit from the A27 as vehicles have to wait in the deceleration lane.

8. Consideration of Key Issue

8.1 The only material planning consideration in this case is whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety and, as such, compliant with Development Plan policies. For the reasons given in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of this report, the advice of the Highways Agency is paramount in matters affecting junctions with trunk roads (see Appendix 4 - Highways Agency response 31 July 2009).

8.2 Notwithstanding the issues raised by Poling Parish Council and representations from the public, WSCC Highways Authority recognises that the responsibility for safety on trunk roads (in this case the A27) rests with the Highways Agency. In the light of the Agency’s current advice, to the effect that modification to the existing diverge taper is no longer required; WSCC Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal.

9. Overall Conclusion and Recommendation

9.1 The Planning Committee imposed the highways improvement condition based on the view, at that time, of the Highways Agency. The Highways Agency, which is responsible for trunk roads (including the A27), now consider that modification to the existing diverge taper is no longer require for highway safety purposes. The WSCC Highway Authority accept this view and have raised no objection. Accordingly, in light of the fact that the Highways Agency has changed its view on the need for the highway improvement, there is no longer a need for the associated condition to be attached to Planning Permission PO/37/08 (see Appendix 5 - Planning Permission PO/37/08)

9.2 That planning permission is granted and Condition 9 from Planning Permission PO/37/08 be removed, resulting in a new permission with all other previous conditions attached.

10. Crime and Disorder Act Implications

10.1 There are no implications relating to this planning application.

11. Human Rights Act Implications

11.1 The Human Rights Act requires the County Council to take into account the rights of the public under the European Convention on Human Rights and prevents the Council from acting in a manner which is incompatible with those rights. Article 8 of the Convention provides that there shall be respect for an individual’s private life and home save for that interference which is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of (inter alia) public safety and the economic well being of the country. Article 1 of protocol 1 provides that an individual’s peaceful enjoyment of their property shall not be interfered with save as is necessary in the public interest.

11.2 For an interference with these rights to be justifiable the interference (and the means employed) needs to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. The main body of this report identifies the extent to which there is any identifiable interference with these rights. The Planning Considerations identified are also relevant in deciding whether any interference is proportionate. Case law has been decided which indicates that certain development does interfere with an individual’s rights under Human Rights legislation. This application has been considered in the light of statute and case law and the interference is not considered to be disproportionate.

11.3 The Committee should also be aware of Article 6, the focus of which (for the purpose of this committee) is the determination of an individual’s civil rights and obligations. Article 6 provides that in the determination of these rights, an individual is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 6 has been subject to a great deal of case law. It has been decided that for planning matters the decision making process as a whole, which includes the right of review by the High Court, complied with Article 6.

Michael Elkington Divisional Manager - County Development

Background Papers The South East Plan (2009) Arun District Local Plan (2003)

List of Appendices Appendix 1 – Location Plan Appendix 2 – Site Plan including Modifications to Existing Diverge Taper Appendix 3 – Improvements to Road Splay Appendix 4 – Highways Agency response 31 July 2009 Appendix 5 - Planning Permission PO/37/08

Contact: Sam Dumbrell, ext. 56867.

INFORMATIVES

A. In the light of the Highways Agency’s current advice, to the effect that modification to the existing diverge taper is no longer required, WSCC Highway Authority accept that the deletion of the requirement to modify the diverge taper would have no significant adverse affect upon highway safety.

B. This permission is granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and does not purport to grant any other consent, approval or agreement by the County Council.