Agenda item

Demolition of former garage and construction of link road (between Renny's Lane and Damson Way).  Construction of new retail unit (Use Class A1 with ancillary A3) and construction of signalised junction (A181 Sherburn Road and Damson Way).

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer which consisted of Demolition of former garage and construction of link road (between Renny's Lane and Damson Way). Construction of new retail unit (Use Class A1 with ancillary A3) and construction of signalised junction (A181 Sherburn Road and Damson Way) (for copy see file of minutes).

 

the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that Members had visited both application sites earlier that day and he gave a detailed presentation of the application, including site location plans, site photographs and aerial photographs of the site.

 

The Senior Planning Officer reported two late representations, one from DCC regen which confirmed that the proposal would ease traffic on Dragon Lane, and provide the benefit of a further retail unit, and a second objection from a resident at Coronation Terrace with regards to the impact on the value on property.

 

Ms Howarth representing Belmont Parish Council confirmed that they did not oppose to the principle of a link road.  The Parish Council recognised the increase in commercial and customer vehicles due to the development of the retail park, and they had welcomed financial contributions towards a relief road over the years by previous applications. 

They also did not object to the additional retail and café unit that would be created and they accepted the conditions with regards to its construction. 

 

Belmont Parish Council understood the aim of the scheme, however their concerns were centred on the proposed junction at Damson Way / A181, due to the widening of the road and its close proximity to the existing residential properties.  The design required the removal of a long-established, healthy and mature tree belt, which currently provided a barrier for noise and pollution and had been a significant benefit to residents over the years.  If the scheme worked as proposed, it would divert a considerable volume of traffic and encourage vehicles to use the Damson Way link road.

 

The Parish Council could not comprehend how the increase in vibration levels could be described in the report as insignificant.  The current layout included a long bend in the road which assisted in speed reduction.  This would cease to exist should the layout proposed be accepted.  Ms Howarth suggested the retention of the current route with the addition of traffic signalisation, would make the junction fit for purpose.

 

It was a concern that in the report the adverse impact was dismissed as having slight to negligible increase in air and noise pollution from the increase in traffic flow.  The report also referred to the impact on the appearance of the area following the removal of the trees, yet their protection qualities were much more significant. 

 

The Parish Council did not oppose to improvements to the road network but they had a duty of care to local residents and they considered that banning HGV’s from using this road would help mitigate some of the adverse effects.

The Parish Council confirmed that in the air quality assessment, there had been an admission that air quality would improve at the Dragon Lane junction, so conversely it would increase by diverting the traffic to the Damson Way junction.

 

Ms Howarth accepted that there would be traffic congestion benefits with the associated relief road, but the Parish Council had a duty of care to existing residents and in conlusion, the exclusion of HGV’s from using the junction would help mitigate some of the adverse effects.  This was not in terms of weight limits, but in terms of reducing the amount of air pollution from standing vehicles.

 

The Parish Council considered the application contrary to Policy T1 of the Durham Local Plan and asked for it to be refused.

 

Mr Harris confirmed that as a resident of Coronation Terrace, he would be massively affected by the proposal.  The report was misleading with regards to the impact of noise. 

It stated that the increase would be less than 3 decibels and acceptable, but in fact it would double and be significant.  There was also no mention of the noise following the removal of 34 mature trees and hedgerow, which acted as a natural barrier and he questioned whether this was deliberately omitted.

 

A single traffic survey had been carried out during a quiet period and was not a true representation of the noise or levels of vehicles at peak times of the day.  The acoustic fence was an afterthought and at 2m high, it would have no protection from 4m high HGV’s.

 

Mr Harris confirmed that 40 years ago there were no vehicle movements into the industrial estate as it was then a no through road.  There were now 5000 vehicles per day travelling through, which he considered a result of poor planning decisions, and this would double over ten years to 10000, through a gap between residential properties which had not been designed as a road.  Drivers would realise that the link road could be used as a rat run to avoid three sets of traffic lights and it would therefore rise much quicker than anticipated.

 

Mr Harris stated that he had been advised by Highways that the signals were designed to avoid queuing southbound, however he had questioned what mitigating measures were in place for when there were stationary vehicles adjacent to Coronation Terrace, which was unanswered.

 

Mr Harris believed that he would be left with stationary vehicles outside of his property, causing noise and vibration, spilling out toxic fumes, increased vehicle speeds as a result of the new road layout, street light pollution, vehicle light pollution, a severe visual impact due to the installation of the fence, and severe access difficulty.  This had been deemed a slight impact on amenity, but would be severe. 

 

Mr Harris stated that items suggested by himself and Belmont Parish Council had been dismissed without any further analysis.  Assumptions had been made by the Planning Officer with no consultation with local businesses and he stressed that should the application be approved, residents would be left with a legacy that they did not choose or deserve.

 

Mr M Phillips objected on behalf of the City of Durham Trust on the basis that the proposal was putting vehicles before cyclists and pedestrians.

 

Mr Phillips gave a detailed presentation which included a suggested alternative cycle route.  He confirmed that the design of the proposal put motorists first, at the cost of pedestrians or cyclists and breached Policies including the Durham City Sustainable Delivery Plan and the County Durham Strategic Cycling and Walking Delivery Plan. 

The Council proposed diverting the route along the new link road to avoid Dragon Lane and Renny’s Lane, however this route needed to be retained and improved for residents who lived in the Gilesgate Moor area. 

 

Mr Phillips referred to the National Cycle Network Route and confirmed that achieving a good link to the city centre was important as the DT model suggested that the cycling could increase from 1% to 15% in future or 22% by the uptake of ebikes.  This would reduce car dependency in the area. 

 

The application had been submitted prior to the preparation of detailed drawings for the cycle route so the Committee lacked the information needed to assess the cycle and walking route.  For example it was not obvious from the plans that pedestrians would have to share the footpath with cyclists.  The proposed route involved three crossing points on Damson Way as there would not be a continuous pavement on either side.  The City of Durham Trust had suggested the new link could be redesigned with the footway on the east side and only one crossing would be needed.  This would reduce conflict between pedestrians, cyclists turning towards the A1M underpass and motor vehicles coming from McIntire Way.  

 

Mr Phillips described the proposal as poor design and featuring a substandard shared cycle/footway of 2.24m.  Although there was a land constraint, carriageways as narrow as 6m were permitted, even by use of HGV’s, however the Council had chosen to compromise the pedestrian/cycle provision in order to avoid reducing the carriageway. 

 

The A181 junction involved 2 signalised crossings although the latest design guidance recommended single stage crossings.  This would require extra time allocated to the crossing phase, but under the Councils own policy, they should have considered a single stage.

 

He asked the Committee to defer the application in order to revise plans which complied with the Council’s sustainable transport policy.

 

The Highway Development Manager responded to the suggestion of a signalised junction at the existing access point and confirmed that the reason for its design was to ensure a safe approach to the signalised junction, which allowed enough visibility on approach.

 

With regards to the prohibition of HGV’s, he confirmed that due to the commercial nature of the area, a large number of vehicles would be diverted to the very congested Dragon Way, which was also a scheme which would not be supported by Durham Constabulary.

 

 

The Highway Development Manager confirmed that the reason for the design is that it gave a safe approach to the signalised junction, visibility, oversee signals ahead, to see the back of the queue.  There had been a suggestion that an HGV prohibition could be applied to Damson Way, however this was a commercial area and those vehicles would be diverted to an already congested area of Dragon Lane.  He had been advised that Durham Constabulary had expressed that they would not support an HGV restriction.

 

The Highway Development Manager then responded to Mr Harris with regards to ambiguity on the extent of queues at the junction on the A181.   He confirmed that extensive modelling had been undertaken by an independent transport consultant, not just on the present but in 2029.  There was an expectation that approximately 10 vehicles on Damson Way in 2029.  If the queues extended beyond that, they could be controlled by the installation of traffic detectors, which would activate the green light if vehicles extended further.

 

Referring to the suggestion that speeds would increase due to the removal of the bend, the Highway Development Manager confirmed that there was no evidence to suggest speeds would increase, most vehicles slowed down on approach to a junction.

 

Finally, the Highway Development Manager confirmed that while the cycle provision was not the ideal solution due to the width restrictions, other designs had been considered and this was most efficient.  Responding to the suggestion of moving the crossing to the east side, he confirmed that this would result in having to increase the size of the island and push the development further into the tree belt, creating a detrimental effect by doing so.  The final design had a relatively free flow of traffic from the left turn of the roundabout on to Damson Way and therefore moving it to the east would potentially increase traffic lengths, which the Committee had heard was not desirable. 

 

The Senior Environmental Health Officer confirmed that with regards to the Parish Councils request to retain the tree belt.  He confirmed that against common perception, the trees did very little in terms of preventing noise.  Calculations had been carried out to confirm that for the trees to create a noise barrier, they would have to be of significant density, which was not the case at this location.  In response to the concerns about air quality on Damson Way, the assessment had confirmed that there would be a slight increase, but it was within the recognised limitation and therefore could not substantiate an objection. 

 

In response to the concerns Mr Harris had with regards to the 3-decibel increase, the Senior Environmental Health Officer confirmed that due to the way the noise was calculated it would not be detectible to the human ear.  This was due to this being a very noisy area already.  Mr Harris had also queried the methodology of the survey, however it had been carried out according to the appropriate national guidelines.

 

With regard to the acoustic fence, although it was not a requirement and he acknowledged that it would not reduce any impact to the first floor windows or from HGV’s, a 2m fence would reduce the noise somewhere in the region of 5 decibels.  He reiterated however that the assessment had confirmed the noise levels were not going to increase.

 

Mr Foster, spoke in support of the application and on behalf of the applicant, Durham County Council.  From an economic development perspective, the provision of an additional access road at this location could be seen as a significant positive.  The Dragonville Estate was very successful in both retail and commercial businesses, with many employers in the area and there were further developments in the pipeline.  The proposed transport intervention was to ensure the ever increasing traffic and congestion would be addressed for the long term, for businesses in the area and for those who were considering relocating.   Finally, he gave his full support to the application as it was an essential scheme for the industrial estate to continue to prosper.

 

Councillor Bleasdale moved the recommendation for approval, which was seconded by Councillor Laing.

 

Resolved:

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of an internal transfer of funds to the Council’s ecology section to secure the following:

 

·       £4,525 is required to be used towards off-setting biodiversity impacts from the development in accordance with the framework identified Durham County Council’s Local Biodiversity Compensation Strategy;

 

and subject to the conditions outlined in the report.