Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment - Dave Black
|Summary of Matter or Issue Requiring Decision:|
Highway Authority response to planning application ND/57503/2014, land at Raleigh park, Barnstaple.
|Summary of Reason(s) for Decision Taken:|
Development Management Committee resolved on 22 October 2014 at Minute 72 (a)
(i) the signing of a S106 agreement as detailed in Appendix II to Report PTE/14/71 to secure financial contributions towards highway infrastructure improvements and enhancement to the bus service, the costs of traffic regulation orders, the costs of the travel plan and welcome pack, the provision of a shared cycle/footway and improved road drainage in Raleigh Road.
The developer has prepared the drainage strategy in consultation with South West Water (SWW) and the Environment Agency has confirmed they have no objection. The drainage strategy demonstrates that surface water can be appropriately managed and discharged from the site without increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere, including Raleigh Road. It is stated under paragraph 4.8 of the submitted Transport Assessment, new surface water drainage across the site will contain both domestic and highway drainage and therefore will be offered for adoption as public sewers with SWW.
(iii) further consideration, including a new transport assessment if appropriate, being given to determining whether or not a signalised junction at the entrance to the development site was required.
The application included a full Transport Assessment which analysed the proffered un-signalled right turn junction, and a Roads Safety Audit of the junction. Both have been accepted by the highway authority and there is therefore no justification for requiring a traffic signalled junction. The Developer has indicated he is not agreeable to the provision of signals; the right turn junction should therefore be accepted.
The drainage system will be offered to SWW for adoption and has been designed in consultation with them. There is therefore no need for a S106 contribution to drainage improvements and such a requirement would fail the legal tests set out in the CIL Regulations 2010.
Requiring traffic signals would not pass the legal tests of a Section 106 agreement. The highway authority would be unlikely to be able to successfully defend a planning appeal if it recommends refusal and would be vulnerable to a costs award against it in the absence of evidence to defend a refusal.
|Summary of Alternatives or Options considered and rejected:|
The only alternative to accepting the highway drainage system proposed would be to seek a redesign, or recommend refusal. SWW and the EA have both accepted the design. There is therefore no evidence base on which to seek to reject the proposed drainage strategy.
The alternative to accepting the right turn junction is either the developer agreeing to provide signals, which he is not prepared to do, or to recommend refusal. The consequences of that approach are set out above.
|Details of any conflict of interest and dispensation granted to the Officer taking the decision or by any Member of the Council in delegating responsibility for any specific express delegation:|
|Decision Date:||11 November 2014|
A copy of this decision and any supporting documentation considered by the Officer taking this decision may also be made available or inspection by the public at the Council’s Offices or posted upon payment of any copying and postage charges. Any member of the public wishing to take up either of these options is asked to please ring 01392 382888 or email: email@example.com