Agenda item

Report by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure & Planning (PN6).

The report sets out the detail of an application seeking permission to widen and upgrade the existing site access onto the public highway at Grimsbury Green, including the provision of a new footpath into the site at the eastern side of the access, re-surfacing, and alterations to drainage. The proposals intend to segregate HGV movements from non-motorised users and to formalise the T-junction to prevent vehicle conflict and so that HGVs do not cut the corner. Existing palisade fencing would be relocated to the new boundary at the eastern edge of the access, although the western edge would remain unfenced. In addition to the works to the access, the application also proposes to fund the provision of a new 2m wide footway to the south of Grimsbury Green along with a central refuge crossing point.

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission for application MW.0011/21 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, to include those set out in Annex 1 to the report PN6.

The Committee considered a report (PN6) setting out the detail of an application for permission to widen and upgrade the existing site access onto the public highway at Grimsbury Green, including the provision of a new footpath into the site at the eastern side of the access, re-surfacing, and alterations to drainage. The proposals also intended to segregate HGV movements from non-motorised users and to formalise the T-junction to prevent vehicle conflict and HGVs cutting the corner. Existing palisade fencing would be relocated to the new boundary at the eastern edge of the access, although the western edge would remain unfenced. Additionally, the application also proposed to fund the provision of a new 2m wide footway to the south of Grimsbury Green along with a central refuge crossing point.

Mary Hudson presented the report together with an addendum setting out further responses from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the Environment Agency.  The responses referred to Application MW.0011/21 (Item 6) and Applications MW.0012/21, MW.0013/21 and MW.0014/21 (Item 7). Neither had raised objections and no changes were being recommended to the conditions. A further letter of representation had also been received which had not raised any additional concerns over and above those already raised and addressed in the report.

Responding to questions from members of the Committee she:

Confirmed that no routeing agreement would be required for this particular application.

The period for commencement of works was the standard 3 years and  responding to concerns that improvements to the access should be completed before the development proposed in the 3 applications for consideration at Item 7, that could be tied in with the those applications.

Confirmed that the applicants had chosen to present the applications in this way. The first application related to access and the applicants wanted that done regardless of the outcome of the applications at Item 7. Conditions could be attached to this application in respect of the others if the Committee so wished noting that members of the Committee had suggested that the local member needed to be fully involved in these issues going forward

Approval of Application MW.0011/21 would not bind the Committee to the 3 applications at Item 7.

Councillor Banfield then spoke as local member.  Waterworks Road was a very busy road and so the improvement works at the access were welcome but also considered that that application had been submitted in order to distract attention away from the 3 applications at Item 7. She had grave concerns for the health of residents in her division who lived close to the site and others whose properties backed onto Hennef Way where readings were already double safe and legally recommended limits.  If all 4 applications were granted then HGV movements would increase from a current daily total of 80 to 348 and all would have to drive through Waterworks Road and enter onto Hennef Way. Safe access to the site was important but was it right to consider this sort of increase in the number of vehicles along with the associated problems of extra noise and dust pollution. Current facilities at the tarmac site were, in her opinion, inadequate for this number of vehicles.  She considered the highways report commissioned by Tarmac to be misleading and did not accept that the plant would be restored at the end of the 5 year period and that they would seek to retain that. She questioned HGV traffic figures quoted in the report which stated that figures would be lower than the daily total which was often generated from the site now and that the overall expected use of the site would be lower than the existing fall back capacity of the site.  She called for a comprehensive air pollution assessment report to be carried out.

Malcolm Lawer for the applicants advised that as stated in the officer’s report, Grimsbury Green (also known as Waterworks |Road) was a popular local recreation route for pedestrians and cyclists but with no current separation between the highway and the Tarmac site. Whilst that access had operated perfectly well over the 30-year life of the site at various rates of output, with no reported accidents, Tarmac wished to secure the long-term sustainability of the area by undertaking a series of highway improvements.  All works would be carried out at Tarmac’s expense and subject to formal approval of the Highways Authority through a S.278 Agreement. Widening of the access to the site would improve driver visibility as they entered and exited the site with improved pedestrian and cyclist links on Grimsbury Green, as well as providing a separate pedestrian/cycle access into the site, which did not currently exist so improving general visibility and pedestrian/cycle safety in the area. Tarmac were also seeking permission for a series of works within the plant site, which were the subject of applications at Item 7 on the Committee Agenda and it needed to be stressed that the access widening and highway improvements were not required in order to make the on-site works acceptable from a highways point of view and there was no direct correlation between the two as had been confirmed by the highways authority.  However, Tarmac had taken on board various comments made by the local community over the years, as the proposed on-site works had evolved, and were keen to provide this local and long-term community benefit, which would also assist with the efficient operation of the site.  Whilst access widening works would involve removal of part of the landscaped bank situated on the frontage of the site, Tarmac intended to carry out various improvements to the bank including new planting, ecological enhancements and long-term management to ensure no physical loss of biodiversity. On behalf of Tarmac he commended the officer report and recommendation to approve.

He then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – the company would be responsible for the necessary works.

Councillor Mathew – the road safety audit had been agreed with the highway authority.

Councillor Roberts – the proposed width of the cycleway at 1.2 metres while less than the OCC cycle design width of 1.5 metres had been agreed with the highway authority.

Rashid Bbosa confirmed that a pedestrian count had not been carried out due to the relatively low pedestrian movements that would be generated. The proposed width of the cycleway although constrained to 1.2 metres by the width of the highway was considered acceptable.

Councillor Haywood considered that irrespective of the applications at Item 7 this particular application would improve conditions at the access to the site and so moved the officer recommendation. Councillor Johnston seconded the motion which was then put to the Committee and RESOLVED (by 8 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions) that planning permission for application MW.0011/21 be approved subject to conditions to be determined by the Assistant Director for Strategic Infrastructure and Planning, to include those set out in Annex 1 to the report PN7.