DM9: Highways Safety and Vehicle Movements/ Routeing

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 70

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Ranskill Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Ranskill Parish Council would like to re-iterate their concerns made in response to your original consultation on the draft Minerals Local Plan, as these have not been addressed in this latest version of the plan.

These relate to policy DM9 where you state:

“Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that…
c) Where appropriate, adequate vehicle routeing schemes have been put in place to minimise the impact of traffic on local communities”.

Ranskill Parish Council would refute that the above has taken place in relation to the community of Ranskill.

In your preamble regarding the supporting documents you state that your Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) “… has been completed to ensure that there are no unacceptable overall impacts on the highways network... and concludes “… that the highway impacts of new or extended mineral sites would be minimal…” Whilst the impact on the Highways network appears to have been adequately covered there is very little said in the STA about the impact on communities which you state is one of your key strategic objectives in policy DM9 of the plan (as noted above)

Ranskill Parish Council’s concerns centre around the routing of HGV’s from the sites close to Ranskill i.e.
MP2m - Scrooby North
MP3e - Scrooby Top North
MP3c – Scrooby Top
MP2j – Scrooby South also sometimes referred to as just Scrooby
MP2I - Scrooby Thompson Land

The STA in relation to these sites states in section 3.22 that “outbound HGV traffic will route towards the A1 (M) J34 by turning right out of the access onto the A638 before joining the B6045 (and subsequently the A634). Inbound HGV traffic would route vice versa and turn left into the site access. This does however pass through sensitive receptors in Ranskill and Blyth”.
Ranskill Parish Council are extremely concerned about the impact of this on the community of Ranskill. The proposals estimate that an additional 72 HGV’s will pass though Ranskill each day in addition to the traffic from the existing quarry. The junction of the A638 and B6045 is already a source of concern to residents with through traffic routinely speeding and jumping the traffic lights. The junction is right in the centre of the village as regards services, with the shop and pub on opposite sides of the junction. Planning permission has been granted for 32 dwellings to be built close to this junction with their main access being on to the A638. B6045 (Blyth Road) is a residential road and although it is stating the obvious it is a “B” road not a “A” road contrary to the summary given in the STA in relation to the Scrooby sites which state that the sites “route to the strategic network via local A roads”.
Although the Parish Council are fully aware that according to your STA summary “… all sites will require a detailed transport assessment at the planning application stage” they fear that the reality will be that this route, having been stated in the plan and it’s supporting documents, will become accepted as the status quo without any investigation of alternative routeings taking place.

Full text:

Ranskill Parish Council would like to re-iterate their concerns made in response to your original consultation on the draft Minerals Local Plan, as these have not been addressed in this latest version of the plan.

These relate to policy DM9 where you state:

“Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that…
c) Where appropriate, adequate vehicle routeing schemes have been put in place to minimise the impact of traffic on local communities”.

Ranskill Parish Council would refute that the above has taken place in relation to the community of Ranskill.

In your preamble regarding the supporting documents you state that your Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) “… has been completed to ensure that there are no unacceptable overall impacts on the highways network... and concludes “… that the highway impacts of new or extended mineral sites would be minimal…” Whilst the impact on the Highways network appears to have been adequately covered there is very little said in the STA about the impact on communities which you state is one of your key strategic objectives in policy DM9 of the plan (as noted above)

Ranskill Parish Council’s concerns centre around the routing of HGV’s from the sites close to Ranskill i.e.
MP2m - Scrooby North
MP3e - Scrooby Top North
MP3c – Scrooby Top
MP2j – Scrooby South also sometimes referred to as just Scrooby
MP2I - Scrooby Thompson Land

The STA in relation to these sites states in section 3.22 that “outbound HGV traffic will route towards the A1 (M) J34 by turning right out of the access onto the A638 before joining the B6045 (and subsequently the A634). Inbound HGV traffic would route vice versa and turn left into the site access. This does however pass through sensitive receptors in Ranskill and Blyth”.
Ranskill Parish Council are extremely concerned about the impact of this on the community of Ranskill. The proposals estimate that an additional 72 HGV’s will pass though Ranskill each day in addition to the traffic from the existing quarry. The junction of the A638 and B6045 is already a source of concern to residents with through traffic routinely speeding and jumping the traffic lights. The junction is right in the centre of the village as regards services, with the shop and pub on opposite sides of the junction. Planning permission has been granted for 32 dwellings to be built close to this junction with their main access being on to the A638. B6045 (Blyth Road) is a residential road and although it is stating the obvious it is a “B” road not a “A” road contrary to the summary given in the STA in relation to the Scrooby sites which state that the sites “route to the strategic network via local A roads”.
Although the Parish Council are fully aware that according to your STA summary “… all sites will require a detailed transport assessment at the planning application stage” they fear that the reality will be that this route, having been stated in the plan and it’s supporting documents, will become accepted as the status quo without any investigation of alternative routeings taking place.

Object

Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Publication Version

Representation ID: 222

Received: 12/09/2019

Respondent: Bawtry Town Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The Town Council does not have an issue with the mineral sites identified in principle. However the relevant highway infrastructure is currently inadequate in Bawtry which additional HGV traffic will exacerbate
.
In particular we question the soundness and effectiveness of a Plan and Traffic Assessment :which notes:

3.18 Bawtry Road (Misson Sand and Gravel Co) which acknowledges an extension with routeing of vehicles likely take HGVs through the town of Bawtry via Newington Road to the A614

3.18.5 This increase in HGVs would trigger the GEART threshold. However, as this is an extension, the above figures may already include HGVs associated with the site (although it is not known how much volume is currently being produced).

3.19 Barnby Moor (Hanson)

3.19.5 The increase in HGVs on the A638, at the point of the site access, would therefore be 34.6%. The total increase in general traffic would be 1.7%. As such, the thresholds given within GEART would be triggered and would require further assessment (in terms of noise and air quality analysis) on nearby sensitive receptors).
Where permissions are granted,we would maintain that a condition of planning must be that applicant’s vehicles are routed away from Bawtry where possible.

3.20 Barnby Moor: Torworth (Rotherham Sand and Gravel)

3.20.5 The increase in HGVs on the A638, at the point of the site access, would therefore be 34.6%. The total increase in general traffic would be 1.7%. As such, the thresholds given within GEART would be triggered and would require further assessment (in terms of noise and air quality analysis) on nearby sensitive receptors).

Traffic congestion at the Gainsborough Road and Tickhill Road junctions is already a significant problem Further traffic from extensions and additions to existing mineral sites will clearly have an adverse cumulative impact on the junctions adjacent to the A638 (including the said Tickhill and Gainsborough Road junctions) Our concerns stem from individual applications that invariably are considered in isolation by Nottinghamshire County Council and applicants and often without any cumulative impact assessment taking into account applications not only in Nottinghamshire but from other principal authorities

Policy DM8: Cumulative Impact states “Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that there are no unacceptable cumulative impacts on the environment or on the amenity of a local community” Despite this the allocated sites will have a significant cumulative impact and this is without considering other applications from neighbouring boroughs and other general planning developments which simply aren’t taken into account through individual assessments for sites or considering cumulative sites that only relate to minerals in the county ..

Policy DM9: Highways Safety and Vehicle Movements / Routeing
Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that:
a) The highway network including any necessary improvements can satisfactorily and safely accommodate the vehicle movements, including peaks in vehicle movements, likely to be generated;
b) The vehicle movements likely to be generated would not cause an unacceptable impact on the environment and/or disturbance to local amenity;
c) Where appropriate, adequate vehicle routeing schemes have been put in place to minimise the impact of traffic on local communities;
Despite the above policy -Site allocations however actually suggest routing through Bawtry not away from it despite the significant traffic problems we have at present.

Full text:

The Town Council does not have an issue with the mineral sites identified in principle. However the relevant highway infrastructure is currently inadequate in Bawtry which additional HGV traffic will exacerbate
.
In particular we question the soundness and effectiveness of a Plan and Traffic Assessment :which notes:

3.18 Bawtry Road (Misson Sand and Gravel Co) which acknowledges an extension with routeing of vehicles likely take HGVs through the town of Bawtry via Newington Road to the A614

3.18.5 This increase in HGVs would trigger the GEART threshold. However, as this is an extension, the above figures may already include HGVs associated with the site (although it is not known how much volume is currently being produced).

3.19 Barnby Moor (Hanson)

3.19.5 The increase in HGVs on the A638, at the point of the site access, would therefore be 34.6%. The total increase in general traffic would be 1.7%. As such, the thresholds given within GEART would be triggered and would require further assessment (in terms of noise and air quality analysis) on nearby sensitive receptors).
Where permissions are granted,we would maintain that a condition of planning must be that applicant’s vehicles are routed away from Bawtry where possible.

3.20 Barnby Moor: Torworth (Rotherham Sand and Gravel)

3.20.5 The increase in HGVs on the A638, at the point of the site access, would therefore be 34.6%. The total increase in general traffic would be 1.7%. As such, the thresholds given within GEART would be triggered and would require further assessment (in terms of noise and air quality analysis) on nearby sensitive receptors).

Traffic congestion at the Gainsborough Road and Tickhill Road junctions is already a significant problem Further traffic from extensions and additions to existing mineral sites will clearly have an adverse cumulative impact on the junctions adjacent to the A638 (including the said Tickhill and Gainsborough Road junctions) Our concerns stem from individual applications that invariably are considered in isolation by Nottinghamshire County Council and applicants and often without any cumulative impact assessment taking into account applications not only in Nottinghamshire but from other principal authorities

Policy DM8: Cumulative Impact states “Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that there are no unacceptable cumulative impacts on the environment or on the amenity of a local community” Despite this the allocated sites will have a significant cumulative impact and this is without considering other applications from neighbouring boroughs and other general planning developments which simply aren’t taken into account through individual assessments for sites or considering cumulative sites that only relate to minerals in the county ..

Policy DM9: Highways Safety and Vehicle Movements / Routeing
Proposals for minerals development will be supported where it can be demonstrated that:
a) The highway network including any necessary improvements can satisfactorily and safely accommodate the vehicle movements, including peaks in vehicle movements, likely to be generated;
b) The vehicle movements likely to be generated would not cause an unacceptable impact on the environment and/or disturbance to local amenity;
c) Where appropriate, adequate vehicle routeing schemes have been put in place to minimise the impact of traffic on local communities;
Despite the above policy -Site allocations however actually suggest routing through Bawtry not away from it despite the significant traffic problems we have at present
Changes:
Ensure sites are adequately assessed for cumulative impact and route vehicles away from Bawtry. Councils also need to co-operate more fully with other neighbouring boroughs..