Agenda item

Details of a Traffic Management Scheme pursuant to Condition 19 of appeal ref: APP/B3600/A/11/2166561 dated 15 August 2015.

 

Officers:

Alan Stones, Planning Development Team Manager

Samantha Murphy, Principal Planning Officer

Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor

 

Speakers:

 

Pat Smith, a Local resident, made the following points:

 

1. The TMP was deficient as it failed to mention the impacts on Flint Hill, the designated route to Knoll Road. It was said that this route would be unworkable due to the road being extremely narrow with a single footpath. She stated that Flint Hill was a major access point to Dorking as well as the single access point for the residents of Goodwin estate which was not considered in the TMP.
2. That concerns raised by residents around impacts had not been addressed in the TMP and that made it unworkable.

 

Janet Housden, a Local resident, made the following points:

1. That the west end of Knoll Road would be used as a parking bay for HGVs waiting to be dispatched. She stated that previously, a three minute time limit had been set for the HGVs but in the latest TMP this time limit had been classified as unworkable and instead HGVs should instead move as soon as practicable.  This was said to have an impact on the quality of life for Knoll Road residents as well as causing dangerous traffic conditions for cars, cyclists and pedestrians.
2. She also raised a concern that the banksmen would not have a sufficient view of Knoll Road to properly control the flow of traffic which could result in a severe casualty.  
3. Concerns were raised regarding efficiency of radio contact with drivers.

Vicky Elcoate, a Local resident, made the following points:

 

1. A petition of over 2000 signatories was to be presented at Mole Valley Local Committee which sought to protect the historic trees found on Coldharbour Lane. It was explained that residents were concerned by the damage that could be caused by HGVs to the tree and banks on the Lane.
2. Members noted a tree report previously submitted to the Committee by tMrs Elcoate which stated that any damage to the overhanging and intertwined root systems of the historic trees would be irreversible. It was stressed that the TMP did not consider these issues nor provide mitigation measures to the environmental impacts.
3. She stated that Leith Hill Action Group had shown a 3D analysis that showed HGVs could not clear humps in the road without causing damage to tree canopies.
4. Further concerns of the environmental impacts of the TMP were raised and she asked the Committee to reject the TMP. 

 

Max Rosenberg, a Local resident, made the following points:

 

1. That the TMP did not provide sufficient risk management and mitigation as well as not including vital information of road users. The Committee should not ignore equestrians because they did not show up in the survey.  He also asked how pedestrians, which did show up in the survey, were put as a nil risk.
2. There was no mention of the radioactive material being transported.
3. It was stressed that no proper analysis had been provided to measure the delay to emergency vehicles trying to reach Coldharbour Lane and surrounding areas.
4. He informed Members that residents of Coldharbour Lane would need to contact the banksmen by mobile phone to request to leave their property via the Lane. This was said to be impossible due to a lack of mobile phone signal in the area.

 

Patrick Nolan, a Local resident, made the following points:

 

1. That the Planning inspector viewed the previous TMP to be unworkable. It was said that because of this the current TMP should not be accepted until it was up to standard.
2. He stated that Europa had not held any public meetings with residents, after stating that they would during the public enquiry, to ensure a satisfactory TMP.
3. He asked the Committee to consider the possible casualties that could be caused as a result of the TMP and asked for it to be rejected.
4. He also questioned the length and timings of the consultation on the TMP as the consultation ended after the officer’s report was written and was concerned that the Committee may not have had all the information necessary.

 

Richard Elliott, the applicant’s agent, made the following points in response:

1. Members were informed of various consultations that had taken place in preparation of the TMP. He stressed that it had been a long process with additional safety audits and surveys carried out and that it had not been rushed.  Consultations were with a range of parties including Leith Hill Action Group (LHAG) which had led to very few amendments of the Plan.
2. He clarified the working hours proposed in the TMP was as a result of assessing the potential risk in the area. Although the number of pedestrians and equestrians recorded in the survey was low, with the exception of a Saturday, all road users were taking into consideration during the creation of the TMP. 
3. It was confirmed that in the event of an emergency vehicle being obstructed by a moving HGV then it would take up to 30 seconds to reach the next passing point to allow the emergency vehicle to pass.
4. In regards to resident’s comments on the lack of mobile phone signal in the area, he stated that it had been confirmed that there was a single provider that did have adequate mobile signal to be able to communicate.
5. He stated that the use of aluminium tracks would greatly reduce the number of lorries and that the holding bays in Knoll Road would not be needed very often. 
6. He also reiterated that the road closure would only be in place when the rig was being delivered and removed from the site.  At all other times there would be traffic management in place.

Hazel Watson, the Local Member, made the following points:

1. The local Member commented on a number of issues relating to the absence of risk management in the TMP. It was said that the number of accidents would increase if these factors were not addressed due to increased traffic and hazardous environmental conditions.
2. She said it would be unacceptable that residents of Coldharbour Lane would need to phone the banksmen to get permission to leave their homes via the Lane. In order to contact the banksmen a mobile phone signal would be needed but this would not be possible as the signal was very poor in the area.
3. The local Member listed a number of other issues with the TMP, including access to Dorking and that there was no analysis undertaken of its workability, and asked the Committee to reject the proposal. 

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

1. Officers introduced the report and tabled an update sheet at the meeting and is attached as Appendix B to these minutes. Members were provided with a details of the Inspectors report in order to outline the requirements of condition 19.  Officers agreed that the current TMP addressed the outlined requirements adequately.  Members noted that the Fire and Emergency Service had not issued any objections to the proposal.
2. Clarification was sought on timings for HGV movements within Coldharbour Lane which led to a discussion where it was confirmed that the Inspector’s report outlined that in the event of delay during the HGV movements it would still continue to be manageable.
3. Members referred to details outlined in the report and stated that 30mph would be a dangerous speed limit to travel through Coldharbour Lane due to the hazardous layout of the road. Members showed concern that although the report stated otherwise, the road would also be too narrow to transport a drilling rig. Officers assured the Committee that the identified route for HGVs should be accepted due to the Planning Inspector being satisfied that HGVs could travel through the sunken lane without causing damage. 

 

4. Committee Members raised many other concerns including:

·        the difference between using stone or aluminium tracks

·        that number and timings of movements didn’t seem to add up

·        what would happen if Ryka’s Café car park was full

·        there was no 3D analysis of the route

·        they were not convinced that mobile signals work in this area

·        enforcement would be mainly self-enforcement

·        it was not clear where width measurements had been taken, for example, did they include the kerb

·        it seemed rather unusual to be consulting the local committee after a decision was to be made at this meeting

·        that seasonal implications had not been considered

·        the impact on the route to Dorking was not sufficiently considered

 

5. A Member stated that there had been enough change in the TMP for the Committee to consider it as a whole rather than just look at the three points raised by the Inspector.  That Member also stated that the TMP did not comply with safety requirements of the Local Plan.
6. It was also reported that a petition requesting a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for Coldharbour had been received and not responded to in this report.

 

7. A Motion was put forward by Mr Stephen Cooksey, seconded by Mrs Penny River that:

 

The TMP should be refused for the following three reasons;

                           i.          The TMP does not adequately address the issues surrounding the route to Knoll Road

                          ii.          The TMP does not address the impact to Dorking Town centre

                         iii.          The TMP does not adequately deal with the access and safety issues on Coldharbour Lane and Knoll Road.

 

Three Members spoke on the motion and made following points:

·        Members were reminded that Officers had confirmed that the TMP as presented adequately addressed the requirements set out in the Planning Inspector’s report.

·        There was concern that the motion could not be supported for a number of reasons. Members suggested that the item be deferred to allow for more information to be obtained, specifically if aluminium tracking or stone tracking would be used.

·        Refusing the TMP on the grounds previously stated would open the Plan to examination far greater than the Inspector recommended. 

·        More information was required to make the decision including a 3D analysis of the route, further details of the mobile signal in the area and the view of Mole Valley Local Committee.

 

8. The Planning Development Team Manager explained that the communications and café issues raised were operational matters for the operational plan and if it couldn’t be made to work then the plan could not be run.  He also stated that it would be reasonable for Committee to make a decision now and take into account what the Local Committee had to say at a later date.

 

9. The motion to refuse was put to a vote in which two voted for and seven against.  Therefore the motion was lost.

 

10. Mr Jeff Harris moved a motion, seconded by Mr Matt Furniss to defer the application in order to receive further information on concerns raised by members and specifically information regarding the nature of the agreement with Ryka’s Café and alternatives if parking is not available, confirmation of whether aluminium tracks were to be available and used or whether the stone would be used, and the availability and range of mobile communications in the area.

 

11. The motion was put to a vote in which six voted for, and four voted against.  The motion was carried.

 

 

Resolved:

 

That application MO/2017/0911 - Land at Bury Hill Wood, off Coldharbour Lane, Holmwood, Surrey RH5 6HN be deferredin order to receive further information on concerns raised by members including 3D analysis but specifically, information regarding the nature of the agreement with Ryka’s Café and alternatives if parking was not available, confirmation of whether aluminium tracks were to be available and used or whether the stone would be used, and the availability and range of mobile communications in the area.

 

Actions/further information to be provided:

 

None. 

 

223/17                    DATE OF NEXT MEETING  [Item 9]

 

The date of the next meeting was noted.

 

 

 

 

Meeting closed at 1.00 pm

                                                                            _________________________

                                                                            Chairman