DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARDpolitics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s94935/10 pebble hall farm theddingworth.pdf · development control and regulatory board 14 th august 2014

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

14TH AUGUST 2014

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

COUNTY MATTER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

APP.NO. & DATE: (i) 2013/0282/03 (2013/VOCM/0038/LCC) – 25th February 2013

(ii) 2013/1857/03 (2013/VOCM/0366/LCC) – 2nd December 2013

PROPOSAL: (i) Variation of condition no.1 of planning permission no.

2010/0879/03 to allow additional use of vehicular access in connection with a thermal aerobic digester

(ii) Variation of condition no. 1 of planning permission no. 2010/0879/03 to allow additional use of vehicular access in connection with a renewable energy generation facility

LOCATION: Pebble Hall Farm, Theddingworth, Lutterworth

(Harborough District) APPLICANT: (i) Welland Waste Management Ltd

(ii) Carbonarius Ltd MAIN ISSUES: Traffic generation and highway safety RECOMMENDATION: PERMIT subject to 6 conditions as set out in the

appendix to the main report. Circulation Under the Local Issues Alert Procedure Mr. B. L. Pain CC Officer to Contact Jennifer Saunders Tel. 0116 3057054 Email: [email protected]

DC&REG. BOARD 14/08/2014

2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued

PART B – MAIN REPORT

Background and Location of Proposed Development 1. Pebble Hall Farm is located in an area of open countryside to the south-west of

the village of Theddingworth, on the southern side of the A4304 and some 1.8km east of Husbands Bosworth village. The operational site is just across the County boundary in Northamptonshire (Daventry District). It is set back approximately 500m from the site access, which is situated within Leicestershire. The County boundary follows the route of the River Welland, between the A4304 and the operational site.

2. Pebble Hall Farm has a complex planning history, with permissions granted by

Leicestershire County Council (LCC) and Northamptonshire (NCC). Table 1 below summarises those permissions dealt with by LCC, which deal with the site access:

Table 1: Relevant planning history for applications at Pebble Hall Farm

Planning permission number Development type

2003/0879/03* (DA/03/725C)**

Application for composting

2005/1081/03 (DA/05/773C)

Use of vehicular access in connection with extension to existing green waste

composting site

2008/0889/03 (08-00053-WAS)

Use of access in connection with renewable energy generation facility

(pyrolysis plant)

2010/0879/03 (10-00038-WAS)

Use of access in connection with carpet recycling activities

* refers to the Leicestershire County Council permission number relating to the use of the access ** refers to the Northamptonshire County Council permission number relating to the development itself

3. All of the above consents granted by LCC have sought to restrict the overall

number of vehicle movements using the site access onto the A4304. However, in light of the different activities taking place on site and the difficulties of controlling these individually, the Highway Authority required the applicant to sign a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking (S106). This was signed in January 2011 and places the following restrictions on the use of the site access:


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued

Description of Proposals

4. Welland Waste Management Ltd applied to Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) in January 2014 for planning permission for a change of use and extension to a building currently used as a grain store (13/00117/WASFUL). The change of use would involve food waste processing by means of thermal aerobic digestion to produce agricultural granules.

5. Carbonarius Ltd applied to NCC in October 2013 for the erection of a replacement renewable energy generation building (REGF) (13/00098/WASFUL), which would process approximately 72,000 tonnes per annum of wood waste and use a gasification process to produce renewable heat and electricity. Whilst planning permission was granted in 2008 by NCC (08/00053/WAS) for a renewable energy facility, the applicant sought to make a number of changes:

• A larger building located in the south-west corner of the Pebble Hall complex

• A 30m stack

• Gasification process rather than pyrolysis

• An additional 32,000 tonnes of wood waste inputs.

6. Both planning applications submitted to LCC seek to vary condition 1 of permission no. 2010/0879/03, which ties the use of the vehicular access to permissions granted by NCC for the Pebble Hall Farm site and to previous permissions granted by LCC. The applicants propose the following rewording of condition no.1:

This permission relates only to the use of the vehicular access to Pebble Hall Farm in connection with those operations permitted by planning permissions DA/03/725C; DA/05/773C; 13-00098-WASFUL and 13-00117-WASFUL

issued by Northamptonshire County Council on 21st October 2003; 4th October 2005; XXXX 2014* and XXXX 2014*.

* At the time of writing this report, whilst NCC resolved to grant planning permission for the two applications at its Development Control Committee on 21st July 2014, decision notices have not yet been issued.

7. A Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted in support of both applications, which has taken into account the effects of both applications on the road


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued network, to ensure a robust approach to assessing the proposed traffic generation implications as a whole.

8. The two development proposals will result in the loss of one building used for B8 purposes with a gross floor area of 1630sqm, the loss of workshop/storage units with a gross floor area of 1474sqm and the loss of a building with a floor area of 372sqm that will revert from B8 storage to agricultural use. In total, there will be a reduction in B8 use of 3476sqm as a result of the proposals.

9. A TRICS (Trip Rate Information Computer System) analysis has been

undertaken of B8 Warehousing using the ‘self storage’, ‘employment/parcel distribution centres’ and ‘employment/warehousing (commercial)’ sub-categories. The daily trip generation from these uses is between 1.893 and 11.629 vehicles per 100sqm per day, depending on the sub category selected. The TA notes that the existing B8 uses consented on the site are not restricted to any one sub category and have an open B8 consent. This suggests that the existing B8 uses on the site that will be removed as part of the proposals could generate between 66 and 404 daily trips per day (two-way).

10. The automatic traffic counter (ATC) data included in Table 1 below summarises

the recorded trip generation associated with the existing uses at the site. From the ATC data, the site currently generates on average 189 trips per weekday (two-way), which is less than the 240 movements permitted by the S106.

Table 1: Total Site Trip Generation, 2013


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued Proposed Traffic Generation Potential

11. Table 2 below summarises the daily traffic movement potential generated by the

proposed new REGF facility.

Table 2: Renewable Energy Generation Facility Trip Generation

12. The total traffic generation potential associated with the proposed TAD would be 28 HGV movements per day (in and out). Allowing for two staff to enter and leave the site per day this will make the overall total number of vehicle movements per day to this part of the site 32. Table 3 below summarises the vehicle movements associated with the TAD proposal:

Table 3: Thermal Aerobic Digester Trip Generation

13. Table 4 below summarises the resulting trip generation associated with the proposed development activities at the site. It shows that the development proposals could result in an increase in trip generation of up to 30 vehicles, or could result in a reduction in the number of potential trips generated by the site.


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued Table 4: Total Additional Trips

Transport Impact

14. The site currently generates an average of 189 vehicles per weekday. The two proposed developments could result in up to an additional 30 vehicle trips per day on a worst case basis. If this did happen then the average number of vehicles generated could increase to up to 219 vehicles, which remains within the currently permitted limit of 240 vehicles per weekday.

15. However, given the observed average traffic volumes of 189 vehicles per day at the site access junction, and that the existing B8 uses are the main traffic generator at the site at present, it is likely that the existing B8 uses currently generate more than 66 vehicles per day. Therefore, the net additional trips generated by the proposals could be considerably less than 30 vehicles and there could be an overall reduction in trips generated by the site.

Construction Period

16. The movements associated with the construction of the TAD will be limited as the

land owner will build the extension to the building himself. In addition, the TAD system is currently already being stored in the building, so there will be no movements associated with importing the system to the building. In any event, the traffic movements associated with the construction of the TAD will be well below those allocated to the TAD building when it is operational (32 vmpd). It is likely that this facility will be constructed before the REGF construction work starts.

17. The REGF development will create approximately 100 jobs in the 18 month construction period. The specific amount of traffic will depend on which contractor the developer chooses, but the applicant states that it is common practice for construction workers to travel to work sites together as opposed to in single occupancy cars. In addition, the 100 construction workers will not all be on the site at the same time, as they will have separate trades, for example: laying the foundations, fitting the electricals, installing the machinery and fitting the doors etc. These will happen at different stages of the construction process.

18. The traffic generated from the other uses at Pebble Hall during the REGF construction period is set out below. The vehicle movements associated with the workshops will cease when the construction phase begins. In addition, the traffic movements allocated to the operational REGF will not have commenced.


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued

Traffic generated from other uses at Pebble Hall whilst the REGF is being constructed

• 18 vehicle movements per day (vmpd) associated with the composting

• 16 vmpd associated with the wood shredding operations

• 35 vmpd associated with the agricultural operations

• 32 vmpd associated with the TAD facility

• Total: 101 vehicle movements per day.

19. This will total 101 vmpd generated from the other uses at Pebble Hall during the REGF construction period. In order to not exceed the 240 vmpd limit set by the legal agreement, the construction traffic for the REGF must not exceed 139 vmpd. The applicant has confirmed that this is a sufficient amount and that the traffic associated with the construction of the REGF would not exceed this amount.

20. Overall, the applicant states that vehicle movements associated with the construction of the two facilities will not cause the total number of movements from Pebble Hall to exceed the 240 vmpd limit set by the legal agreement.

Planning Policy

21. Policy WCS10 of the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development

Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (LLWCS) (October 2009) sets out the strategy for environmental protection, which aims to protect the natural and built environment by ensuring that no unacceptable impacts arise from developments on (inter-alia) residential amenity.

22. Policy WDC8 presumes against waste management development which is likely

to generate unacceptable adverse effects from (inter-alia) traffic to adjoining land uses and users and those in close proximity to the waste management development.

23. Policy WDC10 states that planning permission will not be granted for waste

management facilities involving the transport of waste by road where (inter-alia):

(i) the proposed access arrangements would be unsafe and inappropriate to the proposed development and the impact of the traffic generated would be detrimental to road safety to an unacceptable degree; and

(ii) the highway network is unable to accommodate the traffic that would be generated and have an unacceptable impact on the environment of local residents.

Consultations (2013/0282/03 - Thermal Aerobic Digester)

Harborough District Council - Planning

24. No objections to the current proposals provided that the relevant Highways

Authority, the Environment Agency and Environmental Health Officers have all been consulted and have no objections to the proposals.


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued Harborough District Council – EHO (Contaminated Land Officer)

25. No comments regarding air quality as there is no planned increase in vehicle

movements.

Northamptonshire County Council (Neighbouring Authority) 26. Response not received.

Daventry District Council (Neighbouring Authority) 27. Response not received.

Theddingworth Parish Council 28. Theddingworth Parish Council objects to this application on the grounds of

increased HGV traffic, which appears to be 28 HGV + 4 cars daily, 7 days a week. Previous nearby domestic applications have been refused on the grounds of access and traffic and therefore the Parish Council cannot understand why this application should be treated differently.

Husbands Bosworth Parish Council

29. Response not received.

Marston Trussell Parish Council 30. Further expansion of this site is not welcome, particularly the delivery and

processing of food waste. Smell and flies are a worry for local residents.

Environment Agency 31. No objections.

Highway Authority 32. I have considered the submitted Transport Assessment (TA). The assessment

has now given a clear picture and robust assessment of likely traffic flows for both planning application no. 2013/1857/03 for the renewable energy generation facility (REGF) and 2013/0282/03 for the thermal aerobic digester (TAD).

33. In brief, the estimated vehicular trips associated with each intended use are:

REGF – 64 trips TAD – 32 trips Total proposed – 96 trips per week day.

34. It has been demonstrated that the existing site generates 189 vehicular trips

each week day. The 189 trips are actual and are an average rate taken from data


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued provided by a traffic counter positioned at the site access (see para 2.9 of TA). In terms of another means of comparison the TRICS database has also been interrogated in the TA and it demonstrates that the existing B8 uses within the site could have the potential to generate between 66 and 404 movements (best and worst case scenario). The existing B8 buildings and land use would be replaced by the proposed ones and hence there will be a before and after trade in traffic generation.

35. When considering the following facts:

Proposed trips – 96 Actual existing trips – 189 Potential existing B8 trips – 66 to 404 S106 vehicle limit – 240 It is acknowledged that the proposed REGF and TAD applications would actually result in a net reduction in turning traffic onto and off the A4304 if permitted. That would be the case if either one or both were permitted.

Mr. B. L. Pain CC (Local Member)

36. The site has a long history, and in Theddingworth and other villages that I

represent they are concerned about the cumulative impacts.

37. There is some ill-feeling as to how the Highway Authority came to an agreement on the acceptable number of vehicles (240 movements per day) – I have been told that this was based on an estimate of the likely number. Residents tell me that other applications for planning permission on this stretch of the road have been refused on highway safety grounds.

38. It is stated that the legal agreement allowed the rural B8 units up to 48 vehicle

movements per day. The implication being therefore that the predicted number of movements for the new application – 36 – is acceptable. However those 48 movements were largely cars; of the proposed 36 here, 32 would be HGVs. This will have an adverse impact on the village and conservation area, with the possibility of damage to walls and buildings from the heavy traffic.

39. I often travel along the route which is used by traffic from this site. Loose stones

etc fall from the lorries, and have damaged my car. If the application is approved I would ask that something is done to ensure that the development does not cause problems for other road users, and would question the advisability of allowing HGVs to use this route.

Consultations (2013/1857/03 - Renewable Energy Generation Facility) Harborough District Council - Planning



2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued

Harborough District Council – EHO (Contaminated Land Officer) 41. Response not received.

Northamptonshire County Council (Neighbouring Authority) 42. Response not received.

Daventry District Council (Neighbouring Authority) 43. Response not received.

Theddingworth Parish Council 44. It is the opinion of Theddingworth Parish Council that it was wrong not to include

traffic movements in the EIA. The traffic issue in this proposal is a most significant one and one where it is vital that the REGF and TAD applications are dealt with simultaneously to properly assess the cumulative effects of the proposals.

45. In the planning statement issued with this application the proposed TAD is mentioned as having been submitted and withdrawn, with the intention to resubmit Nov/Dec 2013 (1.3.5). To the knowledge of the council the resubmission of the application for the TAD has yet to take place. The council do not feel that any variation should be considered before all the proposed expansions are considered, and the full use of the site – traffic for REGF, TAD, composting, remaining buildings/permissions and farm traffic, can be considered as one.

46. It is correct that the applicant has a S106 legal agreement on traffic movements

with LCC. This was agreed without any reference or even notification to the Parish Council and fails to make any distinction between sizes of vehicles. However, 4.10.11 of the Planning Statement to Northants County Council and also 3.3.2 of this Planning Statement claims that ‘therefore, there will be no additional impact on the villages along the A4304’ which is, in our opinion, quite unrealistic.

47. A report by Origin Transport Consultants (Appendix 3) concludes that: ‘The 13

additional (12 for REGF and 1 for ash removal) HGV movements per day (above those already consented) are more than off-set by the 23 HGV movements per day that could have been generated by the existing workshops/storage units that will be removed as part of the proposal’. However we do not feel that enough weight has been placed on the fact that the 13 additional HGV movements per day (totalling 29) are confirmed movements whereas the 23 movements per day lost, are potential movements, or that the size of these 29 vehicles in the new application are known to be large scale HGVs averaging in excess of 20 tonnes.

48. We would urge the council to seek independent verification of the current

numbers and mix of vehicles using the site at present. We do not feel the statement as contained in Appendix 3 can be taken as fact.


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued

49. Additionally the Environmental Statement 9.2.6 (as per planning application to NCC) states that ‘traffic impacts on air quality and thus human health have not been assessed; not for the on-going site operations nor for the construction and decommissioning stages as the Pebble Hall site has a legal limit on the total amount of traffic using the access daily. This development will not result in this limit being exceeded; therefore, there will be no increase in emissions from traffic’. The parish council believes that air quality and health, and safety of other road users and pedestrians should be taken into consideration given that the makeup of the vehicle type is likely to alter from the current position.

50. Planning statement 4.10.19 (as per planning application to NCC) states that all

vehicles leaving the site will be controlled to ensure no mud or debris is deposited on the highways and all vehicles will be properly sheeted to prevent dust blow off. Experience of the site to date has been that dirt and dust is regularly deposited along roads used by site traffic.

51. Planning statement item 4.10.13 (as per application to NCC) states that ‘in

response to a request from Theddingworth Parish Council at a meeting with a Planning Officer from Northamptonshire County Council, it is proposed that a Traffic Regulation Order be promoted by the Applicant, in the event that planning permission is granted. The Order will reduce the speed limit along the section of the A4303 between Husbands Bosworth and Theddingworth, to promote highway safety in connection with the use of the access. The details will be agreed with the Highway Officer of Leicestershire County Council and the Parish Council’.

52. At this meeting the Parish Council expressed concern that there are serious

safety issues at the entrance to the site caused by HGVs turning in and out on a stretch of the A4304 which is single carriage-way and subject to the national speed limit (60mph for cars and motorcycles, 40mph for HGVs). The lower speed limit has been proposed by the Planning Officer in response to our concerns but was not requested by us and we are of the opinion that a more effective junction solution is necessary. This stretch of the A4304 is one of the few overtaking opportunities between Market Harborough and the M1 and adherence to the existing limit is irregular.

53. Our main concern regarding further industrialisation of the Pebble Hall site is that

its rural setting makes it inappropriate as a waste management site. Not least for the effect it has on an area of beautiful countryside, but also because of the detrimental effect waste processing has on the village and residents of Theddingworth which is less than 1km from Pebble Hall. Added to this the only access to the site is a single road which passes through many residential villages.

54. In responding to application (2013/VOCM/0038/LCC) the highways department1

stated:

1 These comments were not made by the Highway Authority, but were contained in a report on

planning application 2013/0282/03 (the thermal aerobic digester). The application was due to be considered at the Development Control and Regulatory Board in September 2013, but was withdrawn following legal advice to await a decision by Northamptonshire County Council on the development itself.


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued

Policy WCS10 of the Leicestershire and Leicester Waste Development Framework Core Strategy and Development Control Policies (LLWCS) sets out the strategy for environmental protection, which aims to protect the built environment by ensuring that no unacceptable impacts arise from developments on (inter-alia) residential amenity. Policy WDC10 states that planning permission will not be granted for waste management facilities involving the transport of waste by road (i) the proposed access arrangement would be unsafe and inappropriate to the

proposed development and the impact of the traffic generated would be detrimental to road safety to an unacceptable degree; and

(ii) the highway network is unable to accommodate the traffic that would be generated and have an unacceptable impact on the environment of local residents.

55. The same report also stated that ‘Pebble Hall Farm has a complex planning history’ and ‘all of the above consents granted by LCC have sought to restrict the overall number of vehicle movements using the site access onto the A4304. However, in light of the different activities taking place on site and the difficulties of controlling these individually, the Highway Authority required the applicant to sign a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking’.

56. Whilst Theddingworth Parish Council acknowledges the attempts made by LCC to restrict the growth of the site, the Unilateral Undertaking which was put in place to try to limit the vehicular activity to the site is now being used by the applicant to justify the number of HGVs that can have access to the facility. On behalf of our residents we would urge you to re-assess this application, and if possible the Unilateral Agreement, having regard of the policies mentioned in the LLWCS and also your stated ambition in many previous planning applications to ensure that the traffic flow onto the A4304 and through surrounding villages was kept to appropriate numbers and size.

Husbands Bosworth Parish Council


Marston Trussell Parish Council 58. Response not received.

Environment Agency 59. No objections.

Highway Authority 60. See paragraphs 32-35 of this report.

Mr. B. L. Pain CC (Local Member)

61. See paragraphs 36-39 of this report.


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued

Publicity 62. Application no. 2013/0282/03 has been publicised by a site notice, 4no.

neighbour notification letters and a press notice in the Harborough Mail on 7th March 2013.

63. Application no. 2013/1857/03 has been publicised by a site notice, 8no. neighbour notification letters and a press notice in the Harborough Mail on 12th December 2013.

Representations Received 64. 4 letters of representation have been received objecting to the TAD development

and 7 letters of representation have been received objecting to the REGF development for the following reasons (only those relating to traffic and highway safety have been listed on the basis that concerns relating to the development itself were matters of consideration for NCC):

• The proposal will result in almost all of the movements being HGVs

• HGV volumes will significantly increase with the associated safety implications

• This section of A4304 is particularly dangerous

• Questions the suitability of a TRO on this section of road due to it being one of the few sensible overtaking stretches on the 12 mile section of the A4304 between the M1 motorway and Market Harborough

• Particulate matters from the additional vehicles will have health implications from increased pollution

• Suitability of the site entrance; and

• an increase in the volume of heavy traffic through the village.

Assessment of Proposal 65. The applications in Leicestershire relate to the use of a vehicular access in

connection with applications for a proposed TAD and REGF on land in Northamptonshire. Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) resolved to grant planning permission for both applications (although the decision notices have not yet been issued at the time of writing this report) at its Development Control Committee on 21st July 2014. Therefore, the determination of the applications in Leicestershire need to consider the highway safety and access implications of the proposed new developments.

66. Pebble Hall Farm is located on a stretch of the A4304 that is remote from main development, speeds are in the region of 60mph at the access, which is unlit and has a history of personal injury accidents occurring. The Highway Authority has successfully resisted development in the past on this stretch of road which would have resulted in an increase in vehicle movements. For example, an application for office use was dismissed on appeal on highway safety grounds (APP/F2415/A/12/2179097), even with no HGV element, which gave rise to a small increase. The Inspector still found the small increase in traffic to be significant in the context of associated danger that would be generated. In light of this, the Highway Authority would be looking to resist the developments if they resulted in a significant increase in traffic onto the A4304.


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued

67. The site has a complex planning history and due to the number of different activities taking place, the applicant was required to sign a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking (UU) in December 2011 as part of permission no. 2010/0879/03. This included the installation of an automatic traffic counter (ATC) and enables the number of vehicle movements to be controlled and monitored. The specific requirements of the UU are provided at paragraph 3 of this report.

68. A robust TA has been submitted, which gives a clear indication of the likely traffic flows for both applications, along with details for existing movements from the Pebble Hall site. The existing B8 uses at the site that will be removed as a result of the developments have the potential to generate between 66 and 404 vehicle movements per day based on TRICS analysis. The assessment has considered the worst case situation whereby the B8 uses, which are to be removed as part of the development, are assumed to generate the least traffic movements under the TRICS analysis i.e. 66 movements. However, from the site access data it seems likely that considerably more trips are actually generated from the B8 uses at the site and therefore the proposed developments could actually reduce the trip generation.

69. Even based on the worst case scenario that the existing B8 uses generate only 66 of the 189 existing movements, the resulting figure of 219 proposed movements would still be within the 240 weekday limit stipulated by the UU. The Highway Authority is of the opinion that there are no sustainable highway grounds for refusal as it has not been demonstrated that the developments would result in a material increase in traffic using the site, over that already permitted. Therefore, the development would be in accordance with Policy WDC10 of the LLWCS.

70. Additionally, on the basis that the development would not result in an increase in vehicles using the access above those already permitted, it is not considered that there would be any additional unacceptable impacts on the amenities of local residents in the vicinity in terms of traffic. In this respect, the development would be in accordance with Policies WCS10 and WDC8.

71. Concerns have been raised by the Local Member, Parish Council and local residents with regard to specific highway related issues, which are addressed below:

The appropriateness of 240 movements as an acceptable number of vehicles in the legal agreement

72. This figure was reached following discussions between the applicant and Highway Authority and was based on traffic survey data and TRICS trip generation levels relating to extant planning permissions at that time. Information available suggests that the 240 figure was based on the following split of movements between the various permitted site uses.

3,427sqm of B8 floorspace – 171 daily trips Green waste/composting – 18 daily trips Wood waste – 16 daily trips Agricultural – 35 daily trips


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued In December 2000 Daventry District Council granted planning permission for the change of use of agricultural barns to B8 (storage and distribution), but did not restrict the number of vehicle movements. With an unrestricted B8 planning permission, a TRICS analysis would have given a much higher daily trip generation than the 171 used to arrive at the 240 limit.

Other planning applications on this stretch of road have been refused on highway safety grounds

73. The difference between the refused planning applications and the applications the subject of this report is that the former included a material increase in the number of vehicles turning onto the A4304.

Suitability of the A4304 for use by HGVs

74. The Leicestershire County Council Local Transport Plan 3 explains that the County’s lorry route network was completed in March 2006, following recognition of the economic significance of road freight and the potential impact this can have on roads, communities and residents. The A4304 is one of the County’s main road networks, which links the A5, Lutterworth M1 (Junction 20) and Market Harborough. The A4304 is therefore considered to be suitable for use by HGVs. Introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to reduce speeds along this stretch of the A4304

75. The introduction of a TRO along this stretch of road has been promoted by the applicant. However, the Highway Authority is not seeking or would seek an alteration to the speed limit at this location.

Conclusion 76. Whilst the thermal aerobic digester and renewable energy facility have been

determined by NCC, the access lies within Leicestershire and it is the responsibility of Leicestershire County Council to ensure that the Northamptonshire development would not result in any unacceptable highway impacts in Leicestershire. Whilst the worst case scenario is that the developments would result in an additional 30 daily vehicle movements, the 240 limit set by the Unilateral Undertaking would not be exceeded. However, it is more likely that the existing B8 uses are generating a greater number of vehicle movements than the 66 assumed in the worst case and therefore there would actually be a reduction in turning traffic onto and off the A4304. In either scenario, the developments would not be exceeding the existing permitted limit.

Recommendation

1. PERMIT application nos. 2013/0282/03 and 2013/1857/03, subject to the:

• prior completion of an amendment to the unilateral undertaking (Section 106) signed on 20th December 2011, to include reference to the developments the subject of these applications;


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued

• issue of decision notices by Northamptonshire County Council for planning application nos. 13/00098/WASFUL and 13/00117/WASFUL; and

• conditions as set out in the appendix. 2. To endorse as required by the Town and Country Planning (Development

Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended), a summary of:

a. How Leicestershire County Council has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner:

• In dealing with the application and reaching a decision, account has been taken of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


2013/0282/03 & 2013/1857/03 – continued

Conditions 1. This permission relates only to the use of the vehicular access to Pebble Hall

Farm in connection with those operations permitted by planning permissions DA/03/725C; DA/05/773C; 13-00098-WASFUL; and 13-00117-WASFUL issued by Northamptonshire County Council on 21st October 2003; 4th October 2005; XXXX 2014; and XXXX 2014 respectively.

2. No vehicle shall enter or leave the site in connection with the approved energy

recovery facility and thermophilic aerobic digester, except between the hours of 07.00hrs and 18.00hrs (Mondays to Fridays), and 07.00hrs to 13.00hrs (Saturdays). No vehicle movements shall take place on Sundays and Public/Bank Holidays.

3. No vehicle shall enter or leave the site in connection with approved composting

operations, except between the hours of 07.00hrs and 18.00hrs (Mondays to Fridays), and 07.00hrs to 13.00hrs (Saturdays, Sundays and Public/Bank Holidays). As an exception, compost can be removed from the site between 0700hrs and 1800hrs (October – March); and between 0600hrs and 2100hrs (April – September).

4. The improvement and signage works to the existing vehicular access onto

Bosworth Road, as implemented in accordance with the requirements of condition no. 5 of permission no. 2003/0879/03, shall be retained and maintained at all times.

5. The automatic traffic counter (ATC) at the entrance to the Pebble Hall site from

Bosworth Road (A4304), as installed in accordance with the requirements of condition no. 8 of permission no. 2010/0879/03, shall remain in place and be fully operational at all times during the lifetime of any of the developments approved under the various permissions referred to in condition no. 1 of this permission.

6. The continuous data recorded by the ATC referred to in condition no. 5 of this

permission shall be retained and maintained up to date, submitted for inspection to the County Solicitor at quarterly intervals from the date of this permission and made available upon request.

Reasons 1. To ensure a satisfactory form of development in this rural location. 2&3. To safeguard the amenities of this rural location. 4. In the interests of highway safety and to ensure a satisfactory form of

development. 5&6 To ensure that proper control is maintained over the approved operations on the

Pebble Hall site and the overall levels of traffic generated at the access with Bosworth Road (A4304), in the interests of highway safety.

APPENDIX


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD The considerations set out below apply to all the preceding applications. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equality and human rights implications. IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS On all educational proposals the Director of Children and Family Services and the Director of Corporate Resources will be informed as follows: Note to Applicant Department Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act 1970 and the Design Note 18 “Access for the Disabled People to Educational Buildings” 1984 and to the Equality Act 2010. You are advised to contact the Equalities function of the County Council’s Policy and Partnerships Team if you require further advice on this aspect of the proposal. COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a very broad duty on all local authorities 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area'. Unless otherwise stated in the report, there are no discernible implications for crime reduction or community safety. BACKGROUND PAPERS Unless otherwise stated in the report the background papers used in the preparation of this report are available on the relevant planning application files. SECTION 38(6) OF PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act requires that: “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” Any relevant provisions of the development plan (i.e. any approved Local Plans) are identified in the individual reports. The circumstances in which the Board is required to “have regard” to the development plan are given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Section 70(2) : determination of applications; Section 77(4) : called-in applications (applying s. 70); Section 79(4) : planning appeals (applying s. 70); Section 81(3) : provisions relating to compensation directions by Secretary of State (this

section is repealed by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991); Section 91(2) : power to vary period in statutory condition requiring development to be begun; Section 92(6) : power to vary applicable period for outline planning permission; Section 97(2) : revocation or modification of planning permission; Section 102(1) : discontinuance orders; Section 172(1) : enforcement notices; Section 177(2) : Secretary of State’s power to grant planning permission on enforcement appeal; Section 226(2) : compulsory acquisition of land for planning purposes; Section 294(3) : special enforcement notices in relation to Crown land; Sched. 9 para (1) : minerals discontinuance orders.

Documents

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARDpolitics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s94935/10 pebble hall farm theddingworth.pdf · development control and regulatory board 14 th august 2014