Agenda item

The Committee considered a proposal for Pinvin Junction Highway Improvements at Pinvin Junction (Junction between A44, A4104 and B4082), Pinvin, near Pershore, Worcestershire.

 

The report set out the background of the proposal, the proposal itself, the relevant planning policy and details of the site, consultations and representations.

 

The report set out the Development Manager’s comments in relation to: traffic, highway safety and public rights of way; visual impact and residential amenity; water environment; ecology and biodiversity; and other matters (contaminated land, utilities, and historic environment).

 

The Development Manager concluded that Worcestershire County Council was seeking to undertake highway infrastructure improvements at Pinvin Junction, near Pershore, Worcestershire. The proposed scheme sought to improve the traffic flow at the junction and comprised of junction widening and signal alterations to the existing signal controlled Pinvin Crossroads junction. The scheme design would complement the proposed Pershore Northern Link Road by prioritising the flow of traffic along A44 and thus reducing the green signal time on Terrace Road (A4014).

 

The proposed development gained policy support from Policy SWDP 47 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan. The Reasoned Justification for this policy stated that "in directing development to the north of the town it is important that infrastructure improvements are secured. These included improvements to the Pinvin crossroads junction…".

 

The proposed scheme allowed Pinvin junction to operate within capacity. The modelling result for 2019 peak periods indicated vehicle hours with the proposed scheme would reduce in both peaks. Vehicle kilometres would also decrease slightly in both peak periods, and average speed increased by 20.3% in the AM peak and 6.7% in the PM peak. Delays at the junction decreased significantly by 64% in the AM peak and by 62% in the PM peak. The County Highways Officer had been consulted and raised no objections to the proposal. In view of this, the Development Manager considered that the proposal would result in immediate capacity improvements to the Pinvin junction and was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic, highway safety or Public Rights of Way.

 

The application was accompanied by a Noise Assessment that assessed the change in noise levels at 37 Spion Kop, which was identified by the Assessment as the one most likely to experience a change in noise levels. The Assessment concluded that there was predicted to be an increase in noise of about 0.4 dB(A), which would be a magnitude of negligible and would not be a significant effect.

 

The proposed scheme would require the removal of 4 trees, 3 hedgerow trees and approximately 80 linear metres of native hedgerow. To compensate for the loss, the applicant was proposing to plant a new section of species rich hedgerow, which would measure approximately 70 linear metres, new areas of native tree and scrub planting, the planting of 11 hedgerow trees, 6 individual trees, and 130 square metres of native shrub mix.

 

Based on the advice of Worcestershire Regulatory Services and the County Landscape Officer, the Development Manager considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposal would not have an unaccepted adverse or detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the local area and would have an acceptable impact in terms of air quality and noise impacts on residential amenity.

 

The applicant was proposing surface water attenuation in the form of geo?cellular storage units and some additional attenuation within a landscape swale. The Development Manager considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, there would be no adverse effects on the water environment.

 

Based on the advice of Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and the County Ecologist, the Development Manager considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions that reflected the recommendations of the submitted Ecological Assessment that the proposed development would have no adverse impacts on the ecology and biodiversity at the site or in the surrounding area.

 

Taking into account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies SWDP 1, SWDP 2, SWDP 4, SWDP 6, SWDP 7, SWDP 21, SWDP 22, SWDP 24, SWDP 25, SWDP 28, SWDP 29, SWDP 30, SWDP 31, and SWDP 47 of the adopted South Worcestershire Development Pan, it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies or highway safety.

 

The representative of the Development Manager introduced the report and commented that members had visited the site and noted the proximity of the nearest residential properties to the junction, notably New House and were shown the proposals for the new junction arrangements and the location of the new spur/link road. The applicant had submitted a revised construction plan and it was now proposed that construction works would commence in September 2019. There was a correction to paragraph 101 of the report which should read “In relation to the Noise Insulation Regulations, the predicted noise level at this dwelling is below the qualifying level of 68 dB LA10,18h (predicted to be 58 dB(A) LA10,18h), and would, therefore, be negligible”. An additional condition was proposed in relation to lighting.

 

Mr Boyden, an objector to the application addressed the Committee. He commented that he was unable to understand how straightening this junction back again and the addition of an extra entrance into this junction was not going to recreate the dangerous aspects that caused the staggered junction to be installed in the first place. The planned scheme proposed to increase the speed on Main Street, by moving the 40mph limit into the village towards the access to the first 4 properties. These properties would have their view of oncoming traffic from the crossroads restricted due to the new line of the road and the traffic’s ability to react to oncoming traffic reduced even further by potentially increasing the speed of the traffic. Currently, traffic regularly raced the lights at Pinvin, straightening the road and increasing the speed of the road would not help the community of Pinvin find a resolution to the most complained about detrimental aspect of life in Pinvin.

 

He had monitored in excess of 15% of traffic through the village as being HGVs, this traffic would regularly exceed the 30mph limit of the village, especially in the early morning. The section of Main Street at Pinvin Memorial Hall was not wide enough for 2 HGV vehicles to pass each other easily without mounting the pavement. Considering this narrowing in the road was not sign posted and was between Pinvin Community Pre-school and Pinvin First School, it was not an appropriate place for HGV traffic to mount the pavement. Straightening and making Main Street in Pinvin more attractive to HGV traffic, would not persuade the HGV traffic accessing Throckmorton Airfield to use the highways approved and signposted route through Lower Moor.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

 

·         The local councillor welcomed the proposed improvements to Pinvin Junction and its relevance to the project for the Pershore Northern Link Road. The A44 had become a strategic route for the area and the route for local villages into Pershore. The proposed reconfiguration of the junction seemed sensible and should help reduce delays. When the northern link road was completed, she hoped that plans would be considered to address the traffic problems experienced on Terrace Road

·         Were traffic signals proposed for either end of the spur/link road and how safe would the traffic be turning on and off it? Mark Mills, County Highways (the applicant) responded that give way signs for traffic were proposed at either end of the spur/link road with a pedestrian crossing with a central refuge half way along the spur/link road.  A full highway safety audit had been carried out and it was considered that the give way signage was appropriate. The representative of the County Highways Officer added that the proposed reconfiguration would not reduce the amount of traffic using the junction. However it would create efficiencies and reduce delays, easing driver frustrations and lessening the possibility for poor driver behaviour. On the completion of the northern link road, traffic levels would reduce in the area and the new junction configuration would be able to operate to maximum efficiency.

·         Who would be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed landscaping features? The representative of the Development Manager responded that a condition had been added to the proposed permission for a maintenance scheme which would be the responsibility of County Highways

·         In response to a query about the blockages caused by vehicles waiting to turn right or left at the junction, Mark Mills explained that as part of the traffic signals plan, there would be a right turn only phase planned for traffic exiting both Pinvin and Terrace Road. When the northern link road was completed, it was anticipated that there would less demand. It was considered that undertaking the improvements to the Pinvin junction prior to completion of the northern link road would provide immediate benefits to motorists. The completion of the link road was necessary in order for the junction to be deemed fully compliant

·         In response to a request to replant the daffodils on site, Mark Mills commented that as many plants and shrubs as possible would be retained as part of the scheme

·         As mentioned by the objector, the speed limit through Pinvin was 40mph which had serious safety implications for pedestrians trying to cross the road. Mark Mills commented that there was no intention to change or extend the speed limits going into Pinvin off the A44. New signalised crossing points would be introduced and as a result the 30mph plate would be moved back towards Pinvin to give a clear indication to motorists that they were entering a 30mph zone. It was also intended to install gateway red bitumen roundels on the road

·         The design of the scheme with the introduction of a slip road seemed to be unnecessarily harmful to the natural environment

·         Had an assessment been carried out on the use of the pedestrian crossing points? The representative of the Development Manager commented that there was limited use of the crossing by pedestrians. However, pedestrians had been observed walking along the verge to the industrial estate hence the proposed improvements for access by pedestrians and cyclists. Mark Mills added that the signalling plan had been designed to facilitate pedestrian crossing without negatively impacting on the flow of traffic. The local councillor added that local residents from Pinvin used the junction to access the local shops, the school and Pershore town centre

·         Concern was expressed about the safety of children using the crossing given the proximity to the local school. It was queried whether the school had been consulted on the plans. Mark Mills explained that an initial consultation event had been held at the local school and representatives of the school had been present. The proposed signalling arrangements at the junction would make it as safe as possible for children to cross. There was only one uncontrolled crossing point which enabled pedestrians to cross a single lane of traffic at a time

·         Would the safety impacts of the proposed road traffic configuration be reviewed? The representative of the County Highways Officer responded that performance would be kept under review as part of the safety audit arrangements and any necessary changes would be implemented.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for proposed Pinvin Junction highway improvements at Pinvin Junction (Junction between A44, A4104 and B4082), Pinvin, near Pershore, Worcestershire, subject to the following conditions:

 

Commencement

a)    The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission;

 

Approved Drawings

b)   The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on submitted Drawings Numbered: HGN-01-DR-C-0042, Rev P01; HGN-01-DR-C-0043, Rev P02; HGN-01-DR-C-0044, Rev P02; HGN-01-DR-C-0045, Rev P01; HGN-01-DR-C-0046, Rev P01; HGN-01-DR-C-0047, Rev P01; HGN-01-DR-C-0048, Rev P02; HGN-01-DR-C-0054, Rev P02; EGN-01-DR-EN-0006, Rev P01; EGN-01-DR-EN-0007, Rev P01; EGN-01-DR-EN-0008, Rev P01; and EGN-01-DR-EN-0009, Rev P01, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission;

 

Construction Hours

c)    Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the construction hours shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme;

 

Biodiversity

d)   Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for Biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include:

 

               i.        identification of 'biodiversity protection zones';

              ii.        practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements);

            iii.        the location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features;

            iv.        the times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be on site to oversee works;

              v.        responsible persons and lines of communication;

            vi.        the role and responsibilities on site of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) or similarly competent person; and

           vii.         use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

 

Thereafter, the approved CEMP shall be implemented during the construction of the development;

 

e)    Notwithstanding the submitted details, within 3 months of commencement of the development hereby approved, method statements detailing creation of semi-natural habitats, and tree, hedgerow and scrub planting and establishment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The method statements shall include:

 

               i.        purpose and objectives for the proposed works;

              ii.        detailed designs and working methods necessary to achieve the stated objectives;

            iii.        extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps;

            iv.        timetable for implementation;

              v.        persons responsible for implementing the works; and

            vi.        initial aftercare and long-term maintenance.

 

Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implemented within the first available planting season (the period between 31 October in any one year and 31 March in the following year) on completion of the development. Any new trees or shrubs, which within a period of five years from the completion of the planting die, are removed, or become damaged or diseased, shall be replaced on an annual basis, in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species;

 

f)     Where it is intended to create semi-natural habitats, all species used in the planting proposals for grassland, scrub, hedgerow and trees shall be locally native species of local provenance;

 

Contamination

g)   In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the development hereby approved that was not previously identified, it must be reported in writing immediately to the County Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11' and where remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme must be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority in advance of the scheme commencing. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the County Planning Authority prior to development commencing other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation;

 

h)   Should any soils or soil forming materials be brought on to the site for use in soft landscaping, filling or level raising, details must be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to the import of soils or soil formal materials on to the site. Details shall include details of the donor site, proposals for contamination testing including testing schedules, sampling frequencies and allowable contaminant concentrations (as determined by appropriate risk assessment). Where the donor site is unknown or is brownfield the material must be tested for contamination and suitability for use on site. The approved testing must be carried out and validatory evidence (such as laboratory certificates) submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority prior to any soil or soil forming materials being brought on to the site;

 

Drainage

i)     Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence until detailed design drawings for surface water drainage have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

j)     No works in connection with site drainage shall commence until a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) management plan which shall include details on future management responsibilities, along with maintenance schedules for all SuDS features and associated pipework has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. This plan shall detail the strategy that will be followed to facilitate the optimal functionality and performance of the SuDS scheme throughout its lifetime. The approved SuDS management plan shall be implemented in full in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions and the SuDS scheme shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance plan thereafter; and

 

 

k)    Details of any new lighting to be installed at the site shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to being erected.   These details shall include:

 

               i.        Height of the lighting posts;

              ii.        Intensity of the lights;

            iii.        Spread of light (in metres);

            iv.        Any measure proposed to minimise the impact of the lighting or disturbance through glare;

              v.        Any measures to minimise the impact of lighting upon protected species and habitats; and

            vi.        Times when the lighting would be illuminated;

 

Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.