Report Reference: 8.0 Regulatory and Other Committee Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills, Executive Director (Development Services) Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee Date: 17 January 2011 Subject: Outcome of Planning Inquiry In Respect of an Appeal and Related Costs Application at West Deeping Quarry, King Street, Tallington by Lafarge Aggregates Limited Summary: This is to notify Councillors of the outcome of an appeal and related costs application heard by written representations for the importation and storage of inert waste materials and subsequent processing to form recycled aggregate for distribution into the local market. The main issue in the determination of this appeal was the effect of the proposal on highway safety. The Inspector allowed the appeal subject to 15 conditions and awarded costs against the County Council. A copy of the decision and associated cost decision is attached at Appendix A. Recommendation: That the decision of the Planning Inspectorate is noted. Discussion 1. Councillors will recall consideration of the proposal subject of this appeal at the Planning and Regulation Committee in July 2009. It was resolved that planning permission be granted subject to the applicant entering into a Section 278 agreement to fund the installation of traffic lights at the junction of King Street and the A16 and also a Section 106 Agreement relating to the prohibition of traffic visiting the site from the north or turning left out of the site. The applicant was invited to enter into these agreements and whilst agreeing to enter into the Section 106 Agreement declined to enter into the Section 278 Agreement. 2. The application was brought back to the Committee in February 2010 when Councillors were notified that the applicant declined to enter into the Section 278 Agreement. Consequently the Committee refused the application. A copy of the Officer report for the February 2010 Committee is attached at Appendix B. Page 1 3. The applicant appealed the Council’s decision via the written representation procedure. In addition the applicant also made an application for costs against the Council. In coming to his decision on the appeal the Inspector noted the following:- “The King Street/A16 junction is typical or a rural main road and I recognise that, at such junctions there is potential danger in right turn manoeuvres, particularly from the minor road on to the main road. In its assessment the applicant has assumed that lorries associated with the proposal would be equally split in their direction of travel along the A16, although there appears to be no particular basis for this. However, in the worst case scenario of all lorries to and from the quarry turning right at this junction (ie travelling inbound from the east and outbound towards the west), and assuming 60 trips per day spread across a 10 hour day, then 6 right turn lorries would be added to the junction’s traffic movements in the peak hour. This would add, at most, 8% or so to the observed right turning movements into/out of King Street in the morning and evening peak hours, although it would be a smaller percentage of all peak hour right turning movements at the junction. The figure would be even lower if lorries were spread across the 12 hour weekday and 7 hour Saturday hours of operation which would be permitted by the Council’s suggested condition.” 4. Whilst noting the concerns raised locally about the level of traffic accidents being higher than those quoted in the reported accident data the Inspector was not provided with any data to support such claims. Consequently these comments carried little weight in the Inspector’s decision contrasting with the evidence of the applicant’s traffic assessment, to suggest that the junction operates at or near capacity. 5. Whilst the applicant provided a unilateral undertaking to address the issue of routeing traffic to ensure the section of King Street to the north of the quarry access the Inspector was not convinced that such a restriction was necessary and therefore gave little weight to this decision in making his decision. The Inspector therefore allowed the appeal subject to 15 conditions. 6. With regard to the costs application in coming to his decision the Inspector noted that the contents of the appellant’s traffic assessment were not disputed by officers of the Highways Authority having regard to the volume and nature of the traffic likely to be generated by the proposal. Therefore the scheme would be unlikely to have significant adverse impact on highway safety/traffic flows and that therefore a requirement for the applicant to make a contribution towards the installation of traffic lights at the King Street/A16 junction could not be sustained nor would it meet the tests for planning obligations set out in Circular 05/2005. 7. Whilst the Inspector recognised that Councillors are not bound to accept the recommendations of their officers when it chooses not to it will need to produce relevant evidence in support of its decision which must be based on reasonable planning grounds. The Inspector acknowledged that it was Page 2 appropriate for the Committee to give significant weight to highway issues in its deliberations and that its decision reflects the perceptions and concerns of local residents, Councillors and the Parish Council. However, no convincing evidence was put forward by the Council to counter the conclusions of the detailed traffic assessment and the views of the Highway Authority’s officers that the proposal is, in highway terms acceptable without the installation of traffic signals at the King Street/A16 junction. 8. In respect of the costs application the Inspector concluded that the Council acted unreasonably in refusing planning permission for the proposal and thus, the applicant’s costs in making the appeal were unnecessary. 9. The procedure now is for the appellant to submit its cost claim to the Council with a view to reaching an agreement in relation to the reasonable costs incurred by the appellant in bringing forward this appeal. 10. At such time a figure is agreed between the two parties a paper will be brought back to the Committee confirming the outcome of these cost negotiations. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council notes the decision of the appeal and associated costs application. Appendices These are listed below and attached at the back of the report Appendix A Planning Inspectorate’s Appeal Decision and Costs Decision dated 3 December 2010 Appendix B Planning and Regulation Committee Report dated 15 February 2010 This report was written by Neil McBride, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected] Page 3 REPORT REFERENCE: 5.1 REGULATORY AND OTHER COMMITTEE REPORT NAME OF COMMITTEE: Planning and Regulation DATE OF MEETING: 15/02/2010 SUBJECT: Supplementary Report County Matter Application To import and store inert waste materials and process to form recycled aggregate at West Deeping Quarry, Tallington – Lafarge Aggregates Limited S75/1229/08 REPORT BY: Executive Director (Development Services) NAME OF CONTACT OFFICER: Ben Hunt CONTACT OFFICER TEL NO: Lincoln (01522) 782070 CONTACT OFFICER EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected] IS THE REPORT EXEMPT No IS REPORT CONFIDENTIAL? No SUMMARY At the 27 July 2009 committee, Councillors considered a planning application to bring inert waste materials to the West Deeping Quarry site for processing into recycled aggregate. Councillors resolved to invite the applicant to enter into legal agreements relating to the provision of traffic lights and the routeing of lorries travelling to and from the site. Following Page 1 completion of those agreements, planning permission would be granted subject to conditions. The purposes of this report are: to inform Committee of the response of the applicant to the invitation to enter into the legal agreements; in light of that response to set out the alternative options for Committee and the range of likely outcomes; to seek a further resolution from Committee in respect of the planning application. The main matter for members to reconsider is the requirement to install traffic lights at the junction of the A16 and King Street. Relevant issues include evidence of need for traffic lights; the level of traffic that would be generated by the proposals, and its likely impact; the context of the existing highway situation and relevant policy guidance. Following consideration of the response of the applicant and the views of Highways, it is recommended that, subsequent to the completion of a lorry routeing agreement through a Planning Obligation, planning permission be granted for this proposal. DISCUSSION Background 1. At the Planning and Regulation meeting of 27 July 2009, Councillors considered a planning application to bring inert waste materials to the West Deeping Quarry site for processing into recycled aggregate. Councillors resolved to invite the applicant to: enter into an agreement under S278 of the Highways Act to provide traffic lights at the junction of the A16 and King Street; and then enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Planning Obligation) requiring vehicles to travel to and from the site via the A16 and the crossroads at West Deeping, rather than travelling along the northern section of King Street. It was also resolved that, following the completion of the aforementioned legal agreements, planning permission would be granted for the development, subject to planning conditions set out in the report. A copy of that report is attached as Appendix A. The Response of the Applicant 2. In accordance with the Committee resolution, in August 2009 the applicant was invited to enter into the legal agreements referred to above. Prior to responding formally, the applicant invited the Parish Council, County Council planning and highway officers, elected members and representatives from other bodies such as the Environment Agency to a meeting at West Deeping quarry to discuss the proposals.