Agenda item

Demolition of existing building and erection of retail food store, (Use Class E(a)), with associated access, parking and amenities.

Reccomendation: That subject to the recommendation of no objection / approval from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement in respect of a monitoring and evaluation fee covering a 5 year period relating to the travel plan, that permission be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions and any additional conditions as requested by the LLFA.

The application was for the erection of a retail food store (Class E(a)) with associated access, parking and amenities following the demolition of the existing building.  The application had been called in by three members of the Committee due to concern over the impact that the development might have on traffic and highway safety.

The Committee was informed of the following updates.  4 further comments had been received since the publication of the report, 3 comments had been submitted by previous objectors, the fourth was an additional objection. Comments received were covered within the report with the exception of concerns over:

·       Increased parking on the slip road

·       Questions the accuracy of the average speed review in the amended transport report. (75m to the south of the access junction

The proposed building would be set 750mm lower into the ground than the existing building and therefore the eaves would only be approximately 0.4m higher than the existing building, the report currently says 1.2m higher. In terms of the ridge height, the new building would be 1.2m lower, not 0.4m lower as stated in the report.

A contribution of £16.800 pounds had also been agreed by the applicant to assist in the delivery of the A411 Hempstead Road and Grand Union Canal Corridor Cycleway Improvements, as identified within the adopted SW Herts Growth and Transport Plan and to be consistent with the emerging Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan for TRDC. The amount was calculated using HCC toolkit £422 per job x 40).

As a result of the additional contribution, the officer recommendation had been amended to:

That subject to the recommendation of no objection / approval from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement in respect of a monitoring and evaluation fee of £6k covering a 5 year period relating to the travel plan and a contribution of £16.8k highway/cycleway/sustainable transport improvements, that permission be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions and any additional conditions as requested by the LLFA.

Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) also provided an update.

The Applicant spoke in support of the proposals.  Representatives of Abbots Langley Parish Council and District Councillors spoke against the application citing concerns about the weight of traffic that the site would generate in an area that was in close proximity to the M25, heavily used A Roads and a busy roundabout and the implications for the safety of the junction even once improvements were made.  It was also felt that insufficient consideration had been given to the ability of pedestrians and cyclists to access the site safely, the impacts that the increased car park foot print would have on the adjacent River Gade and the safety of the proposed toucan crossing across a four lane road in close proximity to a major roundabout.

The Committee was informed that the proposed development had been reviewed by Hertfordshire County Council in its capacity of the Highways Authority with a view to ensuring that a safe and suitable access to the site was secured. As part of the development it was proposed that the access junction would be substantially reconfigured to secure a separate access route to the store and the right turn into the site would also be reconfigured. Improvements would also be made to the crossing points and cycle access and examination of visibility planes had concluded that appropriate visibility splays could be achieved.  The proposed junction layout had been modelled and tested by traffic engineers who had concluded that the junction would be safe.

Whilst the development would include the provision of 98 parking spaces, a level that exceeded minimum parking standards, the Committee noted that the Highways Authority’s modelling indicated an additional 140 movements into and out of the site at peak times.  Concern was expressed about the impact of any overflow parking on the surrounding verges and it was questioned whether fencing might be conditioned to prevent unauthorised parking on the surrounding verges and grassed areas.

The proximity of the site to the River Gade was acknowledged and it was noted that conditions were proposed to improve the site’s biodiversity and protect trees.  The applicant would also be required to submit a drainage strategy for approval by the Lead Local Flood Authority before work could proceed.

Notwithstanding the assurances of the Highways Authority, the Committee expressed significant concerns over the safety of the proposed junction particularly in view of the fact that the site was located in close proximity to the M25 on the A41, a four lane road which was subject to heavy traffic flow in both directions and the impact that this would have on drivers attempting to turn right both into and out of the proposed development. It was considered that more work needed to be done to assess traffic movements into and out of the site in order to ameliorate concerns about highways safety before a decision could be made.  It was agreed that an independent review would need to consider the right hand turning out of the site, potential alternative access to the site and involve a site visit. It was agreed that the terms of reference of any independent review would be agreed by the Committee.

The Committee considered that the Applicant should be given the opportunity to consider altering the proposed access route into the site before an independent review of the traffic flow was commissioned.  It was agreed that the Applicant would be given two weeks to consider the suggestion before the review was commissioned.

It was agreed that a site visit with Officers and Councillors would be scheduled prior to the review being commissioned to ensure that the remit of the review was clear.

A recommendation to defer the decision to enable the applicant to review access arrangements and for an independent review of the traffic flow around the proposed development to be completed was proposed by Councillor Matthew Bedford, seconded by Councillor Chris Lloyd, put to the vote and carried unanimously

RESOLVED that consideration of planning application 22/1764/FUL be deferred to enable an independent review of highways safety to be completed.

NOTE 1

Councillor Philip Hearn declared a pecuniary interest in the application and withdrew from the meeting whilst the item was considered.

NOTE 2

Following the meeting the following actions were agreed with the Committee:

A.    Officers to speak with the agent/applicant to request whether they wish to review and make changes to the access arrangements (providing them with 2 weeks to consider).

                      i.        If they agree to make changes, Officers to review the extent of changes and whether they can be caught within same application or require a re-submission.

                     ii.        If the changes can be accepted, Officers to re-consult all relevant parties and bring the application back to a future Planning Committee.

                    iii.        If they do not wish to make changes to the access arrangements then the following (B, C and D) occurs;

B.    Officers to instruct an independent highway review of the access arrangements, having specific regard to the right turn from Lidl, review of speed and volume of on-coming traffic from the roundabout, cycle safety and acceptability of crossing points.

C.   Officers to discuss with HCC Officers about considering the following points in more detail:

·         Possibility of erecting fencing or similar means of enclosures to stop unauthorised parking on the grass verges either side of the entrance

·         Further discussion on cycle safety, especially crossing the access

·         Further consideration/review into the right turn from Lidl and the speed and volume of on-coming traffic from the roundabout.

D.   Following further consideration into the above points (C), Officers to arrange site visit with members of the Planning Committee, Parish and ward Councillors as well as Highways Officer, Planning Officer, Planning Agent and transport consultant). Timings and numbers (to ensure the visit is manageable) to be agreed at a later date.

E.    Delivery times to be discussed with the Applicant and their Agent.