Agenda item - Public Questions

Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on 4 October 2018.

52.1       Two public questions had been received and are set out below:

              Question from Mr Dungey

52.3       As Mr Dungey was unable to attend the meeting to ask his question in person the Democratic Services Officer, Penny Jennings, put it on his behalf:

“I would like this question put to the planning committee's next meeting on 10th October. This question is a matter of principle although it has arisen in connection with planning application BH2017/02680.

A duty for highway authorities to improve road safety was included in the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the first guidance on RSAs was published in the mid-1990s. The highways design standard for safety audits on Trunk Roads and Motorways was published as part of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) as HD19/03.

This question is being raised with the knowledge that the chair of the committee (under a recently introduced amendment to the constitution) may refuse to accept the question to be put to committee. It is understood however that there should be reasonable grounds for such a refusal (which it is hoped – under the openness and transparency objectives in the constitution, would be a) documented and b) shared with the requester.

Does the committee regard Road Safety on Rottingdean High Street itself and the junction with Marine Drive as a material consideration?”

52.4       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, responded in the following terms:

“Road safety impact upon these other roads would be a material consideration were an application to affect them. This is because:

(a) the council has a road safety policy in the form of retained local plan policy TR7; and

(b) the National Planning Policy Framework includes various policy on a road safety. In particular –

Paragraph 108 states that, in assessing application it “…should be ensured that  .

b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users”.

c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network *in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.”

Paragraph 109 states that “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.

52.5       The following supplementary question was then put on Mr Dungey’s behalf:

              “Will the planning committee regard the increase in traffic which is used to consider impact adequate if the increase used relates solely to the development rather than the cumulative impact of the development and other committed developments using the local network?”

52.6       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, responded in the following terms:

“Current Government Planning Policy Guidance on Transport Plans, Transport Assessment & Statements advises the following in relation to Transport Assessments:-

“It is important to give appropriate consideration to the cumulative impacts arising from other committed development (i.e., development that is consented or allocated where there is a reasonable degree of certainty will proceed within the next 3 years). At the decision-taking stage this may require the developer to carry out an assessment of the impact of those adopted Local Plan allocations which have the potential to impact on the same sections of transport network as well as other relevant local sites benefitting from as yet unimplemented planning approval”.

Accordingly, were a Transport Assessment deemed necessary to support an application, then it would be expected that the impact of traffic from other relevant committed developments would be included in some or all of its component assessments that considered traffic impact at relevant points on the road network. The particular committed developments to be included and the locations on the network to be assessed would typically be considered as part of pre-application discussions to agree the scope of the Transport Assessment - though officers would also typically reserve the right to request further assessments as the exercise progressed and results were made available. As per the Planning Policy Guidance, decisions about which committed developments to include would be informed in part by the degree of certainty about whether they would come forward within the specified 3 year timeframe. This same consideration may also influence the amount of development from a particular application that was included – for example where a hybrid application is granted and there is greater certainty that the portion that received full planning permission will come forward in time than the portion that received only outline planning permission.

National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 109 states that -

“Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.

Accordingly, if a committed development that was deemed to be relevant was not included in a traffic impact assessment, then any judgement as to whether this made the impact assessment itself inadequate would depend upon the likely additional impact of the committed development and whether this was sufficient for the overall impact on the road network to be deemed severe.

              Question by Ms D Brown

52.7       Ms Brown was invited forward and put the following question:

              “When the planning committee considers the opinion of the Highway Authority, will it consider it appropriate to request and discuss the related volume figures and their source to determine whether they agree with the judgement of the officer relating to proportional impact”.

52.8       The Chair, Councillor Cattell responded in the following terms:

              “Members of the Planning Committee may ask officers any question or questions, and discuss any matters, they consider relevant to determining the particular application before them.”

52.9       Ms Brown then asked a supplementary question relating to the information which was collected and the basis on which it was assessed. Asking whether when objectors are considering and questioning traffic levels and they differed from the application documentation, would it be appropriate to ask the officer for previously submitted information?

59.10    The Chair, Councillor Cattell, explained that officers were required to carry out assessments using agreed professional industry standards formula and modelling against which all schemes required to be measured. All relevant factors were taken account of when making such assessments.

52.11    RESOLVED – That the responses given in response to both questions be noted and received.