Agenda item

Application for construction of a Connected and Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) testing track, a control tower and storage building, ground works, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

 

Late items:

 

Further Information submitted:

 

Following the objection received from Leicestershire County Council Highways Authority the applicant has provided further details to clarify the reasons why the HGV traffic cannot access the proposed site via the existing A5 access. A plan has been submitted which identifies the pinch point at the proving ground bridge to be the main site constraint, and any potential mitigation is restricted by the proximity of water main, storm water pipe, foul water pipe and communication and telecom cables and the location of existing embankments. Supporting text has also been provided which states that the primary reason for not being able to use the existing A5 access is not conflict from a health and safety perspective as has been highlighted by LCC Highways. The applicant has highlighted that around 4metres of widening of the existing access at the bridge junction would be required to allow the flow of vehicles to not be impeded. A 4 metre widening is not possible as it would extend past the verge into the ditch and vegetation and it would mean construction over services of which the water main is a particular constraint. The applicant highlights that the water main was only recently put in (2014-15) and was never intended to be built over (it has a way leave in agreement with Severn Trent Water over it), it is buried as 0.9metres and haulage vehicles moving over this main could create pressure that can’t be sustained by it. The assessments that the applicant has undertaken shows the road could only be widened by approximately 0.5 metres which would not over come the traffic issues highlighted. The applicant also stresses that ‘It is also important to note that we are not saying that this access is unsuitable for all construction access. We are looking to provide construction access for workers, and all deliveries (with the exception of aggregate and asphalt surfacing materials) from the A5. It is only when you introduce the aggregate and asphalt vehicles as well, when the pinch point becomes a major issue.Fenn Lanes will be used for 5 months only. For the first 2.5 months this will be up to 75 vehicles a day but we can manage these deliveries to ensure they are pulsed or spaced out depending on desired timings to mitigate impact. The final 2.5 months there will be a reduction in the amount of trucks falling to a maximum of 30 vehicles a day by September 2019.’

 

Consultation:-

 

Leicestershire County Council has submitted a statement to Planning Committee in its capacity as the Highway Authority. This statement has been included as Appendix A to this late item. The Highway Authority recommends the following reason for refusal:

 

1.    The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appropriate and safe construction access would be provided and the proposal, if permitted could result in an unacceptable increase in traffic turning onto or off a high speed, class I (A) road in an area remote from development. Such an increase would not be in the interests of highway safety.

 

The proposal would lead to a significant increase in turning movements at the junction of the A444 with Fenn Lanes which is contrary to policy IN5 of the Leicestershire Highway Design Guide which seeks to resist the intensification of turning movements especially onto high speed, rural, classified A roads. Noting also the 7.5T weight restriction on Fenn Lanes which currently limits use by relevant vehicles to access only and is an indication that Fenn Lanes is not particularly suitable for HGV use. This is considered unacceptable in the absence of any material reason why construction traffic cannot utilise the existing junction access from the A5.

 

The proposal, if permitted, would lead to an increase in HGV traffic using a route and construction access, which are unsuitable in their design to cater for this increase and would not be in the interests of the highway.

 

Councillor Ould provided the following comments

 

1)    Fenn Lanes subject of considerable local comment regarding speeding traffic, increasing volume of traffic and accidents. The shape of the junction with the A444 is also not suitable.

2)    Support the comments submitted by Leicestershire County Council Highways department.

3)    The committee report states that as it is only a temporary arrangement, by inference, that for a 5 month period highway and pedestrian safety is at risk

4)    There is a solution available for the applicant to manage the construction traffic through the existing site from the A5.

5)    Overall, objections raised regarding highways safety and further considerations should be had in respect of the comments submitted by Leicestershire County Council Highways department.

 

Kind Richard III Society object for the following reasons:

 

1)    This is a green field site, as well as being a place where a king died in battle and where a new dynasty was born.

2)    Members of the Society have no love for the Tudors but that does not mean we approve of such wanton damage to a heritage site.

3)    Please reconsider and find somewhere else to build this monstrosity, a testing centre is obviously required but does it have to be to the detriment of England’s heritage and history.

 

Chairman of Battlefields Trust object for the following reasons:

 

1)    The battlefield is a site of national importance and attracts visitors to and generates income for the area

2)    Development would significantly impact upon the setting of the walks around the battlefield site

3)    Development would result in a depreciation of the route from which Henry VII approached the battlefield

4)    Subsequent applications that encroach further into the battlefield would result in moderate harm

5)    Lack of consultation with the Battlefields Trust

 

459 letters of objection have been received raising the following comments:

 

1)    Objection to the development in principle

2)    Destroying/loss of a significant local and national historic interest

3)    Loss of harm to the battlefield which is considered significant, not less than substantial

4)    Lack of full consideration upon this heritage asset and the negative impacts are considered to outweigh the public benefits

5)    Subsequent applications that encroach further into the battlefield would result in moderate harm

6)    Loss of income/ local tourism from the loss of the local heritage

7)    Harm to local ecology

8)    Unjustified reasons for development

9)    Setting of a negative precedent which other councils will have to then follow

10) Lack of full archaeological impact and evaluation

11) Alternative sites should be used and are available

12) Loss of the battlefield would be disrespectful to the people who lost their lives

13) Impact upon the conservation area

14) Drainage issues

15) Noise concerns during construction

16) Impact upon highway safety during construction

17) Significant adverse visual impact upon the special landscape qualities of the area

18) Lack of demand for a driverless car

19) Lack of public consultation and the rushed through nature of the application

20) Battle sites need to be secured to allow for future technologies to further investigate the sites archaeological potential

21) Visitors travel from all over the world to visit the site

22) Previous applications elsewhere in the borough have no regard for historical sites, for example Richard III was found under a car park

23) Impact upon adjacent footpaths as a result of the noise impacts from the development

24) Loss of the battlefield which would be irreplaceable and irreversible

25) Noise and disturbance from construction traffic upon the battlefield

26) Contrary to HBBC’s own heritage strategy

27) Loss of historical significance for the future generations and future research

28) Noise impacts from the development, conditions should be imposed if allowed

29) Impact upon highway safety and inadequate access from Fenn Lanes

30) Lack of consultation with interested parties

31) The argument that the proposed development involves destroying land

32) No overwhelming need for the development to take place

33) The battlefield extends further than the existing registered area

34) Bosworth battlefield attracts many visitors to the area, even more so since the discovery of Richard III’s remain in Leicester.

35) If Archaeology beneath the ground on the site is lost, it prevents future breakthroughs, which could reshape our understanding of the battle.

36) British past will be erased.

37) Battle of Bosworth brought the Tudor dynasty to the throne and saw the last death of an English King in Battle.

38) While agricultural land management has changed since the battle, the battlefield remains largely undeveloped and permits the site of encampments and the course of the battle to be appreciated.

39) Bosworth is one of the earliest battles in England for which we have clear evidence of significant artillery.

40) The existence of a testing track, with its associated noise and traffic, would interfere with the peaceful nature of the site, and change the experience of those who go there to quietly reflect upon the event of August 1485.

41) The area of the proposed development is most likely where the French mercenaries were deployed, along with the Tudor artillery.

42) This clearly affects the battlefield adversely despite the justifications placed in the planning documentation.

43) The proposal does not justify why the new facility has to be on the battlefield or the potentially expanded area.

44) It appears that the proposal has been kept under wraps until the last minute.

45) The site has been described as ‘the edge of the wider battlefield area’ which is misleading and irrelevant.

46) Open spaces need to be retained for further research. As technology improves we may learn more about this pivotal battle in England’s history.

47) England is a crowded place, and there must be difficulty finding appropriate places to test these vehicles, may consider prairie provinces, rather than spoil precious places in England.

48) Exhaust pollution from the proposed development

49) Contrary to the conservation management scheme for the battlefield

 

Appraisal:-

 

Impact upon heritage

 

Reference from objectors has been made to the Bosworth Battlefield Conservation Plan (2013). This document outlines the Landscape Character and Views; Leisure Recreation and Tourism; Significance Values and Issues and sets Objectives and Policies. Policy 5.1 and 5.4 requires the protection of the land and new development does not have an adverse visual or landscape impact on the special qualities of the area within the Registered Battlefield boundary in line with current national policy, in liaison with the Historic and Natural Environment Team (LCC). A full assessment has been undertaken of the impact of the development upon the Battlefield and can be viewed in the committee report in paragraphs 8.61 – 8.78.

 

Objectors state that by approving this application it would set a precedent for development within the Battlefield Site. Every application must be assessed on its own merits and the details of each application will differ. This application would not set a precedent.

 

Objectors have highlighted that a full archaeological impact and evaluation has not been undertaken. Historic England and LCC Archaeology have accepted that sufficient information has been submitted to allow an assessment of the application upon the impact of Heritage Assets to be made. The details submitted are therefore sufficient to allow a determination to be made on the application.

 

A full assessment and weighted exercise has been had within the committee extract in respect of the potential impact upon heritage impacts and the additional comments do not raise any new issues which would alter the appraisal of the proposal and the recommendation outlined in the committee report.

 

Impact upon highways

 

The additional information submitted by Leicestershire County Council highlights the concerns with the temporary construction access. Additional information has been submitted by the applicant and this has not been assessed by the Highway Authority.

 

The applicant has provided additional information which highlights the significant operational and site constraints they have on site which would not make the existing A5 access a feasible option for HGV deliveries of aggregate and asphalt.  

 

The highway authority considers the impact of the development to be contrary to Paragraph 108 of the NPPF criterion b), which states that ‘safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users’. The proposal includes an operation access which satisfies this criterion and the Highway Authority do not object to the operation access and it is the temporary construction access which the objection is related to. The temporary construction access would only be limited to specific vehicles delivering the aggregate and asphalt all workers and other deliveries will use the existing A5 access. It is therefore considered that whilst the Fenn Lanes road is not considered suitable for HGV vehicles and a permeant access would have a severe impact on the highway network, a temporary constriction access restricted to certain vehicles with the mitigation measures proposed would only have a temporary impact upon the highway network and would not be considered a severe impact on the highway network which would warrant refusal in this instance. 

 

Impact upon ecology

 

Additional information by way of a Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculation and a Great Crested Newt Method Statement have been received on 10^th August 2018.

 

The submitted information confirms that the development would result in a ‘net-gain’ of habitats on site as a result of the proposed habitat creation and enhancements which would be created as part of the landscaping on the site.

 

The submitted Great Crested Newt Mitigation strategy is satisfactory and this is considered acceptable for the proposed development. Condition 22 is therefore amended to ensure that the development is also carried out in accordance with the mitigation strategy of the submitted Great Crested Newt strategy. An additional condition is recommended to ensure the proposed ecological ponds are suitable for Great Crested Newt habitation this would be managed through condition 5 which requires full landscaping plans and details to be submitted prior to the commencement of development and condition 6 within the committee report which requires the submission of a landscape and biodiversity management plan.

 

Leicestershire County Council Ecology have reviewed the additional information and have no objections subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

Other Matters

 

Some objectors have stated that the proposal has had a lack of public consultation. All statutory consultee were notified of the application and given a 21day period for comments, a site notice was erected nearby the site and a consultation notice was published in the local paper for a period of 21days in line with the statutory requirements for consulting on a planning application.

 

Conclusions:-

 

The conclusions and recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, outlined in the planning committee report stand.

 

Recommendation:-

 

Amended Condition

 

22.     The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the conclusions, mitigations and compensations contained within the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated February 2018 received by the Local Planning Authority on 12 July 2018, the submitted Badger Survey and Plan dated July 2018 received by the Local Planning Authority on 1 August 2018 and the submitted Great Crested Newt Method Statement dated August 2018 received by the Local Planning Authority on 13 August 2018.

 

Reason: To ensure appropriate conservation and enhancement of nature conservation features and protection to biodiversity in accordance with Policy DM6 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

 

APPENDIX

 

Statement on behalf of Leicestershire County Council in its capacity as Highway Authority at HBBC Planning Committee

 28^th August 2018

Re: 18/00425/FUL at Horiba Mira Ltd, Watling Street, Caldecote, Nuneaton, Warwickshire

Introduction:

1.         The County Highway Authority (CHA) was consulted on the proposed Development and provided formal consultation responses on 18 June 2018 and 10 August 2018

2.         The Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council Officer Report was prepared for the Planning Committee to be held on 28August 2018 and concluded that the highway issues identified as material planning considerations by the CHA could be mitigated and recommended that the Application be approved (para 1 in the Officer Report). However this is not the view of the CHA.

3.         This supplemental statement seeks to clarify the highway issues and assessment related to this proposed Development.

Highway Considerations:

4.         Construction Access

The County Highway Authority (CHA) wishes to clarify its position in relation to the issue of construction access on to Fenn Lanes as part of the Application. This statement is intended to ensure members of the planning committee are fully informed of the CHA’s advice in respect of this application prior to its determination.

The CHA maintains the position that the proposal is contrary to paragraph 108 of the NPPF 2018 where it should be ensured that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.

Notably, and following consideration of Personal Injury Collision data for the relevant study area the CHA is aware of a collision history which could be exacerbated by the construction routeing proposed.  In fact Leicestershire County Council has identified Fenn Lanes for the Rural Road Initiative, which aims to address the higher than national average number of collisions occurring at selected de-restricted (60mph) roads throughout the County.  .

 

Furthermore, the proposal would lead to a significant increase in turning movements at the junction of the A444 with Fenn Lanes which is contrary to policy IN5 of the Leicestershire Highway Design Guide which seeks to resist the intensification of turning movements especially onto high speed, rural, classified A roads. Noting also the 7.5T weight restriction on Fenn Lanes which currently limits use by relevant vehicles to access only and is an indication that Fenn Lanes is not particularly suitable for HGV use.

 

5.         The Existing A5 Access

The additional information provided by the Applicant provided by email on 20 August 2018 does not show any material reason why construction traffic cannot utilise the existing junction access from the A5. The main arguments made by the Applicant and accepted by the Planning Authority at paragraph 8.93 in the committee report, is that construction traffic would conflict from a health and safety perspective with a growing number of cyclists on site taking advantage of the Green Travel Plan. The CHA have concerns with the safety of all network users on the highway including cyclists, pedestrian and motor-vehicles. It is within the Applicant’s gift to exercise authority on the internal movements within the development site thereby reducing this perceived internal conflict.

 

Whilst there are several factors that inform the Planning Authority’s decision the CHA has not been provided with evidence of the prohibitive nature of the costs of on-site mitigation, definitive evidence that delay will result in loss of funding or viability issues raised. Therefore the CHA cannot support the view of the Planning Authority in its recommendation.

  

6.         Potential Mitigation Measures

The CHA further wishes to clarify that its advice relates to the principle of the access onto Fenn Lanes for use by construction traffic.  Comments and advice on other highways matters contained within the Committee Report, particularly  regarding suitability of mitigation and the temporary nature of any risk, are provided by the Planning Authority or the Applicant  and do not represent the view of the CHA.  The CHA would have concerns and comments on the proposed mitigation should the in principle objection be resolved.

 

Conclusion

 

7.         To conclude the CHA confirms the advice to refuse the application on the basis of the proposed temporary access and its consequential impact on the County Highway Network.

 

For clarity, the CHA would not seek to resist the principle of development proposed, merely the temporary access arrangements and has maintained this position consistently. Should the opportunity arise to engage further the CHA would be pleased to work with all parties to enable a satisfactory outcome.

Application for construction of a connected and autonomous vehicle (CAV) testing track, a control tower and storage building, ground works, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

 

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted subject to conditions, concern was expressed about the siting of the proposed track and the Highways Authority’s objections. It was moved by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Richards that the application be deferred to allow the applicant to investigate re-siting of the track and to discuss the concerns of Leicestershire County Council. This motion was accepted as the substantive motion for discussion.

 

Following further discussion, Councillor Richards proposed an amendment that a site visit also be undertaken. This amendment was accepted by Councillor Bray.

 

Councillor Bray along with eight other councillors stood to request a recorded vote on the motion to defer the application. The vote was taken as follows:

 

Councillors Bill, Bray, Cook, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Ladkin, Richards, Roberts, Smith, Witherford and Wright voted FOR the motion (12);

 

Councillors Sutton and Ward voted AGAINST the motion (2);

 

Councillor Hall abstained from voting.

 

The motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was

 

RESOLVED – the application be deferred for the following reasons:

 

(i)            To allow the applicant to consider re-siting the track;

 

(ii)           To allow a member site visit to take place;

 

(iii)          To allow discussion with Leicestershire County Council on the highways authority’s objections.

 

The meeting adjourned at 7.52pm to allow those in the public gallery to leave and reconvened at 7.59pm.