Decision details

Planning Applications: Regulation 3

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

WSCC/049/18/LY    Creation of a 1.1km highway, with shared cycleway and footway, Pegasus crossing, viaduct, culvert, wetland areas, balancing pond and swales, street lighting and associated works on Land East of Lyminster village & between Toddington Nurseries & A284 Lyminster Road, Lyminster, Littlehampton.

 

99.1   The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services, as amended by the agenda update sheet (copy appended to the signed copy of the minutes).  The report was introduced by Jane Moseley, County Planning Team Manager, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the application.

 

99.2   Mr Rob Huntley of Rob Huntley Planning Consultancy, representing Mrs R Andrew a resident of Lyminster and Hargreaves Properties Ltd., spoke in objection to the application.  They don’t object in principle but are concerned about highway safety.  The 2015 proposal was considered unsafe and withdrawn.  The objectors’ offer to work with the County Council was refused.  The current proposal is “near identical”.  It has the same design defects that encourage high speeds, and safety issues remain with the northbound tie-in to the A284.  This could be overcome using the objectors’ proposed alignment (shown to the Committee).  The design does not meet requirements in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.  Requests to see the terms and conditions for the Road Safety Audit and details of the Departures from Standard have been declined, so the assertion that the Council has “provided a compliant solution for the bypass” cannot be verified.  The WSCC Highways Officer asked for condition requiring further design and road safety details.  Due to the tighter bend and high speeds, accidents at the tie-in will occur.  Littlehampton Town Council, Lyminster and Crossbush Parish Council and others have raised safety-related concerns, including the design deficiencies mentioned.

 

99.3   Mr Dan Montagnani, Chairman, Lyminster and Crossbush Parish Council spoke on the application.  The Parish Council supports the principle of a bypass but has some concerns.  The existing road is unable to cope with the traffic volumes resulting in gridlock; HGVs straddle the road around the tight bends; Speedwatch has recorded high numbers of vehicles speeding through Lyminster, and there are weekly accidents and countless near misses.  The tie-in south of the Crossbush Junction will present significant safety risks to cyclists, pedestrians and residents due to the high specification highway linking to narrow road with a single footpath, and there are health and wellbeing concerns for these residents due to noise, vibration and air quality deterioration.  Planning conditions should include more mitigation.  Lack of plans to upgrade or modify the Crossbush Interchange at the A27 will result in worse congestion: there is no joined up thinking with Highways England on the Arundel Bypass plans.  A condition should be included that traffic calming and safety measures be put in place on the A284 through Lyminster village to avoid it becoming a rat-run and prevent traffic backing up.

 

99.4     Sara McKnight, Project Manager, Major Projects, West Sussex County Council, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The proposed road connects with the privately delivered southern section to provide a north-south route with improved access between Littlehampton and the A27.  The development has been in the Arun Local Plan since 2003.  It will deliver on strategic economic aims.  Proposals for the Crossbush junction would lie with Highways England and are outside the scope of this application.  The bypass will improve safety, reduce congestion, improve journey time reliability and reduce pollution in Lyminster village.  The current route, with its sharp bends and high traffic volumes is a recognised hazard.  Extensive consultation has been untaken with all stakeholders.  The design enables flood risk to be managed.  Mitigation measures will be put in place to protect flora and fauna.  Traffic flows will increase due to new housing developments and because this will be a more attractive route.  Assessment of pollution levels shows that some areas will be high but not unacceptable.

 

99.5         In response to certain points raised by speakers, Planning Officers provided clarification as below.  Other points raised by speakers were covered during the debate by the Committee:

 

·         In relation to the matter of the WSCC Highways Officer’s request for a condition requiring further design and road safety details, this relates to detailed design and can be satisfied at the second stage of the audit (design stage).

·         Highways England’s plans for the Crossbush junction at the A27 are unknown at this time.

 

99.6     During the debate the Committee raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers:

 

Compliance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

Points raised – Does the proposal meet the requirements in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, especially regarding Departures from Standard. 

Response –The Manual sets out design criteria.  A design may not meet the ‘optimum standard’; but it is still compliant with the standard required by the Manual. 

 

Safety of cyclists and pedestrians

Points raised – Safety for cyclist and pedestrians was queried, particularly in relation to the tie-in to A284 at the northern end of the bypass.  The Committee’s points were as follows:

·      Would cyclists have to stop to join the old road at the tie-in?

·      There is no cycleway on the old A284 which has only has a single narrow footpath; was this assessed during the Road Safety Audit?

·      What is the purpose of providing a cycleway along the new bypass when there is no cycleway on the old A284?

·      Can a recommendation be included that the applicant should continue the cycleway to the Crossbush junction? 

·      Why is the foot/cycleway split across two sides of the bypass and were cycling groups consulted about this? 

·      Why is this a shared foot/cycle way; would separation be better for safety and will the unlit sections be safe?

 

Responses – As follows:

·      Cyclists and pedestrians will need to give way at the northbound tie-in.

·      Risks to cyclists and pedestrians have been assessed and in looking at the Departures from Standard it was agreed that installing signage, anti-skid surfacing for 200 m on the old road and lighting would be appropriate - final details will be approved during the design stage. 

·      The proposed shared foot/cycle way is betterment on existing provision. 

·      Any plans for a cycleway north beyond the new bypass is outside the remit of this proposal; it should be noted that there is no cycleway to link with at or beyond the Crossbush junction. 

·      The foot/cycle way is split across the bypass because at the southern end it will join a planned new cycleway on the southbound side, at the northern end the existing footpath on old A284 runs alongside the northbound carriageway.  Three cycling groups responded to the application.

·      Shared foot/cycle ways are considered better for the safety of users including where paths are unlit.

 

Traffic calming through Lyminster village

Point raised – Traffic calming should be considered for Lyminster village to prevent the old A284 becoming a rat-run.

Response – This is beyond the scope of the application but should the Committee wish to propose this then it can be included as an informative.

 

Pegasus Crossing

Points raised – Use of the Pegasus Crossing will bring the road to a standstill, and involve idling vehicles.

Response – The Pegasus Cross is necessary to maintain access to bridleway 2163 and also to allow safe access to the whole foot/cycle way.

 

Noise barrier

Points raised – Who will have responsibility to maintain the noise barrier?  Will planting in front interfere with maintenance?

Response – This noise barrier become a WSCC Highways ‘asset’, and responsibility for maintenance will lie with the County Council.  The area by the noise barrier will be laid to grass.

 

Flood Risk

Point raised – Flood risk in relation to the ‘1 in 200 years (tidal) event’ for the viaduct over Black Ditch is good, reassurance was sought that the ‘1 in 100 years plus 40% climate change’ risk was taken into account? 

Response – Drainage proposals have been approved by the Environment Agency and the WSCC Drainage Officer, subject to relevant conditions as set out in Appendix 1 of the Committee report.

 

Landscape

Points raised – Could condition 7 – Detailed Landscaping Scheme -be amended to correct discrepancies in wording which refers to “prior to first use of the road” and “following commencement of the development”, by use of only the latter phrase.  Similarly, with condition 8 – Landscape and Ecological Management Plan.  In condition 7 replacement of planting should be changed from 5 years to 10 years.

Response – Officers did not consider a landscaping scheme was necessary prior to commencement, but should the Committee wish to propose this, and other amendments, then this would be reasonable.

 

Wick level crossing

Point raised – Are there any plans to close Wick level crossing?

Response – Network Rail have no plans to close Wick level crossing and this does not form any part of these proposals.

 

99.7         Mr S. J. Oakley proposed an amendment to condition7 to correct discrepancies in wording which refers to “prior first use of the road” and “following commencement of the development” by use of only the latter phrase throughout the condition, and also to amend the requirement for replacement of planting from 5 years to 10 years.  This was seconded by Mr Quinn, and put to the Committee and approved by a majority.  Delegated power was granted to the County Planning Team Manager to agree this amended pre-commencement condition with the applicant

 

99.8         Mr S. J. Oakley proposed that a new Informative be added as follows:

 

6.    The applicant is asked to investigate traffic calming measures on the old A284 though Lyminster village.

 

This was seconded by Mr Barrett-Miles, and put to the Committee and approved unanimously. 

 

99.9     The substantive recommendation, as amended by the agenda update sheet and changes to conditions and informatives as set out in Appendix 1 and as agreed by the Committee, was proposed by Mr McDonald and seconded by Mr Barratt-Miles and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

 

99.10   Resolved – That planning permission be granted subject to amended conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the report,

as agreed by the Committee, including the Secretary of State not calling in the application.

 

99.11   The Committee recessed at 11.47 a.m. and Mr Jupp, Mrs Russell and Mr Patel left the meeting.  The Committee reconvened at 11.54 a.m.

 

Publication date: 12/04/2019

Date of decision: 26/03/2019

Decided at meeting: 26/03/2019 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: