Garstang Town Council

Transcription

1 Garstang Town Council Town Clerk: Mrs E Parry Tel: garstangtc@btinternet.com Garstang Police Station Moss Lane, Garstang, PR3 1HB I hereby give you notice that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held at Garstang Library, Windsor Road on Monday 21 March 2016 at 7.00pm. AGENDA Town Clerk 16 March Apologies for absence 2. Minutes To receive and confirm the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 15 February Declaration of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from any Member or Officer on any item of this agenda. 4. Public Participation The Chairman will ask Councillors to agree to adjourn the meeting to allow non-councillors to speak and will ask Councillors to agree to reconvene the meeting on the conclusion of the public participation. 5. a) Planning application 16/00124/FUL Erection of three detached dwellings Land Rear Of Hazelhurst Drive b) 16/00135/FUL Single storey and two storey rear extension Fairhaven, Garstang Bypass Road c) 16/00206/FUL Provision of dual-pitched roof in the place of flat roof on existing garage and erection of single-storey rear extension Calla House 17 Lancaster Road d) 16/00207/FUL Single storey side and rear extension including attached garage (following demolition of existing garage and porch) 1 Sycamore Avenue e) 16/00236/ADV Advertisement consent for one internally illuminated fascia sign, one internally illuminated projecting sign and two non-illuminated wall mounted signs The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc, High Street

2 f) 16/00168/FUL Replacement sports clubhouse Crown Hotel, High Street 6. Wyre Borough Council notifications none 7. Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 Location: Land To The West Of The A6 (Preston/Lancaster New Road) Bounded By Nateby Crossing Lane & Croston Barn Lane Nateby Garstang PR3 1DY Proposal: Outline planning permission for the erection of up to 270 dwellings, 4.68 ha of Employment (B1 & B8) uses, convenience store (up to 375m2 sales area) and coffee shop ( to 235m2 sales area). Application Number: 14/00458/OULMAJ Appeal Reference: APP/U2370/W/16/ Appeal Start Date: Appellant s Name: J Chippendale Ltd I refer to the above details. An appeal has been made to the Secretary of State. The appeal will be determined on the basis of a public inquiry. I will notify you of the date of the inquiry when it has been agreed. The procedure to be followed is set out in the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules We have forwarded all the representations made to us on the application to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant. These will be considered by the Inspector when determining the appeal. If you wish to make comments or modify/withdraw any previous representation you can do so on the Planning Portal at or by ing The Planning Inspectorate at teamp11@pins.gsi.gov.uk. If you do not have access to a computer, you can write (quoting the appeal reference) to: Planning Inspectorate, 3/05a Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol, BS1 6PN. All representations must be received no later than 5 weeks after the start date of the appeal (shown above). Any representations submitted after the deadline will not usually be considered and will be returned. The Planning Inspectorate does not acknowledge representations. All correspondence must quote the appeal reference. Wyre Council will publish appeal documentation, including copies of representations received, on our website at Information provided in your representation will be published but your personal details will be removed. If you object to publication in this way, please contact us at planning@wyre.gov.uk. A booklet - Guide to taking part in planning appeals proceeding by an Inquiry is available at Planning Portal website ( for your assistance. When the decision has been made this will be published on the Planning Portal website, on our website or it can be inspected at Wyre Council, Civic Centre, Breck Road, Poulton le Fylde FY6 7PU. Yours faithfully, Miss Susan Parker Case Officer

3 At the Planning Committee meeting held in July 2014, the Town Council responded as follows: 14/00458/OULMAJ; Outline application for the erection of up to 320 dwellings and leisure, employment, retail and hotel uses (Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, B8, C1, D1 and D2) Land South Of Croston Barn Lane, Cabus The meeting was adjourned to allow a member of the public to speak. He raised concerns about the development as outlined in his that had been detailed in the planning agenda. The Committee object most strongly to this application, based on the following reasons: i. The scale, appearance and design of the proposal. ii. The impact on the character of the area. The A6 would no longer be a bypass, but a highway going right through the community, which would have to be crossed thousands of times every day by all the extra traffic which such a major development would create. iii. The effect on highway safety and parking. The Committee raised concerns that the traffic surveys that had been carried out, had taken place in January and February. It was felt that the surveys had been conducted when the traffic volume would be at its lightest. iv. Concern about the pressure, which the development would place on the existing infrastructure of Garstang. The Clerk has been contacted by a member of the public, with the following: If the Council are minded to do so, I believe it would be strategic and important for Garstang to send an official letter to the Planning Inspectorate supporting the Planning Committee of Wyre Borough Council in their refusal of the application on Highway Safety grounds. I have attached a document for the Councillors to consider. Summary of reasons to support the Refusal of Planning Permission for Nateby Fields by the Planning Committee of Wyre Borough Council. Land to the West of the A6 (Preston/Lancaster New Road) Bounded by Nateby Crossing Lane and Croston Barn Lane, Nateby, Garstang PR3 1DY Original Application Number with Wyre Borough Council: Appeal Reference Number: 14/00458/OULMAJ APP/U2370/W/16/ This proposed development lies to the west of the Lancaster/Preston New Road, which was built as a by-pass for the attractive market town of Garstang. The development of 270 houses and a large commercial centre alters the character of the town by providing an alternative out-of-town commercial centre which will have a significant detrimental impact upon the commercial heart of the town and unnecessarily exceeds the foreseeable demand for houses within the community. However, in addition to this significant issue, the plans that have been put forward are inherently dangerous and the Planning Committee chose to refuse permission firstly on grounds of Highway safety. The Safety Issues In the years prior to the application being submitted there had been a long series of consultations between the applicants and the Highways Dept of Lancashire County Council. This is what Lancashire County Council wrote on the 6 th January 2015 (emphasis added): The development, as it stands, is unacceptable both locally and strategically. It is critical that development-related increases in movement (demand) are suitably considered and appropriately mitigated against both locally and strategically. The review of the Transport Assessment and TA Addendum in addition to LCC's own analysis has shown that there is a significant concern both locally and strategically, with severe impacts; the network as

4 considered is unable to satisfy the demands required of it. The LHA is unable to support this proposal until these concerns have been addressed through an agreed approach. From a strategic perspective the cumulative assessment work recently undertaken by LCC officers has indicated that further infrastructure is necessary to support development. The additional impacts from this development are currently not mitigated. At present the proposed development does not provide contributions to deliver additional infrastructure (M55 J1) or infrastructure as contained within the Masterplan. Until a scheme has been identified, which will be over and above that contained within the Masterplan, and until there is commitment from all parties (which includes Wyre Council, County Council, Highways Agency and the developer) for the approach as set out above, LCC cannot support the impacts of this development at this location. Lancashire County Council consider that there are substantial adverse highway and transport impacts associated with this development, as currently presented and these are considered severe. LCC object to this development proposal for the following reasons: Lack of Network Capacity both locally and strategically to support impacts of this proposal, No agreement on mitigation both locally and strategically; Further detail is required on proposed s278 works; LCC consider the proposal as presented will not deliver sustainable development; We consider that Lancashire County Council were correct in their assessment in January 2015 in which they highlighted both local and strategic issues. The Council, however, changed its mind following agreement with the developers to fund strategic road improvements elsewhere on the A6. While this led to some mitigation of the Council s concerns at a strategic level, the mitigation measures referred to do not make any difference whatsoever to the concerns about highway safety expressed locally. This leads to the natural conclusion that the interests, concerns and safety of the people of Garstang were given low priority by the Council in exchange for the significant funding for road improvements elsewhere on the A6. We believe that the WBC Planning Committee were entirely right to put the interests, concerns and safety of the people of Garstang first in considering the proposal - and then in refusing the application. Main Highway Safety Issues 1. The Traffic Assessments are in error and all Future Predictions based on these Assessments are Fundamentally Flawed. Traffic counts on a cold February morning in 2012 are completely disrelated to the business of this stretch of the A6 throughout the year and especially during the summer months of holiday traffic visiting Blackpool or the Lake District. 2. The Site Access Arrangements to and from the A6 are Inherently Dangerous The southerly site entrance lies between two blind summits created by the two bridges and the northerly one lies between a blind summit and the traffic lights. There is insufficient space for safe entrance and exit from the developments and the traffic volumes are too great to allow large vehicles to exit the commercial area and turn right across northbound traffic without creating severe and regular traffic back-ups. This is likely to cause regular accidents as fast-moving traffic crests the blind summit not knowing what lies on the other side. 3. The Pedestrian and Cycle Access to Garstang Town Centre via a Subway, required by WBC, is Unsafe and Undeliverable The proposed subway opens out onto a piece of open land where anyone could hide themselves waiting for an unsuspecting person to pass. This is contrary to the requirements of the advisory guidelines on subway design which require good visibility from passing traffic or pedestrians. No passing traffic could see what is happening on this open space on th east side of the tunnel. 4. Actual Traffic Speeds are in Excess of the 50mph Design Speed Restriction Imposed on the A6 and were not considered by the applicants, as is required by the legislation. It is a statutory requirement that highway designers should take account of the real traffic speed (defined as the 85 percentile speed, which is 55mph for this stretch of road) and not the 50mph speed limit. The visibility splays for the junctions are 160 metres long the distance required for a real traffic speed of 50mph. For a real traffic speed of 55mph, 215 metres are required an impossible condition to fulfil because of the bridge summits. 5. The Pedestrian Walkways across the A6 from the Residential Area of the Development are

5 fundamentally unsafe because: i) The Required Drivers Visibility Distance for the positioning of the crossing fails to meet the statutory requirement and cannot be extended because of Cathouse Bridge, and ii) A safe passage for pedestrians and cycles over Cathouse Bridge is undeliverable. 6. The Essential Sustainability Conditions, Strongly Recommended by LCC, have NOT been Applied by WBC and are also undeliverable, leading to the safety consequences of more traffic coming on to the A6 from the development than the developers have allowed for in their Traffic Assessment. The future traffic prediction figures approved by LCC depended on a proportion of the residents of the development working on the development and, therefore, not using the A6 to go to work. This condition was not implemented by WBC and, therefore, the traffic figures as submitted to the Council are inappropriate and unacceptable. In addition to all the above major issues, the following are also important: 1. The Safety Consequences of Traffic Back-up from the A6/Croston Road Traffic Lights have NOT been Adequately Considered. 2. The Minimal Mitigation Provisions for the A6 Junction with Moss Lane/Longmoor Lane, described by the Police as an Accident Hotspot, are inconsequential, inadequate and do nothing to improve the safety of traffic crossing the A6 between Moss Lane and Longmoor Lane. 3. The Effects of the Development on Nateby Crossing Lane and Croston Barn Lane have been Minimised and Cannot be Mitigated Other Issues for Consideration 1. The Potential Effects of the Out-of-Town Commercial Area on the Heart of the Town of Garstang have NOT been fully Considered 2. There was no Independent Landscape Assessment, for a Development which the Applicants describe as being Dominant, on a Site that Borders the historic asset of the Lancaster-Preston Canal.