Minutes:
Councillor Clarke declared an interest in the following application and took no part in the discussion nor voted thereon.
The Executive Director for Growth, Enterprise and Environment summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated.
Councillors King and Learoyd were not in attendance but had requested that their objections be read out.
Councillor King requested a deferment for a meeting with the Ward Councillors.
Councillor Learoyd requested a deferment to allow a Section 73 application to be made.
Members sought questions of clarification around the following matters;
· Network Rail had advised that they had no further comment however what was their original comment and what were the conditions;
· Why did the drawing of Redcar Lane not show any improvement on the exit road on the roundabout in the northerly direction?
· Would have been helpful to have had sight of the Transport Assessment;
· Believed the road would be dualled and would like to see a schedule to allow that to happen as the development would add volume to the traffic;
· Were we pushing for the dual carriageway element?
· With regard to the route through Marske there was potential for restrictions which would cause tailbacks. Had this been taken into account?
· How many phases were there with the development?
· The changes at the bridge would not impact the first two phases and would allow time for an alternative scheme if finances were found;
· How would it effect access to the private properties and the coal yard.
The objectors at the meeting made the following comments:-
· The drawings were the second that had been presented. The drawings submitted on the 1 July contained technical errors and were not fit for purpose. The application submitted on the 4 September showed the pedestrian crossing to the south of the railway bridge, the signal stop line had moved to the north. The coal yard access was not under signal control. The technical errors had been rectified however there were still omissions which would compromise safety. There were no barrier rails and the footway was only 1.2m wide;
· Vehicles queueing would block access to the coal yard and the residential properties;
· The developers would be unlikely to build footways for 3 to 4 years;
· There should be road safety audits before the scheme was implemented;
· Requested deferment until phase 3;
Members questioned the objector on the following points:
· Asked on what basis the objector was challenging any technical errors in the drawings;
The representative from the Parish Council made the following comments;
· The proposed traffic light scheme formed part of the pre application discussions in 2012;
· The application was refused and taken to appeal and the Secretary of State’s decision requested conditions including improvements to highway safety;
· The application was only before Members today because of a corporate complaint as the agreement with the Residents Steering Group had been broken;
· The discharge of this condition would not meet the requirement of the Secretary of State;
· Access to the station and the village could be provided by other means;
· This proposal would result in traffic tailbacks to the roundabout;
· This scheme was not viable;
· Requested a deferment to December 2024 to allow stakeholders to hold round table discussions to include Ward members, Councillors and representatives from the developers.
Members questioned the Parish Council representative on the following points;
· Bearing in mind the inspector referred specifically to highway safety at what point should the level of highway safety be evaluated and by whom?
· If you are saying the scheme was not viable then what type of scheme would you like to see?
· In 2017 the inspector approved the conditions and it would be difficult to go against his decision;
· Had there been any engagement with Taylor Wimpey or Miller Homes?
The Ward Member present made the following comments;
· Disappointed that Network Rail simply commented and made no objections;
· This scheme appeared to be the only way that things could proceed;
· Skelton had a similar scheme under their railway bridge but there was much less traffic;
· This was a 10 year old plan and questioned its suitability;
· The road was often blocked with loading/unloading vehicles;
· This proposal would have a detrimental effect on the community;
· There was only one main road in and out of Marske;
· Requested a Section 73.
The agent present at the meeting made the following comments;
· Planning Permission had been granted however the Secretary of State as part of the highway works had requested condition 23;
· He had worked hard with officers to agree the conclusions within the report;
· There was no requirement for detailed technical arrangements and these would be looked at through the Section 278. This would not alter the design and therefore he requested approval.
Members debated the application and made the following comments:-
· Sought guidance from officers over whether members had any jurisdiction over this decision and where the discussions on the Section 278 would take place;
· There had been no discussion on the design or details previously and at the Inquiry the Inspector had not allowed any discussion on this subject;
· Was there any ability to take part in the review of the design?
· How should this matter be properly addressed?
· Would there be keep clear signs for the properties on the highway to the north of the bridge?
· Were the second set of drawings done in response to the objectors comments?
· Given that the development could take 4/5 years were round the table discussions possible in relation to the Section 278. Could we ask the agent to delay as in the future there might be significant funding coming through;
· Agree that improvements on the A174 would help improve traffic problems at the railway bridge and we were unable to alter the bridge;
· Cannot see the need for further discussions;
· Looking at the best alternative for pedestrians and a one way system was the solution;
· The bridge should be looked at as a priority for future funding from the Tees Valley Combined Authority as it was not fit for purpose;
· Not convinced that the health and safety of pedestrians had been given full consideration particularly without the installation of barriers;
· Not comfortable hearing about the amount of deliberation since the Planning Inquiry;
· If the Authority had been involved in any deliberations then disappointed that a better solution had not been found;
· Need to be conscious of public safety and am not condoning pedestrians walking under the bridge without a safe method of transit;
· In terms of timescale and the phasing of the development there was adequate time for deliberations;
· There used to be a similar challenge at Saltburn;
· There had been discussions outside of the committee which we had not been privy to and therefore would like to see the application deferred;
· Deferment for a reasonable time would allow time to look at the discussions which had taken place at the Steering Group and what had been agreed. It would also allow conversations to be held with the TVCA;
· How can we say what the future traffic flows would be and would like to see the traffic lights working now;
· The original application was refused in 2013 and the appeal was granted by the Secretary of State. These conditions formed part of his decision. The highways experts put forward their proposals and these were dealt with by a Section 278;
· Do not see any value in deferring the application;
· Hope that the scheme was not in place for another 3 to 4 years by which time funding might be available for an alternative scheme.
Following the debate members resolved to grant the discharge of bullet points 2,3,4 and 5 of the following condition (23) attached to outline planning permission.
Prior to the commencement of development (unless stated otherwise below), or in accordance with a phasing scheme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the following highways improvements that are set out in the Transport Assessment (Report Reference 1270/3/E, August 2016) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
•Pedestrian access on A1085 into Marske, by way of a footway under the A1085 railway bridge, prior to first occupation of the development;
•A174/A1042 Kirkleatham Lane (SJ18, drawing no. 1270/40), prior to first occupation of the development;
•A174/ Fishponds Road (SJ19, drawing no. 1270/34/A), prior to occupation of Phase 2 (the 275th dwelling);
•A174/Redcar Lane (SJ20, drawing no. 1270/35), prior to occupation of Phase 3 (the 633rd dwelling).
Supporting documents: